• 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 social contract is not a myth. You just wrote about the social contract (U.S. Constitution) you have with your government. Yes, the government has violated the social contract by not acting within the confines of the Constitution. The question then is why the government is still in power after violating its contract with the people.
 
The social contract is not a myth. You just wrote about the social contract (U.S. Constitution) you have with your government. Yes, the government has violated the social contract by not acting within the confines of the Constitution. The question then is why the government is still in power after violating its contract with the people.

The US Constitution is a legal contract between the states and the federal government. It isn't a social contract since it has no bearing on society. As for the answer to your question, the answer lies in the Declaration of Independence. Thomas Jefferson wrote, "accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
 
The social contract is not a myth.
You're right -- its outright fiction, a story used to convince people that everyone owes them something for no reason other than the simple virtue of their living here.
 
That should have read:
Explain how my interpretation of YOUR response is in error.

I just provided proof of you stating that the 13th amendment gave Congress the power to create SocSec.

i told you it was a typo. I meant the 16 amendment giving congress to levy income taxes. SS is a tax on your income. That's what I was talking about. Is that all? I hope so. I have bigger fish to fry.
 
The US Constitution is a legal contract between the states and the federal government. It isn't a social contract since it has no bearing on society. As for the answer to your question, the answer lies in the Declaration of Independence. Thomas Jefferson wrote, "accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

The very preamble of the U.S. Constitution is written as such: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Therefore it is the people that provide the Constitution to establish a federal government. Also, in Marcos vs Manglapus the Supreme Court ruled: “the Constitution, aside from being an allocation of power is also a social contract whereby the people have surrendered their sovereign powers to the State for the common good.” I would also argue the U.S. Constitution has a huge bearing on society. And I agree with you that TJ quote sums it up. I wish people would take after his quote, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
 
Regarding the recent discussion about the constitution and ones opinion of our current government's adherence to it...

Personally, I do not agree with much of the things currently done by the government.

On the other hand, like the majority of people, I'm too fat and lazy to do anything about it.

Except talk.

As I understand it, much of the disagreement about what, exactly, the constitution allows stems from differing interpretations.

-------------------

I have my own views, influenced by my parents, childhood, experiences, and so forth…

In some cases, my views are opposed to currently held interpretations of the constitution.

In others, I agree, but feel the constitution is not clear enough on the matter. Such as the 2nd.

And perhaps the 1st.
 
"In a speech given at the 1987 “We the People” Celebration,
which commemorated the 200th anniversary of the drafting of the
American Constitution, Reagan argued:
One scholar described our Constitution as a kind of covenant. It
is a covenant we’ve made not only with ourselves but with all of
mankind. . . . It is an oath of allegiance to that in man that is truly
universal, that core of being that exists before and beyond distinctions
of class, race, or national origin. It is a dedication of faith to the
humanity we all share, that part of each man and woman that most
closely touches on the divine.53
In his imagination, the ideas contained in the Declaration and
the Constitution were universally applicable. So too were the corresponding
institutions and political arrangements, such as those
that he mentioned in his speech to the British Parliament and
elsewhere. The United States had a mandate, a moral obligation, to
make real the possibilities for global political and social order. No
one needed to fear American power, because it would only be used
to serve the true interests of all and to realize their dreams for the
world. This is what Reagan had in mind when referring to America
52 Ronald Reagan, “Remarks at the Annual Washington Conference of the
American Legion, February 22, 1983,” in Public Papers of the Presidents of the United
States: Ronald Reagan: 1983 (In Two Books), Book I—January 1 to July 1, 1983 (Washington,
D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1984), 265-66, 270.
53 Ronald Reagan, “Remarks at the ‘We the People’ Bicentennial Celebration in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, September 17, 1987,” in Public Papers of the Presidents of
the United States: Ronald Reagan: 1987 (In Two Books), Book II—July 4 to December 31,
1987 (Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1989), 1042"

http://www.nhinet.org/garrison21-1.pdf

The "scholar" that Reagan was referring to was Thomas Paine.
 
Last edited:
The very preamble of the U.S. Constitution is written as such: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Therefore it is the people that provide the Constitution to establish a federal government. Also, in Marcos vs Manglapus the Supreme Court ruled: “the Constitution, aside from being an allocation of power is also a social contract whereby the people have surrendered their sovereign powers to the State for the common good.” I would also argue the U.S. Constitution has a huge bearing on society. And I agree with you that TJ quote sums it up. I wish people would take after his quote, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

The preamble has no force of law, so it can be discarded. Within the text of the Constitution the people are mentioned very few times, while states and federal government are mentioned numerous times. The Constitution was never ratified by the people, but it was ratified in state conventions by delegates appointed by the state legislature. At no time, did the people, a whole, participate. I, also, don't care what the Supreme Court has ruled because they have allowed the federal government to get away with more then what the Constitution allows.
 
The Constitution is certainly open for debate. It in itself was a compromise between different members of the delegation. However, I believe the founding fathers were in agreement that all U.S. citizens have the right to bear arms.
 
The preamble has no force of law, so it can be discarded. Within the text of the Constitution the people are mentioned very few times, while states and federal government are mentioned numerous times. The Constitution was never ratified by the people, but it was ratified in state conventions by delegates appointed by the state legislature. At no time, did the people, a whole, participate. I, also, don't care what the Supreme Court has ruled because they have allowed the federal government to get away with more then what the Constitution allows.

How can you simply discard the preamble of the Constitution? It is not simply how many times 'we the people' is used in the Constitution. The Bill of Rights gives us our unalienable rights! The idea of the Constitution was to setup a federal government so of course there would be numerous mentions of the federal government. You yourself believe in that contract made between you and your government.
 
The Constitution is certainly open for debate. It in itself was a compromise between different members of the delegation. However, I believe the founding fathers were in agreement that all U.S. citizens have the right to bear arms.

yes, none of the ARC has ever been able to produce a single document contemporaneous with the USSC that suggests otherwise.
 
How can you simply discard the preamble of the Constitution? It is not simply how many times 'we the people' is used in the Constitution. The Bill of Rights gives us our unalienable rights! The idea of the Constitution was to setup a federal government so of course there would be numerous mentions of the federal government. You yourself believe in that contract made between you and your government.

Because I can and do since it has no force of law. The Bill of Rights does *not* give you any rights. It protects the rights that existed prior to the enactment of the Constitution. The Constitution only gives the federal government certain powers while the states and the people retain the rest. No, I believe in the contract between my state and the federal government and the contract between myself and my state. Under Missouri's Constitution the people have the protected right to overthrow the government. I give you Section III of the Missouri Constitution.

Section 3. That the people of this state have the inherent, sole and exclusive right to regulate the internal government and police thereof, and to alter and abolish their constitution and form of government whenever they may deem it necessary to their safety and happiness, provided such change be not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States.
 
How can you simply discard the preamble of the Constitution? It is not simply how many times 'we the people' is used in the Constitution. The Bill of Rights gives us our unalienable rights! The idea of the Constitution was to setup a federal government so of course there would be numerous mentions of the federal government. You yourself believe in that contract made between you and your government.

wrong-the bill of rights gives us NOTHING. It merely RECOGNIZES something the founders presumed we had prior to the constitution and would remain if the constitution were to be eliminated.
 
Because I can and do since it has no force of law. The Bill of Rights does *not* give you any rights. It protects the rights that existed prior to the enactment of the Constitution. The Constitution only gives the federal government certain powers while the states and the people retain the rest. No, I believe in the contract between my state and the federal government and the contract between myself and my state. Under Missouri's Constitution the people have the protected right to overthrow the government. I give you Section III of the Missouri Constitution.

Section 3. That the people of this state have the inherent, sole and exclusive right to regulate the internal government and police thereof, and to alter and abolish their constitution and form of government whenever they may deem it necessary to their safety and happiness, provided such change be not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States.

The rights that existed prior to the Constitution were formed under a different government. The form of government changed and thus the Bill of Rights ensures the government enacted by the Constitution will not trample over the specified rights of each individual. The 10th Amendment expressly includes the people: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

You also have a social contract with your state. If you feel the state has broken that contract you can choose to leave the state. For example, Virginians seceeded from their state to form West Virginia when Virginia sided with the Confederates during the Civil War.
 
The rights that existed prior to the Constitution were formed under a different government. The form of government changed and thus the Bill of Rights ensures the government enacted by the Constitution will not trample over the specified rights of each individual. The 10th Amendment expressly includes the people: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

You also have a social contract with your state. If you feel the state has broken that contract you can choose to leave the state. For example, Virginians seceeded from their state to form West Virginia when Virginia sided with the Confederates during the Civil War.

You just stated what I did and countered your original statement that the Bill of Rights gives you rights.

The situation with West Virginia was done illegally under the Constitution specifically Article IV Section III Clause I.

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.


Virginia legislature did not grant consent to the loss of the western 48 counties to form West Virginia.
 
The very preamble of the U.S. Constitution is written as such: "We the People of the United States...
So? Whatever the preamble says, the Constitution, thru the -states- that ratified it, forms a federal system of government and describes the powers of that government as well as its relationship between it and the state. The very limited description of the interaction between the people and the federal government denotes that the relationship between same is limited, at best.

Any 'social contract' between the people and the goverment is described as such, and limited to said description.
 
So? Whatever the preamble says, the Constitution, thru the -states- that ratified it, forms a federal system of government and describes the powers of that government as well as its relationship between it and the state. The very limited description of the interaction between the people and the federal government denotes that the relationship between same is limited, at best.

Any 'social contract' between the people and the goverment is described as such, and limited to said description.

I'm not sure I understood your previous post. Are you saying the social contract between the government and people is limited or there is no contract at all?
 
I'm not sure I understood your previous post. Are you saying the social contract between the government and people is limited or there is no contract at all?
The "social contract" between the people and the federal governmet is limited by the specifications of the constitution, in terms of how the people participate in and interact with the government and the limits of powers given to the government.
 
You just stated what I did and countered your original statement that the Bill of Rights gives you rights.

The situation with West Virginia was done illegally under the Constitution specifically Article IV Section III Clause I.

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.


Virginia legislature did not grant consent to the loss of the western 48 counties to form West Virginia.

How did I counter my original statement about the Bill of Rights?

And West Virginia was not admitted illegally. Virginia had seceeded from the Union and was at that point a part of the Confederacy. Therefore, Article IV Section III Clause I does not apply.
 
The "social contract" between the people and the federal governmet is limited by the specifications of the constitution, in terms of how the people participate in and interact with the government and the limits of powers given to the government.

Ah gotcha. Yes, I agree with you. I think the argument turned into whether or not social contracts exist. But yes, I do believe the Constitution calls for both limited federal government and a limited role by the people in terms of the US not having a democracy.
 
How did I counter my original statement about the Bill of Rights?

And West Virginia was not admitted illegally. Virginia had seceeded from the Union and was at that point a part of the Confederacy. Therefore, Article IV Section III Clause I does not apply.

It still required consent of the owner of the territory to turn it over to be made into another state. Therefore, Article IV Section III Clause I does apply. Now riddle me this, why is it legal for West Virginia to secede and the southern states wasn't?
 
The Constitution is certainly open for debate. It in itself was a compromise between different members of the delegation. However, I believe the founding fathers were in agreement that all U.S. citizens have the right to bear arms.

You really should read the second amendment before you debate it...

ricksfolly
 
Back
Top Bottom