• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Taxation Slavery?

Is Taxation Slavery?

  • Yes

    Votes: 12 16.7%
  • No

    Votes: 53 73.6%
  • Other (Explain)

    Votes: 7 9.7%

  • Total voters
    72
Call me "staist" all you like. It makes your political view no less unattainable and crazy.

It does not work, has never worked,

Actually it will work and you have provided absolutely 0 reason why it wouldn't and fyi it has worked in this country in the past:

After Penn returned to England in 1684, the Council virtually succeeded him in governing the colony. The Council assumed full executive powers, and, since it was elected rather than appointed, this left Pennsylvania as a virtually self-governing colony. Though Thomas Lloyd, a Welsh Quaker, had by Penn been appointed as president of the Council, the president had virtually no power and could make no decisions on his own. Because the Council met very infrequently, and because no officials had any power to act in the interim, during these intervals Pennsylvania had almost no government at all—and seemed not to suffer from the experience. During the period from late 1684 to late 1688, there were no meetings of the Council from the end of October 1684 to the end of March 1685; none from November 1686 to March 1687; and virtually none from May 1687 to late 1688. The councillors, for one thing, had little to do. And being private citizens rather than bureaucrats, and being unpaid as councillors, they had their own struggling businesses to attend to. There was no inclination under these conditions to dabble in political affairs. The laws had called for a small payment to the councillors, but, typically, it was found to be almost impossible to extract these funds from the populace.

If for most of 1684–88 there was no colonywide government in existence, what of the local officials? Were they not around to provide that evidence of the state's continued existence, which so many people through the ages have deemed vital to man's very survival? The answer is no. The lower courts met only a few days a year, and the county officials were, again, private citizens who devoted very little time to upholding the law. No, the reality must be faced that the new, but rather large, colony of Pennsylvania lived for the greater part of four years in a de facto condition of individual anarchism, and seemed none the worse for the experience. Furthermore, the Assembly passed no laws after 1686, as it was involved in a continual wrangle over attempts to increase its powers and to amend, rather than just reject, legislation.

Pennsylvania's Anarchist Experiment: 1681-1690 by Murray N. Rothbard


and will never come to pass. Unless you count that hell hole Somalia. The anarchist dream land. :lol:

Civil War does not equate to anarchy. Somalia was a direct result of the tyranny of the state not the virtues of anarchy.
 
I did not see any question mark.

lol begging the question fallacies are simply fallacies which pre-suppose their own conclusion in the premise. By telling me to simply leave the country she is pre-supposing that the state has legitimate jurisdiction over the territory which she is telling me to leave which it does not.
 
Actually it will work and you have provided absolutely 0 reason why it wouldn't and fyi it has worked in this country in the past:

Ummm... as I mentioned before we don't live in the 1800's and this would include any date preceding that. Now lets add in a small group of Quakers no less.

Yea that is what the US is made up off. :lol:

Civil War does not equate to anarchy. Somalia was a direct result of the tyranny of the state not the virtues of anarchy.

No one said it did. It was a hell hole then, and now under anarchy it is still a hell hole.

I does not work on any kind of large scale. You seem to ignore this.

I have an idea. Start a anarchist commune. Tell us how that works out for ya. :mrgreen:
 
lol begging the question fallacies are simply fallacies which pre-suppose their own conclusion in the premise. By telling me to simply leave the country she is pre-supposing that the state has legitimate jurisdiction over the territory which she is telling me to leave which it does not.

Ummm... No. She is saying if you don't like the situation here and are in no position to change it (and in my opinion) never will be. Get out.

Has nothing to do with the government having the power to do anything to you. :doh
 
You still don't get it, you have no argument on this issue...
Yes. Thats why you have yet to directly address anything I have said. :roll:

Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869) In accepting jurisdiction, the court ruled that Texas had remained a state ever since it first joined the Union, despite its joining the Confederate States....

Yes. Now, in your own words, apply that to my argument and show how it negates it.

This is the definition of sedition:
You posted this three times. I have already explained why it is meaningless. Posting it again doesnt make it more meaningful, it only illustrates your lack of grasp.
 
lol begging the question fallacies are simply fallacies which pre-suppose their own conclusion in the premise. By telling me to simply leave the country she is pre-supposing that the state has legitimate jurisdiction over the territory which she is telling me to leave which it does not.

Oh, ok. Never mind.:shrug:
 
IIRC Texas v. White was a post-war decision; if it makes secession unconstitution, it does so from the point of the decision, and not points prior.

"When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except throughrevolutionor through consent of the States."

Revolution = Insurrection. Since the US government did NOT recognize the states as a Confederacy, it was considered illegal.

"Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. If this were otherwise, the State must have become foreign, and her citizens foreigners. The war must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of rebellion, and must have become a war for conquest and subjugation." - Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868) at Cornell University Law School Supreme Court collection

The state suspension of the prewar government did require the US to put down the insurrection and reestablish the relationship between Texas and the original union. These duty's were created by the Constitution in its grant of the power to suppress insurrections exactly as LA stated.

Are you with me so far?

