• 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
It would actually, entire communities would hire these private security firms just as many communities today hire private security for gated communities, the free rider problem would be worked out through dominant assurance contracts.

He would still have liability the same as if your brakes fail and you accidently ram into the car in front of you you still assume liability.

He would still be protected by the security firms which were hired through dominant assurance contracts to police the community. He would technically be a free rider but again the free rider problem would be solved through dominant assurance contracts.

Then he'll have to find another means of transportation. FYI we already have toll roads in this country, except the money goes to the state and the citizenry still had to pay the taxes to build the road in the first place not to mention they are paying for roads that they have not and may never even use.

Actually we didn't have an advanced market economy in the 1800's so if anything it has a better chance of working.

This is why I never could stand the libertarian party. Unrealistic expectations.

And then they wonder why they are seen as a joke by the other parties.

It can't work in our society, and it never will or happen. It is fantasy.
 
Since you insist I give you the ruling from Warren v. District of Columbia, "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." An expansion of the original South v. Maryland case. Are you sure you really want to continue with this since my statement is true?

That implies then that the individual is responsible. It does not dictate it. This ruling, as in South v. Maryland does nothing by indicate that the police are not liable if they do not or refuse to protect you. Same result as before. Your statement is an implication, not a fact.
 
This is why I never could stand the libertarian party. Unrealistic expectations.

And then they wonder why they are seen as a joke by the other parties.

It can't work in our society, and it never will or happen. It is fantasy.

Libertarians... extreme ones, tend to argue from theoretical positions, not recognizing the connections between all things. Mostly, their positions are not based in reality.
 
That implies then that the individual is responsible. It does not dictate it. This ruling, as in South v. Maryland does nothing by indicate that the police are not liable if they do not or refuse to protect you. Same result as before. Your statement is an implication, not a fact.

It states it because the police or other government services are not there to provide service to any one individual. That leaves only the individual themself to provide for their protection. In any event, the government is not there to provide any service, but it is up to the individual to ensure for their own safety and protection of their property even when many Constitutions say that the chief design of good government is to secure the rights and property of the people. You can twist it all you like and ignore the other party involved in these suits brought before the Supreme Court. I frankly don't care.
 
Libertarians... extreme ones, tend to argue from theoretical positions, not recognizing the connections between all things. Mostly, their positions are not based in reality.

Well, it would help if you could identify what makes one a libertarian. I'm not a libertarian, since I'm a Constitutionalist. A very strict one at that. My positions are based upon reality and historical fact.
 
This is why I never could stand the libertarian party. Unrealistic expectations.

And then they wonder why they are seen as a joke by the other parties.

It can't work in our society, and it never will or happen. It is fantasy.

Yes, because we all know that without the government at every level being involved in your life and making decisions for you is such a terrible thing to contemplate. :roll:
 
Well, it would help if you could identify what makes one a libertarian. I'm not a libertarian, since I'm a Constitutionalist. A very strict one at that. My positions are based upon reality and historical fact.

I've argued the Constitution with you. Strict constructionists do not base their decisions on the reality of current society. They base them on theory. This is why they are not based on reality.
 
It states it because the police or other government services are not there to provide service to any one individual. That leaves only the individual themself to provide for their protection. In any event, the government is not there to provide any service, but it is up to the individual to ensure for their own safety and protection of their property even when many Constitutions say that the chief design of good government is to secure the rights and property of the people. You can twist it all you like and ignore the other party involved in these suits brought before the Supreme Court. I frankly don't care.

I'm not the one doing the twisting. That would be you. This was a liabiity case. Both of them were. The police were not found liable.
 
Yes, because we all know that without the government at every level being involved in your life and making decisions for you is such a terrible thing to contemplate. :roll:

You keep talking in absolutes like this. You cannot prove an absolute.
 
The United States government is a corporation, which under corporate law does make it a person. Therefore, the government as a person does have absolute power and controls his life, liberty, or fortune. Thus, under said definition it is slavery.
I heavily disagree with the concept of corporate personhood, so i would disagree with your statement. Furthermore, you can twist words all you want, but the fact of the matter is that you have an avenue to change the legal conditions of taxation, something you would not have if you were a slave. Also, if you're trying to claim that taxation makes us slave, then it would be nigh impossible to live in an organized society and not be a slave. Every government save a few unrealistic utopian experiments have had some form of taxation, and if the principle of taxation makes us slaves, it doesn't matter if the rate is 1%, 99%, or every third chicken.
 
You're in for a shock then because the courts have ruled that it is your responsibility to defend your property from thieves and fire. The government is under no obligation to defend those things. I'll cite South v. Maryland (1853) where the Supreme Court ruled that the police do not have to protect you or your property because it is your responsibility.

I have to ask: do you agree and defend every court ruling, or just the ones that help you to make your point? Should I expect to see you arguing against property rights on basis of Kelso vs. New London, or for abortion rights based on Roe v. Wade?
 
Well, it would help if you could identify what makes one a libertarian. I'm not a libertarian, since I'm a Constitutionalist. A very strict one at that. My positions are based upon reality and historical fact.

I think Cap is using "libertarian" to refer to someone who argues for a radically reduced level of government. I heavily doubt your positions are based on current fact: i.e. what effect they would have on our current interconnected high-tech society, not on the agrarian society of 200 years ago.
 
No, taxation is not slavery, that's simply overblown rhetoric. Taxation is a needed, if undesirable, function of the government.
 
Am I the only one who finds it funny that the guy with a confederate flag on his avatar is whining about "slavery"?
 
So people shouldn't be expected (or even feel obligated) to contribute to the future of their country (i.e. the children of this country)?

I would say that should be expected to contirbute! They shoudl feel obligated to contribute! They shouldn't be forced to. Forcing them to is taking away their freedom to be immoral.
 
Am I the only one who finds it funny that the guy with a confederate flag on his avatar is whining about "slavery"?

Why? The confederate flag is not a symbol of slavery to the educated.
 
Why? The confederate flag is not a symbol of slavery to the educated.

I am curious about what you mean by educated then. I am pretty sure I can easily find a professor of African-American studies with a Ph.D. and some very strong negative opinions about that symbol.
 
I am curious about what you mean by educated then. I am pretty sure I can find a professor of African-American studies with a Ph.D. and some very strong opinions about that symbol.

I 100% disagree with the confederacy in believing that slavery was up to each individual state. Each man is created equal and has equal protection under the constitution at the national level. No man can be the property of another man.

But the confederacy believed it was the states' rights. The war was about states' rights. The confederacy was created to promote states' rights against the federal government and that's what the flag represents historically, to the educated man. They were wrong in this particular instance, yes. But overall, their philosophy was not to fight for slavery. It was to fight for their property (that they had grossly mislabeled).
 
I 100% disagree with the confederacy in believing that slavery was up to each individual state. Each man is created equal and has equal protection under the constitution at the national level. No man can be the property of another man.

I pretty much agree with this sentiment. Ownership of a person by another is an abomination in my eyes.

But the confederacy believed it was the states' rights. The war was about states' rights.

Somewhat. Nobody would care about the issue of states rights if it was coke vs pepsi. The actual underlying issue had a whole lot to do with it.

The confederacy was created to promote states' rights against the federal government and that's what the flag represents historically, to the educated man.

I am still curious by what you mean by this statement. Are you speaking of formal schooling or some other form of education?

They were wrong in this particular instance, yes. But overall, their philosophy was not to fight for slavery. It was to fight for their property (that they had grossly mislabeled).

I don't think there is a good distinction to be made here. If a state is doing something wrong, than it is wrong, period, no argument about states rights is going to convince me to ignore it.
 
I 100% disagree with the confederacy in believing that slavery was up to each individual state. Each man is created equal and has equal protection under the constitution at the national level. No man can be the property of another man.

But the confederacy believed it was the states' rights. The war was about states' rights. The confederacy was created to promote states' rights against the federal government and that's what the flag represents historically, to the educated man. They were wrong in this particular instance, yes. But overall, their philosophy was not to fight for slavery. It was to fight for their property (that they had grossly mislabeled).

Hmmm, "mislabeled property rights":twisted:
 
What a ridiculous comparison! No, taxation is not the same as slavery, no matter how many far fetched comparisons you come up with.
 
I don't think there is a good distinction to be made here. If a state is doing something wrong, than it is wrong, period, no argument about states rights is going to convince me to ignore it.

If a state is doing something wrong (wrong defined as something that it does not have the right to do), then it should be stopped. That is what the war was about. I agree, it doesn't matter what the 'wrong' thing was. But it was about what a state can and cannot do. In this case they were wrong and thankfully lost that war (despite some of their claims they lost! - they are now under the US constitution, no?)

The underlying issue is what made it worth the cost of war to the North. But the states had the right to succeed from the union so they could define their rights independently. They were wrong to try to protect slavery. The North was wrong to force them to remain part of the union. Their flag represents the ideal that the state should have the power to choose.

And to answer your question to the best of my obviously limited ability: An educated man is one who understands what their views were, even if they disagree. The South's war was not one of slavery. The North's war was one of slavery. The confederate flag represents the South's views. Not the North's views. Ergo - it represents what they fought for. I believe in what the South fought for idealistically, though they were wrong specifically. I believe in what the North fought for idealistically, though they technically didn't have the right. One of the few times in history that the nat'l gov't going beyond their constitutional powers was justified, IMO.
 
Notice that I said stop making an income

No income no income taxes

And you can live without earning money,


Buy about 500 acres and farmstead. You wont have electricity, a computer or a car but you will live

He has to have money to pay his real estate taxes to the city or county in which he lives so he has to have a job, or at least raise crops to sell so he can earn enough money to pay the taxes on those 500 acres. Even though he will be on land use or agricultural abatement, which rolls back his taxes to a lower rate, he will still have to pay taxes.

Even if a man makes no income, he will be expected to file the forms, just the same. Don't you think it would set off IRS alarms, if a man made $100,000 in 2009, but then filed in 2010 and put down, nothing earned? Now, who's the slave master? Sounds like the IRS.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom