• 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:
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:
Click to expand...

That is exactly what I said in Italian. It must be Italian because I was speaking about libertarians and said nothing about government. :roll:
 
You know, if you really think taxation is slavery you could always move to a country that doesn't have any taxes.

Oh! Wait! That's right! Now I remember! No such country has ever existed in the history of mankind!
 
fredmertz said:
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).
Click to expand...

given that their "property" was slaves, the flag respresents the right to own slaves. and yes, they were fighting to maintain those slaves and their economic status.
 
Well, WW2 wasn't specifically about killing Jews either but you know, when people see the Nazi flag that's what they think of.
 
fredmertz said:
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).
Click to expand...

In other words, you don't think two wrongs make a right. Understandable, even though I disagree. There is no reason that flag cannot stand for more than one thing and have multiple meanings, all of which are right.
 
Last edited:
the makeout hobo said:
Am I the only one who finds it funny that the guy with a confederate flag on his avatar is whining about "slavery"?
Click to expand...

You're the only one since Old Glory had slavery, genocide, and other crimes against humanity done by people under its banner. Is Old Glory a symbol of those things?
 
The_Patriot said:
Since the 14th Amendment prohibits slavery of any kind does income, consumption based, and sale taxes a form of slavery that economically ties a person to the government and by default the poor?

.
Click to expand...

To me, the welfare system is the slavery, and taxation is coerced/forced participation of the productive by a government who is addicted to money.
 
bicycleman said:
So you are defending the NAZIS?
Click to expand...

Oh, right, of course. After all, I always defend organizations and people who hold the exact opposite view I do.

Don't be dense. My point, which I am sure you understand but would rather troll about, is that the Confederate Flag carries a specific message. The fact that some people want to pretend it doesn't -- or else honestly state that it has a different message to them -- does not mean the flag does not have the specific message to a majority of the population.

It is just as silly to claim that the Confederate Flag does not mean an acceptance of slavery as it is to say that a Nazi Flag does not mean an acceptance of killing Jews.

You can't pick and choose here and claim that the flag only represents part of what it does. Nor can you claim that it means something different to you when everyone else understands it to mean something else. That's like flipping the bird at someone and claiming that to you, it means hello. You don't get to decide what words or symbols mean.
 
The Confederate flag is seen as a symbol of racism by some and as a symbol of rebellion by others. Either way unlike Germany, who hides it's history and acts as if it never happened, we should (and do for the most part) acknowledge our history and embrace it good or bad. It is in the end who we are and where we come from.

The Confederate flag in the end is just the flag of a failed union of states.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
The Confederate flag is seen as a symbol of racism by some and as a symbol of rebelion by others. Either way unlike Germany, who hides it's history and acts as if it never happend, we should (and do for the most part) aknowledge our histry and embrace it good or bad. It is in the end who we are and where we come from.

The Confederate flag in the end is just the flag of a failed union of states.
Click to expand...

Indeed, it is by definition the flag of treason.

If you want to fly that flag and basically say "Hi, I support treason and slavery" then go ahead -- this is America. But hey, you can't be surprised when people think you're an arse because of it.
 
Groucho said:
Indeed, it is by definition the flag of treason.

If you want to fly that flag and basically say "Hi, I support treason and slavery" then go ahead -- this is America. But hey, you can't be surprised when people think you're an arse because of it.
Click to expand...

I give you prominent abolitionist Lysander Spooner on the subject of treason in his book No Treason.
 
fredmertz said:
Why? The confederate flag is not a symbol of slavery to the educated.
Click to expand...

I would disagree. I actually study the civil war quite deeply (I'm studying for a history degree, and I am a civil war reenactor), and I think that there's been something of a whitewash job (pardon the pun) on that. Yes, it was about state rights, but that state right they were rebelling over specifically was slavery. If you read SC's document of secession, the only issue they mention is slavery. If you look at the run up, it's almost all about slavery. Only a few states mention anything other than slavery in their documents of secession, and I doubt any state would secede over canal tariffs. To say it wasn't about slavery is to ignore most of the factors that led to the war.
 
Groucho said:
You know, if you really think taxation is slavery you could always move to a country that doesn't have any taxes.

Oh! Wait! That's right! Now I remember! No such country has ever existed in the history of mankind!
Click to expand...

I think it was 60 minutes but I just saw a show about Afghanistan where they showed a muddy dirty stree with mansions built on it. The mansions are owned by Afghan politicians who pay no taxes on them. There are piles of garbage next to some of them and the street is hardly passable.

The Afghan politicians rent them out to foreigners such as diplomats and the like.

The reason that the streets are like they are is that nobody pays any taxes. I guess you get what you pay for. Go for it anti-taxers.
 
the makeout hobo said:
I would disagree. I actually study the civil war quite deeply (I'm studying for a history degree, and I am a civil war reenactor), and I think that there's been something of a whitewash job (pardon the pun) on that. Yes, it was about state rights, but that state right they were rebelling over specifically was slavery. If you read SC's document of secession, the only issue they mention is slavery. If you look at the run up, it's almost all about slavery. Only a few states mention anything other than slavery in their documents of secession, and I doubt any state would secede over canal tariffs. To say it wasn't about slavery is to ignore most of the factors that led to the war.
Click to expand...

You're taking what was written out of the context of the time it was written. At the time these secessions were written the southern states was facing the Morrell Tariff, which would have brought back the tariff of abominations. The secessions highlight the reasons why the southern states issued them by stating the amount of capital placed into slave owning that could not be changed overnight and that the Morrell Tariff would have crippled their economies. Lincoln made it clear he had no intention of interferring with slavery in 1860-1861. He made is clear that it was all about taxes and he was willing to help author the Corwin Amendment that would have made slavery off limits by the federal government plus give tacit support of said amendment in his first inaugural address.
 
fredmertz said:
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.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if I agree wit that. There is nothing in the constitution to suggest that a state can unilaterally leave. I think that if that was such a big important part of the document, something would have been put in the constitution. It's "We the People" not "We the States"
 
The_Patriot said:
You're the only one since Old Glory had slavery, genocide, and other crimes against humanity done by people under its banner. Is Old Glory a symbol of those things?
Click to expand...

Old Glory is a symbol of those things to various people, sure. But the difference is that genocide wasn't a founding principle of the USA while it was THE reason the CSA broke away
 
the makeout hobo said:
I'm not sure if I agree wit that. There is nothing in the constitution to suggest that a state can unilaterally leave. I think that if that was such a big important part of the document, something would have been put in the constitution. It's "We the People" not "We the States"
Click to expand...

Actually, the Constitution does state in the Tenth Amendment, "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." Since the states are not prohibited from leaving in Article I Section X of the Constitution of the United States they retain the power they held. The people had nothing to do with the Constitution since it was ratified by the states by delegates appointed by the state legislatures.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom