• 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
No, taxation isn't slavery. If you don't like the tax laws here your always free to leave.
 
Failed state + civil war =/= anarchy.

But hey! At least you won't have to pay taxes, amirite? So I expect you to leave for that country of equality and freedom posthaste.
 
Half of America's water supply comes from private water utilities firms, and another 15% on top of that drink from privately owned wells.

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

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?

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.

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

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

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

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.

Statist - Statism (or etatism) is an ideology advocating the use of states to achieve goals, both economic and social.

Call me "staist" all you like. It makes your political view no less unattainable and crazy.

It does not work, has never worked, and will never come to pass. Unless you count that hell hole Somalia. The anarchist dream land. :lol:
 
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.

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.

It's to bad...

#1 We did not defend her statements. We attacked YOUR wronngful statement about her statement:

#1-liblady in post #105 stated, "i am wondering just how educated the typical confederate soldier was." This infers that the typical Confederate soldier was uneducated. Therefore, you are wrong that someone didn't say that Confederates were uneducated.

#2 She AGAIN did not say the typical soilder was uneducated. She said "i am wondering just how educated the typical confederate soldier was."

Everyone seems to know what she meant except you? Wonder why that is.

#3 Literacy according to your own source does not equate education. The South also according to YOUR source says they were less educated.

We are done here.
 
It's to bad...

#1 We did not defend her statements. We attacked YOUR wronngful statement about her statement:



#2 She AGAIN did not say the typical soilder was uneducated. She said "i am wondering just how educated the typical confederate soldier was."

Everyone seems to know what she meant except you? Wonder why that is.

#3 Literacy according to your own source does not equate education. The South also according to YOUR source says they were less educated.

We are done here.

it's always nice when your opponent provides your source material. ;-)
 
It's to bad...

#1 We did not defend her statements. We attacked YOUR wronngful statement about her statement:



#2 She AGAIN did not say the typical soilder was uneducated. She said "i am wondering just how educated the typical confederate soldier was."

Everyone seems to know what she meant except you? Wonder why that is.

#3 Literacy according to your own source does not equate education. The South also according to YOUR source says they were less educated.

We are done here.

She said that they were uneducated and provided no proof. Ergo, my statement about what she said is factually correct. Try again.
 
it's always nice when your opponent provides your source material. ;-)

Funny, but my source material shows that they were educated. You failed to show that they were uneducated.
 
Funny, but my source material shows that they were educated. You failed to show that they were uneducated.

at some point you should realize you have failed, utterly. don't worry, you'll have other opportunities.
 
at some point you should realize you have failed, utterly. don't worry, you'll have other opportunities.

The only person that failed in this debate would be you. No proof means your argument fails. It must be nice to not have to provide proof for ignorant statements.
 
You did nothing of the sort. I will not agree with inaccuracy.
IIRC Texas v. White was a post-war decision; if it makes secession unconstitution, it does so from the point of the decision, and not points prior.

And while the preamble and the federalist papers maigh be used to support arguments regarding the intention of the Constitution, we all know they carry no legal force.

Question:
If it is impossible to secede from the union, then it is impossible to re-admit 'secessionist' states to the union because they never actually left said union.

HOWever, the 'secessionist' states, as part of their process for 're-admission' to the union, wre require to ratify the 13th-15th amendments.

The federal government cannot force states to ratify amendments, and so weren't the 13th-15th were ratified unconstitutionally?
 
No, taxation isn't slavery. If you don't like the tax laws here your always free to leave.
Ah -- the "love it or leave it" argument.
Be sure to recall this remark the next time a Republican-controlled government does someting you do not like.
 
She said that they were uneducated and provided no proof. Ergo, my statement about what she said is factually correct. Try again.

Um no....

"i am wondering just how educated the typical confederate soldier was." does not equate "Are you saying that all southerners were uneducated and ignorant?"

In fact her reply to your question was "no, i'm saying that the typical rebel soldier was uneducated."

according to your article this was indeed the case.

On top of that your were trying to be sarcastic because of her comment to Bicycleman about Robert E Lee.

Going to lie some more?
 
Last edited:
Funny, but my source material shows that they were educated. You failed to show that they were uneducated.

It shows they were literate, not educated as your source points out.
 
The only person that failed in this debate would be you. No proof means your argument fails. It must be nice to not have to provide proof for ignorant statements.

You provided her proof.

If her statement is ignorant, what does that make yours?
 
Last edited:
Um no....

"i am wondering just how educated the typical confederate soldier was." does not equate "Are you saying that all southerners were uneducated and ignorant?"

In fact her reply to your question was "no, i'm saying that the typical rebel soldier was uneducated."











according to your article this was indeed the case.

On top of that your were trying to be sarcastic because of her comment to Bicycleman about Robert E Lee.

Going to lie some more?

it's quite clear that literacy does not equate to education.
 
IIRC Texas v. White was a post-war decision; if it makes secession unconstitution, it does so from the point of the decision, and not points prior.

And while the preamble and the federalist papers maigh be used to support arguments regarding the intention of the Constitution, we all know they carry no legal force.

Question:
If it is impossible to secede from the union, then it is impossible to re-admit 'secessionist' states to the union because they never actually left said union.

HOWever, the 'secessionist' states, as part of their process for 're-admission' to the union, wre require to ratify the 13th-15th amendments.

The federal government cannot force states to ratify amendments, and so weren't the 13th-15th were ratified unconstitutionally?



Article I section 8 "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"

What don't you understand about suppress insurrections?:prof
 
What don't you understand about suppress insurrections?

First of, all, -I- asked a question:

The federal government cannot force states to ratify amendments, and so weren't the 13th-15th ratified unconstitutionally?

Perhaps you'd like to take a shot at answering it?

Second of all, nothing in anything I have posted in any way questions the federal authority to suppress insurrections.

Really, when you post, do try to not waste everyone's time.
 
First of, all, -I- asked a question:

The federal government cannot force states to ratify amendments, and so weren't the 13th-15th ratified unconstitutionally?

Perhaps you'd like to take a shot at answering it?

Second of all, nothing in anything I have posted in any way questions the federal authority to suppress insurrections.

Really, when you post, do try to not waste everyone's time.

I was not answering your question because it was irrelevant because of Article 1 section 8. I asked you a question which you have no possible answer so you try to skirt around the issue by insulting me, saying I am wasting time, sir.
 
I was not answering your question because it was irrelevant because of Article 1 section 8.
Really.
Explain, in concise and verifiable terms what part of Article I Sec 8 gives Congress the power to force states to ratify proposed amendments, and how said power actually confers such an authority.

I asked you a question...
...which I have fully addressed.
Nothing in anything I have posted in any way questions the federal authority to suppress insurrections

Now, perhaps, you can address what I asked:
The federal government cannot force states to ratify amendments, and so weren't the 13th-15th ratified unconstitutionally?
 
Last edited:
First of, all, -I- asked a question:

The federal government cannot force states to ratify amendments, and so weren't the 13th-15th ratified unconstitutionally?

Which he did not respond too.

He responded to your statement...

IIRC Texas v. White was a post-war decision; if it makes secession unconstitution, it does so from the point of the decision, and not points prior. Perhaps you'd like to take a shot at answering it?

Since you made a statement of fact, he pointed out it is not.

Second of all, nothing in anything I have posted in any way questions the federal authority to suppress insurrections.

As I have shown, that is not true. Notice the part marked in red.
 
Last edited:
Which he did not respond too.
He responded to your statement...
You're taking issue with the statement that Texas v. White makes secession unconstitutional?

As I have shown, that is not true. Notice the part marked in red.
I noticed it. It doesn in any way take issue with the federal power to suppress insurrection.
 
As the government has said, the power to tax is the power to destroy.
 
You're taking issue with the statement that Texas v. White makes secession unconstitutional?

No.

I noticed it. It doesn in any way take issue with the federal power to suppress insurrection.

Yes it does, the states seceding was considered an insurrection. To deny this is just to have on blinders.

Type in insurrection and this comes up from the Law Library dictionary....

sedition
n. the federal crime of advocacy of insurrection against the government or support for an enemy of the nation during time of war, by speeches, publications and organization. Sedition usually involves actually conspiring to disrupt the legal operation of the government and is beyond expression of an opinion or protesting government policy. Sedition is a lesser crime than "treason," which requires actual betrayal of the government, or "espionage." Espionage involves spying on the government, trading state secrets (particularly military) to another country (even a friendly nation), or sabotaging governmental facilities, equipment or suppliers of the government, like an aircraft factory. During U.S. participation in World War II (1941-1945) several leaders of the German-American Bund, a pro-Nazi organization, were tried and convicted of sedition for actively interfering with the war effort. Since freedom of speech, press and assembly are guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and because treason and espionage charges can be made for overt acts against the nation's security, sedition charges are rare.

See also: espionage treason
- law.com Law Dictionary

Please don't play silly word games with me.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom