• 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
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:

Nobody has ever claimed it would be a utopia, that is what statists claim they can achieve. What it would be, however, is a society in which the liberty of the individual is maximized to the fullest extent.
 
Last edited:
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.

What right do you have to steal from me? What right do you have to vote away capital earned through my labour? You have no right whatsoever to violate my right of self ownership and use offensive coercive force to get me to comply with your demands. And again this presupposes that the state has legitimate claim to the territory in which I own land, it does not, original apporopriation of land can only be legitimately acquired through mixing ones labour with that land or by acquiring that land through the voluntary transfer of title from those who have mixed their labour with that land and so forth and so on. Furthermore; if you are asserting that the state has the right to infringe upon the individuals right of self ownership then you are tacitly admitting that the state is owner and the individual the property IE a slave.
 
Last edited:
Nobody has ever claimed it would be a utopia, that is what statists claim they can achieve. What is would be, however, is a society in which the liberty of the individual is maximized to the fullest extent.

Like I said, good luck with that. :)
 
What right do you have to steal from me? What right do you have to vote away capital earned through my labour? You have no right whatsoever to violate my right of self ownership and use offensive coercive force to get me to comply with your demands. And again this presupposes that the state has legitimate claim to the territory in which I own land, it does not, original apporopriation of land can only be legitimately acquired through mixing ones labour with that land or by acquiring that land through the voluntary transfer of title from those who have mixed their labour with that land and so forth and so on. Furthermore; if you are asserting that the state has the right to infringe upon the individuals right of self ownership then you are tacitly admitting that the state is owner and the individual the property IE a slave.

If you are a citizen of this country, you have an obligation to pay taxes. It's like being a member of a club that requires membership dues. Taxes are our membership dues, if you want to be apart of this "club" you have to pay them, or face the repercussions. And you always have the right to leave the club. It is nothing like slavery.
 
If you are a citizen of this country, you have an obligation to pay taxes. It's like being a member of a club that requires membership dues. Taxes are our membership dues, if you want to be apart of this "club" you have to pay them, or face the repercussions. And you always have the right to leave the club. It is nothing like slavery.

what you are saying is if you live here and you don't agree with the majority they will use their superior force to take what you own.

lets stop pretending-you like the mob rule while I want the constitution enforced as intended which means people like you cannot vote away my wealth.
 
what you are saying is if you live here and you don't agree with the majority they will use their superior force to take what you own.

lets stop pretending-you like the mob rule while I want the constitution enforced as intended which means people like you cannot vote away my wealth.

The constitution allows taxes so I really don't know what you're getting at. Even the founders agreed on taxation with representation, and thats what we have. Read up on the Whiskey rebellion. Taxes have been apart of this country ever since its inception, and they won't go away. It's something you have to deal with, otherwise your free to leave.
 
The constitution allows taxes so I really don't know what you're getting at. Even the founders agreed on taxation with representation, and thats what we have. Read up on the Whiskey rebellion. Taxes have been apart of this country ever since its inception, and they won't go away. It's something you have to deal with, otherwise your free to leave.

the founders opposed income redistribution and taxation on income.

the taxes they supported were ones that didn't allow people like you to vote up taxes on people like me
 
the founders opposed income redistribution and taxation on income.

the taxes they supported were ones that didn't allow people like you to vote up taxes on people like me

Then you have the right to vote for people who want to get rid of the income tax. But to equate taxation with slavery is just idiotic, ignorant rhetoric.

Imo, if you want to tax the rich the same as the poor all your doing is limiting the chances for the poor to rise up, and earn money themselves. Thus limiting the "American Dream".
 
Then you have the right to vote for people who want to get rid of the income tax. But to equate taxation with slavery is just idiotic, ignorant rhetoric.

Imo, if you want to tax the rich the same as the poor all your doing is limiting the chances for the poor to rise up, and earn money themselves. Thus limiting the "American Dream".

lets look at which party has an interest in keeping people poor and dependent on government handouts rather than "rising up" and becoming free of the addiction of welfare/

after you do that, you might decide which party's preferred tax system really holds the poor down

it was once said that Religion is the opiate of the masses-the fear of God and hellfire kept the rabble from rebelling against the government. well socialism and handouts is the new religion
 
Then you have the right to vote for people who want to get rid of the income tax. But to equate taxation with slavery is just idiotic, ignorant rhetoric.

Imo, if you want to tax the rich the same as the poor all your doing is limiting the chances for the poor to rise up, and earn money themselves. Thus limiting the "American Dream".

btw remind me why you shouldn't pay the same tax rate as me.
 
lets look at which party has an interest in keeping people poor and dependent on government handouts rather than "rising up" and becoming free of the addiction of welfare/

after you do that, you might decide which party's preferred tax system really holds the poor down

it was once said that Religion is the opiate of the masses-the fear of God and hellfire kept the rabble from rebelling against the government. well socialism and handouts is the new religion

Neither party wants people to be on welfare. And how does welfare hold people down? The Dems don't won't people on welfare, it doesn't make sense. Just because one gets off welfare doesn't mean that they are going to vote republican if they didn't already. I know I sure as hell won't.

btw remind me why you shouldn't pay the same tax rate as me.

Because my family's income right now is $0. Were living with family right now, otherwise we'd be homeless. And thank the good Lord for food stamps, otherwise we'd go hungry. If we had to pay the same taxes as you we'd would be in debt to the government. Because we couldn't pay them. I had to quite school because my family couldn't afford the tuition anymore, and my only hope of going back is to work for about a year and save up money. But of course it's a bitch to find a job right now, so my life is on hold until I can find a job. So before you say we're mooching off the gov. think again. Were not living the good life. We're surviving, and we couldn't do that without the governments help.
 
btw remind me why you shouldn't pay the same tax rate as me.

Using the graduated scale as we do in the US, works better than say a pole tax. Only because of the aforementioned system has every working individual who makes from minimum wage up to fortune 500 CEO income pays a reasonable shear of the burden. This according to his means.

If you tried a poll tax etc, poor and middle class people would be the ones hurt most. What do you do to them if they can't pay? Extra work to pay back the state? Wouldn't you call that slavery as well?

You have to learn to work within or change the system we have legally or it's a dead issue.

Just like I feel now because of the sleeping pills.

So if you can't make any sense of it, just let me know and I will try to be around in the moooooorning to do your wife after you leave for work. Or at least gargle with mouthwash!

OK good Night.
 
If you are a citizen of this country, you have an obligation to pay taxes. It's like being a member of a club that requires membership dues. Taxes are our membership dues, if you want to be apart of this "club" you have to pay them, or face the repercussions. And you always have the right to leave the club. It is nothing like slavery.

A) I never volunteered to be a member of this club. Any contractual agreement not entered into voluntarily is null and void.

B) Once again this is a begging the question logical fallacy because you are pre-supposing that the state has legitimate claim to control over this territory in which I own property:

"I think that the person who makes this argument is already assuming that the government has some legitimate jurisdiction over this territory. And then they say, well, now, anyone who is in the territory is therefore agreeing to the prevailing rules. But they’re assuming the very thing they're trying to prove – namely that this jurisdiction over the territory is legitimate. If it's not, then the government is just one more group of people living in this broad general geographical territory. But I've got my property, and exactly what their arrangements are I don't know, but here I am in my property and they don't own it – at least they haven't given me any argument that they do – and so, the fact that I am living in "this country" means I am living in a certain geographical region that they have certain pretensions over – but the question is whether those pretensions are legitimate. You can’t assume it as a means to proving it." -- Roderick Long Libertarian Anarchism: Responses to Ten Objection

C) Self ownership means that one has exclusive rights to their own body and any goods, services, or capital produced by that body, if you are stating that the government has the right to infringe upon the right of self ownership then you are tacitly admitting that the state rather than the individual is the owner of the individual's body, the state is therefor the owner and I the property. How is that not slavery?
 
Using the graduated scale as we do in the US, works better than say a pole tax. Only because of the aforementioned system has every working individual who makes from minimum wage up to fortune 500 CEO income pays a reasonable shear of the burden. This according to his means.

If you tried a poll tax etc, poor and middle class people would be the ones hurt most. What do you do to them if they can't pay? Extra work to pay back the state? Wouldn't you call that slavery as well?

You have to learn to work within or change the system we have legally or it's a dead issue.

Just like I feel now because of the sleeping pills.

So if you can't make any sense of it, just let me know and I will try to be around in the moooooorning to do your wife after you leave for work. Or at least gargle with mouthwash!

OK good Night.

I reject the From each according to his ability nonsense,

my wife has a black belt and a USPSA Class A card-feel free to try, I hope she cleans up the mess before I get back home
 
Neither party wants people to be on welfare. And how does welfare hold people down? The Dems don't won't people on welfare, it doesn't make sense. Just because one gets off welfare doesn't mean that they are going to vote republican if they didn't already. I know I sure as hell won't.



Because my family's income right now is $0. Were living with family right now, otherwise we'd be homeless. And thank the good Lord for food stamps, otherwise we'd go hungry. If we had to pay the same taxes as you we'd would be in debt to the government. Because we couldn't pay them. I had to quite school because my family couldn't afford the tuition anymore, and my only hope of going back is to work for about a year and save up money. But of course it's a bitch to find a job right now, so my life is on hold until I can find a job. So before you say we're mooching off the gov. think again. Were not living the good life. We're surviving, and we couldn't do that without the governments help.

and you think that means you should have equal say with how taxes are collected as do those who pay for you to exist?

but I do hope your situation improves.
 
A) I never volunteered to be a member of this club. Any contractual agreement not entered into voluntarily is null and void.

B) Once again this is a begging the question logical fallacy because you are pre-supposing that the state has legitimate claim to control over this territory in which I own property:



C) Self ownership means that one has exclusive rights to their own body and any goods, services, or capital produced by that body, if you are stating that the government has the right to infringe upon the right of self ownership then you are tacitly admitting that the state rather than the individual is the owner of the individual's body, the state is therefor the owner and I the property. How is that not slavery?

A.) If you are born in this country, you are a citizen. Therefore you are a member. But you can leave when you are 18 if you feel the tax system is unfair.

B.) The government of the USA has control over the lands of the USA. If you live within those lands the government has control over then you are subjected to pay taxes. Just like if you live in a specific state you have to pay the state's taxes. People from Georgia don't pay Texas taxes, but they are obligated to pay Georgian taxes.

C.) This is a flawed argument, because it assumes that the state has control over the people. It doesn't, the state can't tell me what job to do, when I can go to bed, when I have to work, if I have to work, how long I have to stay here, stop me from leaving. The state can't do any of that, well unless I broke a law, and I wouldn't think you are advocating the abolishment of laws now are you? So what if I went driving drunk, what makes the government think it has the right to take away my freedom by putting me in jail!!! :roll:
Taxes are a necessity of life, you need to deal with that. Or you could boycott taxes, and everything the government does with them. Just remember to not use any road, unless you make it yourself. Oh and just turn in that drivers license you have, because it's was made using tax dollars. Oh, and quite your job, because your being "forced" to give up some of your paycheck to the government, and there's no way to get around that besides quitting your job. And just take your kids out of public school, no need for them to benefit because of evil taxes. I could go on, but I think you get my point.
 
A.) If you are born in this country, you are a citizen. Therefore you are a member. But you can leave when you are 18 if you feel the tax system is unfair.

B.) The government of the USA has control over the lands of the USA. If you live within those lands the government has control over then you are subjected to pay taxes. Just like if you live in a specific state you have to pay the state's taxes. People from Georgia don't pay Texas taxes, but they are obligated to pay Georgian taxes.

C.) This is a flawed argument, because it assumes that the state has control over the people. It doesn't, the state can't tell me what job to do, when I can go to bed, when I have to work, if I have to work, how long I have to stay here, stop me from leaving. The state can't do any of that, well unless I broke a law, and I wouldn't think you are advocating the abolishment of laws now are you? So what if I went driving drunk, what makes the government think it has the right to take away my freedom by putting me in jail!!! :roll:
Taxes are a necessity of life, you need to deal with that. Or you could boycott taxes, and everything the government does with them. Just remember to not use any road, unless you make it yourself. Oh and just turn in that drivers license you have, because it's was made using tax dollars. Oh, and quite your job, because your being "forced" to give up some of your paycheck to the government, and there's no way to get around that besides quitting your job. And just take your kids out of public school, no need for them to benefit because of evil taxes. I could go on, but I think you get my point.

I am still waiting for someone to deal with my points that a system that allows non tax payers to constantly vote up the taxes of taxpayers is going to collapse

and secondly, proof that those who pay the most taxes actually receive the most government spending or benefits proportionate to their taxes
 
and you think that means you should have equal say with how taxes are collected as do those who pay for you to exist?

but I do hope your situation improves.

Well thats not a tax issue, thats a voting issue. Are you suggesting that because I don't earn anything I don't have a right to vote?

And thanks.
 
Well thats not a tax issue, thats a voting issue. Are you suggesting that because I don't earn anything I don't have a right to vote?

And thanks.

I suggest that those who are living off the wealth of others should not have the power to vote away more and more of the wealth of those who support you.

I prefer a system where everyone pays the same rate. The most productive tax payers would still pay far more than you but at least if their rates were voted up so would the rates of all of the voters so it would be a disincentive to keep spending and spending and spending

a sales tax would do the same thing

what is awful is a situation where people like you keep voting to jack up the top rates of those of us who pay most of the taxes because it is unfair to us and you have no incentive to stop government growth when you suffer no downside and you are promised more and more goodies paid for by others
 
I suggest that those who are living off the wealth of others should not have the power to vote away more and more of the wealth of those who support you.

I prefer a system where everyone pays the same rate. The most productive tax payers would still pay far more than you but at least if their rates were voted up so would the rates of all of the voters so it would be a disincentive to keep spending and spending and spending

a sales tax would do the same thing

what is awful is a situation where people like you keep voting to jack up the top rates of those of us who pay most of the taxes because it is unfair to us and you have no incentive to stop government growth when you suffer no downside and you are promised more and more goodies paid for by others

So then you think poor people shouldn't have the right to vote. Gotcha!

Then you can vote for people who agree with you. But 10% of $15,000 hurts more than 10% of $500,000.

We already have a sales tax.

When rich people are going hungry because of taxes you can talk, but when people want to cut spending on welfare programs that could very well make me go hungry I think I should have equal say.
And I don't plan to be in this situation forever, I hate having to be on food stamps, but when I am fortunate enough to get out of this situation, I will gladly pay taxes to help other people who have fell on hard times.
 
So... is it valid?

Just as valid as it is when Republicans use it when liberals make the comment. You make the call, Goobie. Is it never valid, or is it always valid.
 
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.

No, all the decision did was affirm the constitutionality of secession not being legal.

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".

Understanding what the founders intent was in writing the Constitution is an important part of SCOTUS making decisions. This intent was what was used. I see no problem with that.


Yes.... and as we know, they carry no legal force.
I note a particular lack of citation of said papers in the decision, BTW.

See above.


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.

These states were in a state of rebellion at the time, refusing to abide by the Constitution. They also voluntarily chose to remove their representation. Since the state of rebellion threatened the security of the US itself, I'n certain that a case could be made that this was valid under national defense laws.
 
I am still waiting for someone to deal with my points that a system that allows non tax payers to constantly vote up the taxes of taxpayers is going to collapse

Easy. I've read the entire thread. And I'll say the same thing I said before. Your position is nothing but hyperbole. You are waiting for a refutation for a position that is not based in reality, and one that is claiming "the sky is falling" kind of extremism. You are usually more rational than that.

and secondly, proof that those who pay the most taxes actually receive the most government spending or benefits proportionate to their taxes

I think it depends, though for the most part, you are probably correct. I'n not sure what the point is, though.
 
Back
Top Bottom