• 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
The_Patriot said:
Ask the people, like the survivors of Waco and Ruby Ridge, if their rights were respected by the government.
Click to expand...

Any bloodshed could have been avoided if those people had not resisted federal agents who were pursuing their legal duties.
 
samsmart said:
Any bloodshed could have been avoided if those people had not resisted federal agents who were pursuing their legal duties.
Click to expand...

I can't believe you actually said that with a straight face, since the FBI and BATFE didn't follow their legal duties. They were following regulations that were in violation of the First and Second Amendment. To date, no court has found that anyone that wasn't law enforcement in those incidents had violated the law. This means that torching a building filled with explosive CS gas was illegal as well as the execution of unarmed civilians at Ruby Ridge. Again ask the survivors if their rights were respected.
 
The_Patriot said:
It took me a few minutes, but check the post where I said that.
Click to expand...

So list from the examples I provided in my previous post (I underlined them) which of those examples are unconstutitional.
 
samsmart said:
Any bloodshed could have been avoided if those people had not resisted federal agents who were pursuing their legal duties.
Click to expand...

you are not being truthful

that Keven Harris was acquitted for killing a Deputy US marshall means that the feds were engaging in activity that justified a civilian killing a fed. the only thing that justifies that was homicidal actions by the fed

the order to shoot vicky weaver was illegal and the government paid the weavers over 3 million dollars for that violation

the davidians were never convicted of killing any ATF agents which again proves that the davidians were justified in using deadly force

having shot someone in the past I am more aware about the laws of deadly force than perhaps anyone on this board
 
samsmart said:
So list from the examples I provided in my previous post (I underlined them) which of those examples are unconstutitional.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but the forum ate my reply so I'm going to be brief.

Pretty much all of them, except for the military and the FBI. Congress and the federal government is prohibited by the Constitution from operating within the states. It can only operate within the territories and possessions owned by the federal government. I give you Article I Section VIII Clause XVII-XVIII and Article IV Section III Clause II.

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Congress and the federal government has so little to do that the Constitution specifies that it must meet once a year. This is part of the Constitution because the author's were afraid that a Congressman would actually forget to show up. I give you Article I Section IV Clause II.

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
you buying anything "hinders" you more than it does me. So what. that is an incentive for you to work harder and smarter and to delay gratification. I didn't get married until I was through grad and law school and had a successful practice. When I went back to my 25th reunion I thought very few people would have a child as young as my only son-8. Rather that was common. These high achievers waited until they were established in their careers before having children. It is amazing how many poor people were having children when I was having cram sessions or study groups

BTW if I pay 100K in taxes and you pay 3000 I am paying 30X more than you and I certainly am not getting 30 times the services. Indeed you use more tax dollars than I do since I am paying for people like you and I use very little federal services.
Click to expand...

So, I'm not supposed to buy food? Without food stamps it would either be electricity or food, so you want people to choose between essential necessities of life? And please don't insinuate that I'm poor because it's my fault. It's not, the only way I could have avoided this situation is to have been born into a different family. And that really wasn't my choice now was it.
And please don't act like you don't use government services, roads, public schools, post office, the military, police, fire fighters, public libraries, FDA, etc,etc. Yeah, I get food stamps, but if I didn't I would die. We would starve. Do you really want the poor to die?

If you tax the poor just as much as you tax the rich, then you force the poor to pay an in-proportionate amount of tax for their income. Thus condemning them to poverty for the rest of their lives. No matter how hard you work, you will never be able to leave poverty because of the unfair tax system. A tax should never make people go hungry, and the tax system you propose would.
 
The_Patriot said:
Sorry, but the forum ate my reply so I'm going to be brief.

Pretty much all of them, except for the military and the FBI. Congress and the federal government is prohibited by the Constitution from operating within the states. It can only operate within the territories and possessions owned by the federal government. I give you Article I Section VIII Clause XVII-XVIII and Article IV Section III Clause II.

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Congress and the federal government has so little to do that the Constitution specifies that it must meet once a year. This is part of the Constitution because the author's were afraid that a Congressman would actually forget to show up. I give you Article I Section IV Clause II.

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.
Click to expand...

The categories I listed were:
Welfare programs
Federal law enforcement
Defense spending
Disaster response
Transportation infrastructure
Public education
Regulatory agencies

You've admitted that defense spending is constitutional and so is the FBI. So let's go over the other things mentioned.

