• 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
I didn't provide a source because I thought the logic and reasoning would be enough to convince you.

And could you direct me to which post you provided the proof in? I have not seen it.

Sorry, but according the rules of debate you need to do the following: Source
A great deal has been written and said about the burden of proof, and certain misconceptions have arisen about the duty of the affirmative. The rule is simple:

Rule 5a. He who asserts must prove.

This principle applies equally to the two teams. Of course, the affirmative must show that its plan is desirable, which means that it must show that some benefits will result; otherwise it has failed to give reason for adopting the plan, and has lost the debate. The commonly heard statement that "the affirmative has the burden of proof" means that and nothing more.

It's not my responsibility to direct you to where I have provided proof since you stepped into the debate you should have read all the posts regarding said point of the debate.
 
Why would I need too? Your source says "While the South did not place a high regard on book learning and is usually thought of as backward relative to the rest of the United States" what more do I need to add other than you are as usual wrong. So I just posted a source, just happens to be the same one you used. It just so happens it backs up my position and destroys yours. Quite funny actually.

Still no proof of your own. You lose.
 
There are LOTS of things my government does that I disagree with. There are LOTS of things it spends money on that I don't like. There are LOTS of tax laws I hate.

But I'm a patriotic American, and a loyal American, and I know that this is what democracy is all about. I won't always get my way.
So you dont mind being forced into involuntary servitude.

That's your call. It doesnt invalidate the argument that you are indeed so forced.

I seriously have to question whether someone who didn't understand this basic concept would be sentient.
 
So you dont mind being forced into involuntary servitude.

That's your call. It doesnt invalidate the argument that you are indeed so forced.

I seriously have to question whether someone who didn't understand this basic concept would be sentient.

Ouch, that's gonna leave a mark
 
Still no proof of your own. You lose.

I posted proof. Just because you were ignorant enough to believe it supported your position is of no consequence.
 
I posted proof. Just because you were ignorant enough to believe it supported your position is of no consequence.

You didn't post proof from your own source. Failure to provide your own source means you lose.
 
You didn't post proof from your own source. Failure to provide your own source means you lose.

LMAO! According to who??? You? Hehehehehehehehehe!

OK I am done here.
 
LMAO! According to who??? You? Hehehehehehehehehe!

OK I am done here.

According to the Parlimentary Rules of Debate, which I sourced. He that asserts must prove.
 
A high level of taxation 90+% but not 100% would be somewhere between serfdom (Eastern European type) and slavery. I would also point out that the targets of the tax also would not get any brownie points if they submitted to it and would be targeted with "hate speech" by the pols in the government but that is a separate issue. My Opinion 20% would be a fair amount to pay.
 
Sorry, but according the rules of debate you need to do the following: Source

It's not my responsibility to direct you to where I have provided proof since you stepped into the debate you should have read all the posts regarding said point of the debate.
What, I have to read it all?

**** that, I'm too lazy atm, and it's not that important to me.

But what the hell, I'll give it a try.

Here's a quote from Literacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
Literacy has traditionally been described as the ability to read and write. It is a concept claimed and defined by a range of different theoretical fields. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) defines literacy as the "ability to identify, understand, interpret, create, communicate, compute and use printed and written materials associated with varying contexts.
Going by their definition, no one is completely literate.

As in, if you lack the skills/knowledge to understand a book on high-level programming, you are not literate in that area.

I was thinking of "literacy" more as an "ability to read/write", dependent on other skills/knowledge (math, science) for understanding.

So perhaps there is a disconnect between to our respective definitions.

How do you define "literacy"?
 
Last edited:
According to the Parlimentary Rules of Debate, which I sourced. He that asserts must prove.

I did not assert anything. Your source did that. You still lose, LMAO! Oh my goodness you are well, special.
 
According to the Parlimentary Rules of Debate, which I sourced. He that asserts must prove.
And because he who asserts uses the same source a previous assertor used...the second assertion is invalid???
 
And because he who asserts uses the same source a previous assertor used...the second assertion is invalid???

Yes according to Patriot logic. LMAO!
 
And because he who asserts uses the same source a previous assertor used...the second assertion is invalid???

Yes because it requires your own independent source.
 
Have fun in Somalia! :2wave:

Somalia was the result of a failed state and a civil war between two illegitimate entities vying to obtain a monopoly on the use of force, in fact anarcho-capitalism was the only thing that brought them out of their turmoil the only thing that brought back some semblance of security was militias turned into for profit security agencies and private enterprise providing necessary services; such as, telecommunications via cell phone kiosks.

Failed state + civil war =/= anarchy.
 
Then you have three options if you don't like it. You can agitate for change in the system peacefully, you can try to change it by force, or you can leave.

The individual should have the right of secession.

I could give you some great philosophers on the subject if you're interested, but I would disagree you don't own yourself.

Well then you have just admitted that all citizens living under a state sovereign are nothing but slaves IE property of the state.
 
Angry are we, Agent Ferris?? I send my taxes in quarterly. Wouldn't have to if I didn't want to. In fact, there are tax protesters all over the place who use legal angles to wrangle their way into not paying. Perhaps you should look into that. Or quit work. Or move to "that other country."

Actually those protesters have been arrested, prosecuted, and sentenced to prison terms or murderered by the state as has been the case since the Whiskey Rebellion.
 
There are LOTS of things my government does that I disagree with. There are LOTS of things it spends money on that I don't like. There are LOTS of tax laws I hate.

But I'm a patriotic American, and a loyal American, and I know that this is what democracy is all about. I won't always get my way.

And when I want change, I work for campaigns, contribute, vote, contact my congressman, and work, because in America that's how things get done.

I suppose I could sit back and whine and claim that every time the majority elects politicians I don't like who do things I disagree with that I was a "slave" being "robbed" but I can't, because I'm a patriot. I know that's how it works -- because there are also things the government does that I agree with completely and thus someone else is upset. That's how it works. I don't always get my way, and other people don't always get their way. That's democracy.

I seriously have to question whether someone who didn't understand this basic concept would be a true American.

Nationalistic flag waving is a pretty poor justification for state tyranny.
 
No. I mean clean and cheap water

Half of America's water supply comes from private water utilities firms, and another 15% on top of that drink from privately owned wells.

and power.

80% of electicity in the U.S. is produced by private utilities.

Good and well kept roads.

I don't know what roads you've been driving on. Regardless the responsibility of road upkeep and repair is contracted out to private agencies as is the construction of roads themselves, but they are payed by the state, however, they could easily pay for the construction and upkeep of these roads through tolls. You do realize that the toll roads payed for by taxpayer money are still collecting tolls even though you've already payed for them?

Professional police departments etc.

Ah the state racketeering scheme at its finest, you are literally are paying the state protection money, if you don't pay these professional police forces aka gangs will come and slap handcuffs on you, if you resist you will be beaten or killed.

All things that the people I have an opportunity to vote for or against help maintain.

If this was a free society you would have a right to opt out of such "services".

According to whom? You? :lol:

According to any rational observer, the state is a legalized monopoly which has the sole authority to exercise the use of force.

Wow, that is so typical of the "I hate government no matter what crowed." I am no fan of big government, but it could be so much worse. If you don't like our system, you can always move? I would.

Petitio Principii begging the question logical fallacy because this line of argument must pre-suppose its own conclusion that the state is legitimate:

"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


Throw out we the people vote the people into office. :doh

I mean really, it's a good thing that people with that mind set are in the lunatic fringe and have no chance of ever gaining any power.

Yes us crazy lunatics what with our crazy outrageous ideas like the contractual society, the right to self ownership, and the non-aggression principle, I mean that's way crazier than centralizing the use of force into a singular monopoly which is not only above the law but writes the law.

I am a statist now? LMAO! I am about as far as you can get from that. I am a realist though. We have a system and we have to work to better it. This means realistic goals and not libertarian or green party Utopian pipe dreams that belong on the fringe.

Statist - Statism (or etatism) is an ideology advocating the use of states to achieve goals, both economic and social.
 
Last edited:
Oh before I forget The Mark and Blackdog, liblady did state that the typical rebel soldier was uneducated. She said it in post #116. She asserted and you both defended, so now you have to provide proof to back up her claim.

no, i'm saying that the typical rebel soldier was uneducated.

Since she asserted that the typical rebel soldier was uneducated she had to provide proof to back up this assertation. She failed to do so. I provided proof of my statements regarding literacy in the south.
 
Last edited:
Petitio Principii logical fallacy because this line of argument must pre-suppose its own conclusion that the state is legitimate:

Let me see if I understand this. You own your property because you have physical possession of it (If you don't accept the sovereignty of a state, you obviously don't have a legal claim). A country is a group of people banded together who claim possession of a territory in a legal (not necessarily physical) sense. So the land is yours only on basis that you can keep control of it, but the state has the means to take your land by force, so their claim is more legitimate, right? Or am I missing something?
 
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.

I've already proven, in another debate, that secession was illegal. See Texas v. White, the Preamble of the Constitution, and several of the Federalist Papers. Both Madison and Hamilton supported this position, as I demonstrated in this thread: http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/74294-does-term-redneck-refer-culture-race-13.html Like it or not, secession was illegal and the Union had every right to prevent it.
 
Last edited:
The individual should have the right of secession.
That would simply lead to anarchy, a state of government that has never worked.


Well then you have just admitted that all citizens living under a state sovereign are nothing but slaves IE property of the state.

Except I have made the argument that the state has legitimacy because we choose our leaders, a point you have refused to discuss.
 
Actually those protesters have been arrested, prosecuted, and sentenced to prison terms or murderered by the state as has been the case since the Whiskey Rebellion.

Only if they broke the law doing so
 
I've already proven, in another debate, that secession was illegal. See Texas v. White, the Preamble of the Constitution, and several of the Federalist Papers. Both Madison and Hamilton supported this position, as I demonstrated in this thread: http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/74294-does-term-redneck-refer-culture-race-13.html Like it or not, secession was illegal and the Union had every right to prevent it.

I've already disproven your claim. Agree to disagree.
 
Back
Top Bottom