If it is impossible to secede from the union, then it is impossible to re-admit 'secessionist' states to the union because they never actually left said union.

HOWever, the 'secessionist' states, as part of their process for 're-admission' to the union, wre require to ratify the 13th-15th amendments.

Since they were still considered members of "perpetual union" and recognized as such according to the they were never re-admited to begin with.

The federal government cannot force states to ratify amendments, and so weren't the 13th-15th were ratified unconstitutionally?[/QUOTE]
 
No. Texas v. White did not do that. It indicated that secession was NEVER Contitutional. The issue it was discussing was from prior to the decision.
The point was that this was settled after the war, and by the winning side. It was not settled before the war, and was not settled until such a time that one side was unable to do anyting except exist at the mercy of the other.

And, as an aside, reading the decision, there is a distinct lack of constitutional citation, the strongest of which is the "perpituity" clause or the articles and the "more perfect union" clause of the preamble. As has been discussed elsewhere, neither item carries any force of law. Given that, while obviously legally binding, is much like any number of other decisions that amount to a "well, because we said so".

The Federalist Papers are documents that explain the meanings behind some of the issues contained in the Constitution. The have been heavily cited, throughout history in SCOTUS cases regarding Consitutional law.
Yes.... and as we know, they carry no legal force.
I note a particular lack of citation of said papers in the decision, BTW.

True.
The states were not re-admitted to the Union. They were re-admitted to having representation in Congress, having pulled out of Congress, voluntarily, in 1861.
Well, OK...
The states are entitled to these representitives according to the Constitition. No condition may be laid upon this entitlement, expecially not the demand that a state ratify a proposed amendment.
 
They seceded from the union, therefore losing their right to vote on an amendment
So, since they did leave the union, there was no insurrection, and then, not being states, are not eligible to ratify an amendment.
This directly calls into question the constitutionality of the ratification of the 13th-15th amedments.
 
Don't you think that giving tax cuts when we have such a huge deficit is pandering to a certain class of voters? Or, are they special?
You mean like the 'midddle and working class families' that make 200/250k or less?
So, The Obama is pandering to them? With tax cuts that, if you listen to the partisan bigots that have opposed them ever since they were originally proposed, did nothing for them?

Who would have ever thougt YOU would have accused your Secular Messia of pandering.
 
No, I believe that would be unacceptable to the majority. It would be unjustifiable to do that.

you believe in mob rule, I do not

and when the people who pay most of the taxes stop paying them by moving or hiding their assets the mob will starve

in England, fans were waiting to see World Champion Sprinter Bolt compete. However, the greedy British tax collectors had a novel concept. If Bolt runs 6 events a year and makes 6 million dollars globally in endorsements, appearance fees, etc, the Brits demanded that he be taxed on one 6th of his total income because one of those six events was to be in britain. Wisely, Bolt cancelled his appearance in England and the mob has less money to loot and the track fans won't get to see the most popular man in athletics
 
Again, this is a Petitio Principii begging the question logical fallacy because this line of argument must pre-suppose its own conclusion that the state is legitimate:

Ultimately government "legitimacy" comes from its ability to kill people and remain in existence
 
Ummm... as I mentioned before we don't live in the 1800's and this would include any date preceding that.

Yes today we have a far more advanced market economy there is even less of a reason for the state.

Now lets add in a small group of Quakers no less.

Yea that is what the US is made up off. :lol:

It wasn't a small group it was the Pennsylvania colony and what the hell does being Quaker have to do with it? You must be confusing the Quakers with the Puritans. Not all Quakers are even theists let alone Christians, some Quakers are secular humanists, some are Athiests, some Quakers are even Muslims, Buddhists, Pagans and Jews. So actually you would be correct that is what America is made up of.




No one said it did. It was a hell hole then, and now under anarchy it is still a hell hole.

Civil war is not anarchy. :roll:

"Who says anarchy, says negation of government;
Who says negation of government, says affirmation of the people;
Who says affirmation of the people, says individual liberty;
Who says individual liberty, says sovereignty of each;
Who says sovereignty of each, says equality;
...Who says equality, says solidarity or fraternity;
Who says fraternity, says social order.
By contrast:
Who says government, says negation of the people;
Who says negation of the people, says affirmation of political authority;
Who says affirmation of political authority, says individual dependency;
Who says individual dependency, says class supremacy,
Who says class supremacy, says inequality;
Who says inequality, says antagonism;
Who says antagonism, says civil war;
From which it follows that who says government, says civil war. Yes, anarchy is order, whereas government is civil war. ” -- Anselme Bellegarrigue

I does not work on any kind of large scale. You seem to ignore this.

You have not given one legitimate reason why not.

I have an idea. Start a anarchist commune. Tell us how that works out for ya. :mrgreen:

I'm an individualist not a communist thanks.
 
Ummm... No. She is saying if you don't like the situation here and are in no position to change it (and in my opinion) never will be. Get out.

Again this presupposes the legitimacy of the state's claim to the territory in which I live which is the very thing I am arguing against, it is a begging the question logical fallacy.
 
Are you with me so far?
No. You still haven't shown where I have taken issue with the federal power to suppress insurrection.

Nor does anything you have posted change the fact that insurrection and secession are, by definition, different things.
If the states did not seceed, then there was an insurrection. If they did, then there was not, because, by defintion, there could be no insurrection
Its -that- simple.

So then, to the issue oI actually presented:
If the states did not seceed as you argue, then they were unconstitionally forced to ratify certain amenments.
Get it yet?

The federal government cannot force states to ratify amendments, and so, the 13th-15th were ratified unconstitutionally.
 
Last edited:
I took the liberty of correcting your typo’s while not changing your post in any way.

IIRC Texas v. White was a post-war decision; if it makes secession unconstitutional, it does so from the point of the decision, and not points prior.

Absolutely wrong as I already pointed out.

When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.

Since the Union or Federal Government did not recognize the Confederacy as legitimate or separate even before the court decision, you have no valid point whatsoever.

Let’s go a little further shall we?

Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. If this were otherwise, the State must have become foreign, and her citizens foreigners. The war must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of rebellion, and must have become a war for conquest and subjugation.

So it would appear that Texas, and the other suceeding states had never been outside the Union. So according to US law the state actions taken to implement the Ordinance of Secession were null and void.

Sort of puts a crimp in your argument doesent it? But lets move on to the final nail.

The authority for the performance of the first had been found in the power to suppress insurrection and carry on war; for the performance of the second, authority was derived from the obligation of the United States to guarantee to every State in the Union a republican form of government. The latter, indeed, in the case of a rebellion which involves the government of a State and for the time excludes the National authority from its limits, seems to be a necessary complement to the former” – Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868) at Cornell University Law School Supreme Court collection

Oh that has got to hurt!

Question:
If it is impossible to secede from the union, then it is impossible to re-admit 'secessionist' states to the union because they never actually left said union.

They were not “re-admitted” at any point. This I have shown in absolute clarity above.

However, the 'secessionist' states, as part of their process for 're-admission' to the union, were required to ratify the 13th-15th amendments.

They were under a military government until their legislatures adopted the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the United States Constitution. This is the price they paid for their insurrection. If they wanted to be part of the government of the Union again, and get ride of the temporary military government, they had no choice but to comply. Their political status varied from state to state, but in no way were they “re-admitted” to the Union.

The federal government cannot force states to ratify amendments, and so weren't the 13th-15th were ratified unconstitutionally?

According to the SCOTUS, the Federal Government and myself, no.
 
Last edited:
Yes today we have a far more advanced market economy there is even less of a reason for the state.

It wasn't a small group it was the Pennsylvania colony and what the hell does being Quaker have to do with it? You must be confusing the Quakers with the Puritans. Not all Quakers are even theists let alone Christians, some Quakers are secular humanists, some are Athiests, some Quakers are even Muslims, Buddhists, Pagans and Jews. So actually you would be correct that is what America is made up of.

Civil war is not anarchy. :roll:

"Who says anarchy, says negation of government;
Who says negation of government, says affirmation of the people;
Who says affirmation of the people, says individual liberty;
Who says individual liberty, says sovereignty of each;
Who says sovereignty of each, says equality;
...Who says equality, says solidarity or fraternity;
Who says fraternity, says social order.
By contrast:
Who says government, says negation of the people;
Who says negation of the people, says affirmation of political authority;
Who says affirmation of political authority, says individual dependency;
Who says individual dependency, says class supremacy,
Who says class supremacy, says inequality;
Who says inequality, says antagonism;
Who says antagonism, says civil war;
From which it follows that who says government, says civil war. Yes, anarchy is order, whereas government is civil war. ” -- Anselme Bellegarrigue

You have not given one legitimate reason why not.

I'm an individualist not a communist thanks.

Ummm not all communes are communist. :roll:

Anyway, I don't care. If you want to live in your fantasy world, be my guest. As long as you realize it ain't going to happen and you are waisting yours and everyone else's time with this "anarchy" vision of utopia.

And libertarians still wonder why they are a joke to the rest of the nation. :lol:
 
Ah -- the "love it or leave it" argument.
Be sure to recall this remark the next time a Republican-controlled government does someting you do not like.

Thats not the same. You can dislike the tax policy, or any policy. And I have a right to vote for people who I believe will change the policy for the better. But the question is whether or not taxation is slavery or not. And it isn't, because you do have the right to leave. Slaves don't.
 
Thats not the same. You can dislike the tax policy, or any policy. And I have a right to vote for people who I believe will change the policy for the better. But the question is whether or not taxation is slavery or not. And it isn't, because you do have the right to leave. Slaves don't.

when people like him leave (and it is happening all the time-a multii millionaire I know sold his company and took all his money to the Turks and Cacos where the greedy dems cannot touch it) people who feel like you are going to pay the price

the rich deal from a position of power and the poor's only power comes from voting for other elites who will buy their votes using the wealth of others. HOwever, the poor cannot stop that wealth from leaving and when it does they are screwed--much like birds who come to depend on a bird feeder all winter

one day, when the owner dies or stops putting out the feed, lots of birds starve to death.
 
Back
Top Bottom