The FBI covers general law enforcement. However, we also have the ATF, DEA, and Secret Service (when they also covered counterfeiting under the Treasury Department) and other similar agencies that focus on specific policies of federal crimes.

Also, public transportation infrastructure could be construed as a part of defense spending. After all, Eisenhower called for the building of federal highways so that the military would have a rapid deployment capability in case of a military emergency. The fact that the federal highway system has also helped out commerce and citizens is an exceptional bonus. And let's not forget that our nation's waterways also qualify into that.

Then there are the things that are obviously constitutional but you didn't mention.

These are regulatory agencies, such as the SEC, the FCC, the FDA, the EPA and the like. These are constitutional because of Congress' ability to regulate interstate commerce. This allows Congress to pass laws making certain business practices illegal and allows them to protect the people of the nation. Businesses can engage in unfair or unethical business practices that hurt their customers nationwide. Such regulatory agencies allows the federal government to prevent businesses from engaging in such abuses.

Then there's welfare spending, disaster response, and public education. While you do not recognize these aspects under the clauses you mentioned, it could be argued that the federal government has the power over these areas in order "to promote the general welfare" stated elsewhere in the Constitution. Welfare programs promote the welfare of the elderly, the disabled, the unemployed, children, and the poor. Disaster response services promote the welfare of those who are victims of natural disasters, especially those that occur over state lines or overwhelm the resources of local and state governments. It could also include national security if it is a terrorist attack. Public education promotes the general welfare by giving all American citizens a basic quality of education and socialization. If we want Americans to follow the laws of our country, we have to teach them the skills to because a basic citizen of our country. However, I understand that because it is not specific, conservatives have a big problem with this clause.

Now you and I may agree in that not all of these programs work as best as they should. I fully admit to that, and I'll be the first one to say that our government agencies require reforms.

However, my contention is that such government programs are not only constitutional, but necessary in order to have a secure, flourishing nation.
 
samsmart said:
The categories I listed were:
Welfare programs
Federal law enforcement
Defense spending
Disaster response
Transportation infrastructure
Public education
Regulatory agencies

You've admitted that defense spending is constitutional and so is the FBI. So let's go over the other things mentioned.

The FBI covers general law enforcement. However, we also have the ATF, DEA, and Secret Service (when they also covered counterfeiting under the Treasury Department) and other similar agencies that focus on specific policies of federal crimes.

Also, public transportation infrastructure could be construed as a part of defense spending. After all, Eisenhower called for the building of federal highways so that the military would have a rapid deployment capability in case of a military emergency. The fact that the federal highway system has also helped out commerce and citizens is an exceptional bonus. And let's not forget that our nation's waterways also qualify into that.

Then there are the things that are obviously constitutional but you didn't mention.

These are regulatory agencies, such as the SEC, the FCC, the FDA, the EPA and the like. These are constitutional because of Congress' ability to regulate interstate commerce. This allows Congress to pass laws making certain business practices illegal and allows them to protect the people of the nation. Businesses can engage in unfair or unethical business practices that hurt their customers nationwide. Such regulatory agencies allows the federal government to prevent businesses from engaging in such abuses.

Then there's welfare spending, disaster response, and public education. While you do not recognize these aspects under the clauses you mentioned, it could be argued that the federal government has the power over these areas in order "to promote the general welfare" stated elsewhere in the Constitution. Welfare programs promote the welfare of the elderly, the disabled, the unemployed, children, and the poor. Disaster response services promote the welfare of those who are victims of natural disasters, especially those that occur over state lines or overwhelm the resources of local and state governments. It could also include national security if it is a terrorist attack. Public education promotes the general welfare by giving all American citizens a basic quality of education and socialization. If we want Americans to follow the laws of our country, we have to teach them the skills to because a basic citizen of our country. However, I understand that because it is not specific, conservatives have a big problem with this clause.

Now you and I may agree in that not all of these programs work as best as they should. I fully admit to that, and I'll be the first one to say that our government agencies require reforms.

However, my contention is that such government programs are not only constitutional, but necessary in order to have a secure, flourishing nation.
Click to expand...

ATF and DEA are unconstitutional since the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms and under the Ninth Amendment you have the right to imbibe whatever substance you wish. I highlight the Eighteenth Amendment which made the consumption of alcohol illegal. The Secret Service is unconstitutional because the President is supposed to be approachable by the people. The Secret Service was originally hired Pinkerton detectives to protect President Lincoln from assassination due to his abuses of power. After that, the Secret Service was formed and elevated the president to the status of a king. Every president prior to Lincoln had to contend with people just walking right through the White House at any hour because the people paid for it. Good luck in being able to see any part of the White House without a tour guide.

Public infrastructure is not a part of defense spending nor does it fall under the grant of power regarding the regulations of the land and naval forces. The extent of public infrastructure the federal government can partake in is with roads that the post office actually uses.

None of those regulatory agencies fall under the grant of power for interstate commerce. The Clause states, "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;". Regulate as used by the founding fathers means, "To put in good order; as, to regulate the disordered state of a nation or its finances." Thus, by this definition all of those agencies are unconstitutional when they are applied to the states. Congress can have them for the territories and possessions owned by the federal government, but they cannot be used in the states. The interstate commerce clause, as it pertains to the states, is a play nice provision between the states. No state is to have an unequal trade status with another state inside of the union ie no protectionist tariffs and the like. That is how it was used up until FDR expanded it beyond all recognition that we have today.

I give you James Madison in regards to general welfare.

"With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." – James Madison in letter to James Robertson

"[Congressional jurisdiction of power] is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any." - James Madison, Federalist 14

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce." - James Madison, Federalist 45

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison, 1792

As you can see that none of the programs are listed in the grant of power to Congress in Article I Section VIII and therefore are unconstitutional. To give you an idea of how small the federal government was in 1789-1849 here is a list of the Executive Departments and how the government operated within the confines of the Constitution.

George Washington's and the next ten president's Executive Branch consisted of the Departments of the Treasury, State, and War. Everything else was created long after the founding fathers had died with the first Department to be created was the Department of the Interior in 1849.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
what I believe in is freedom and if people want to vote then they should have to have some skin in the game. I would limit voting to tax payers which is hardly a plutocracy. Since you seem unwilling to support a system where one group cannot vote up the taxes of others while not suffering anything themselves, I would prefer they not be able to vote.
Click to expand...

Your system is certainly one of plutocracy. You don't like being called on it, so you deny it. Doesn't change the fact. You want to act like an elitist, that's fine. Unfortunately for you, your ilk will always remain in the minority.

so the choices are-

let everyone vote-producer or looter, net tax payer or net tax consumer, parasite or contributor but we have a flat tax or sales tax

OR more votes for more taxes you pay

or Taxpayers only voting.
Click to expand...

False dichotomy. Guess what. YOU don't get to tell ME what I can choose. Like it or not, you lose on this issue. I know you don't like this, but it remains a fact.

That you ignore the fact that there are plenty of people out there who want the top tax payers paying 3X or 4X what they are paying now (including some scumbag from the AFL-CIO) undercuts your credibility with me
Click to expand...

You've already lost a ton of credibility with your foolish hyperbolic posts. Let me know when your posting becomes more reality based, again.
 
Your Star said:
So, I'm not supposed to buy food? Without food stamps it would either be electricity or food, so you want people to choose between essential necessities of life? And please don't insinuate that I'm poor because it's my fault. It's not, the only way I could have avoided this situation is to have been born into a different family. And that really wasn't my choice now was it.
Click to expand...

You should be able to acquire land currently being illegitimately claimed by the state by growing your own food on it and homesteading it.

And please don't act like you don't use government services, roads, public schools, post office, the military, police, fire fighters, public libraries, FDA, etc,etc. Yeah, I get food stamps, but if I didn't I would die. We would starve. Do you really want the poor to die?
Click to expand...

All of those services could be provided through private entities without violating the non-aggression principle and the right of self ownership, the state is an unnecessary evil.

If you tax the poor just as much as you tax the rich, then you force the poor to pay an in-proportionate amount of tax for their income.
Click to expand...

The poor should be aided through voluntary private charity which provides them with 2/3's of every dollar collected with the other 1/3 going to overhead rather than the state which provides them with 1/3 of every dollar collected with the other 2/3's going to to overhead.
 
Agent Ferris said:
You should be able to acquire land currently being illegitimately claimed by the state by growing your own food on it and homesteading it.



All of those services could be provided through private entities without violating the non-aggression principle and the right of self ownership, the state is an unnecessary evil.



The poor should be aided through voluntary private charity which provides them with 2/3's of every dollar collected with the other 1/3 going to overhead rather than the state which provides them with 1/3 of every dollar collected with the other 2/3's going to to overhead.
Click to expand...

That sounds good on paper. Unfortunately, private charities can not keep up with the needs of the f financially handicapped.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
That sounds good on paper. Unfortunately, private charities can not keep up with the needs of the f financially handicapped.
Click to expand...

You have no way of knowing that. The U.S. already gives more in private charity than any other country who knows how much more the individual would give if he were not, also, being robbed at every turn by the state through property tax, sales tax, income tax, alcohol tax, tobacco tax, gasoline tax, etc etc et al. Moreover, under a stateless society the poor would be allowed to homestead land currently being illegitimately claimed by the state.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Your system is certainly one of plutocracy. You don't like being called on it, so you deny it. Doesn't change the fact. You want to act like an elitist, that's fine. Unfortunately for you, your ilk will always remain in the minority.



False dichotomy. Guess what. YOU don't get to tell ME what I can choose. Like it or not, you lose on this issue. I know you don't like this, but it remains a fact.



You've already lost a ton of credibility with your foolish hyperbolic posts. Let me know when your posting becomes more reality based, again.
Click to expand...


your denials are foolish and you play evasive games. I know you don't like it but its a fact. I haven't posted a single thing you can actually prove as false--you utter an opinion which I reject as unlearned and statist
 
Agent Ferris said:
You have no way of knowing that. The U.S. already gives more in private charity than any other country who knows how much more the individual would give if he were not, also, being robbed at every turn by the state through property tax, sales tax, income tax, alcohol tax, tobacco tax, gasoline tax, etc etc et al. Moreover, under a stateless society the poor would be allowed to homestead land currently being illegitimately claimed by the state.
Click to expand...

The poor pay sales tax, alcohol tax, tobacco tax, gasoline tax, utility tax, license fees, interest on indebtedness, high interest payday loans (up to 500%), property taxes (indirectly, even though they rent), etc. After all those taxes they can not afford to pay income taxes.

I believe I am correct that private charities can not handle the burden. I have to research it, though.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
The poor pay sales tax, alcohol tax, tobacco tax, gasoline tax, utility tax, license fees, interest on indebtedness, high interest payday loans (up to 500%), property taxes (indirectly, even though they rent), etc. After all those taxes they can not afford to pay income taxes.
Click to expand...

And eliminating those taxes would put more capital in their pockets, so what's your point?

I believe I am correct that private charities can not handle the burden. I have to research it, though.
Click to expand...

How do you mean "can not handle the burden"? State theft and redistribution to the needy is inefficient and more than that unethical.
 
Agent Ferris said:
And eliminating those taxes would put more capital in their pockets, so what's your point?



How do you mean "can not handle the burden"? State theft and redistribution to the needy is inefficient and more than that unethical.
Click to expand...

If we eliminated those taxes the rich would have to make up for the short fall.

Ethics has nothing to do with it. You are talking about concepts such as love, peace, and justice. Prove your point in using it.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
That sounds good on paper. Unfortunately, private charities can not keep up with the needs of the f financially handicapped.
Click to expand...

Not true since private charities were able to do so for over a hundred years before the government got involved. The government hates competition.
 
The_Patriot said:
Not true since private charities were able to do so for over a hundred years before the government got involved. The government hates competition.
Click to expand...

Private charities don't have the reliability of the government. They can be there for you one month, but not the next. The government won't do that.
 
The_Patriot said:
Not true since private charities were able to do so for over a hundred years before the government got involved. The government hates competition.
Click to expand...

Do you have any data to support this assertion?
 
Your Star said:
Private charities don't have the reliability of the government. They can be there for you one month, but not the next. The government won't do that.
Click to expand...

Not true since the historical documentation shows that charities, before the government got involved, were reliable and there for you. This is why there were entire hospitals and other types of charity that existed for almost 200 years before the government got involved.
 
The_Patriot said:
Not true since the historical documentation shows that charities, before the government got involved, were reliable and there for you. This is why there were entire hospitals and other types of charity that existed for almost 200 years before the government got involved.
Click to expand...

Your over exaggerating the effectiveness of those charities. Before welfare programs it was quite literally do or die.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom