• 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
Blackdog said:
No.
Click to expand...
Then what's your issue with that statemment?

Yes it does, the states seceding was considered an insurrection.
Click to expand...
Secession and Insurrection have different meanings:
Secession is to withdraw from a union.
Insurrection is to openly revolt against a constituted government.

There's nothing about secession that necessitates an open revolt; one can have one without the other, just as easily as one can have one WITH the other.

Given that, the power to suppress insurrection cannot, in an if itself create any prohibition against simple secession.

Secession began 12/24/60. The CSA were formed 2/8/61. The war began 4/12/61.

You can argue, if you want, that an insurrection began 4/12/61, but as secession preceeded the war by a significant period of time, your argument can only stand if you can show that, thru the act of secession, the states did not actually leave the union -- if they HAD left the union, thru secession, then the war was not an insurrectiuon but a war between two states (USA and CSA).

To do THAT you have to show that secession is prohibited by the Constitution, which you -cannot- do by citing the power to suppress insurrection.
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
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.


...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?
Click to expand...

No because at the time those states were under martial law because of their insurrection, thereby disqualifying them from voting much like felons lose their right to vote. So it's a moot point.:prof
 
LiberalAvenger said:
No because at the time those states were under martial law because of their insurrection, thereby disqualifying them from voting much like felons lose their right to vote.
Click to expand...
Please show me where in the Constitution the federal government is specifically given the power to prevent and/.or prohibit states from voting to ratify an amendment.

And THEN, if these states were not ABLE to vote for the amendments, why did they?
And THEN, if these states were not ABLE to vote for the amendments, how were they passed by the required majority of states?
 
Goobieman said:
Please show me where in the Constitution the federal government is specifically given the power to prevent and/.or prohibit states from voting to ratify an amendment.

And THEN, if these states were not ABLE to vote for the amendments, why did they?
And THEN, if these states were not ABLE to vote for the amendments, how were they passed by the required majority of states?
Click to expand...

After you show me an amendment where they are allowed to be insurrectionists and secede from the union.
 
Goobieman said:
Then what's your issue with that statemment?


Secession and Insurrection have different meanings:
Secession is to withdraw from a union.
Insurrection is to openly revolt against a constituted government.

There's nothing about secession that necessitates an open revolt; one can have one without the other, just as easily as one can have one WITH the other.

Given that, the power to suppress insurrection cannot, in an if itself create any prohibition against simple secession.

Secession began 12/24/60. The CSA were formed 2/8/61. The war began 4/12/61.

You can argue, if you want, that an insurrection began 4/12/61, but as secession preceeded the war by a significant period of time, your argument can only stand if you can show that, thru the act of secession, the states did not actually leave the union -- if they HAD left the union, thru secession, then the war was not an insurrectiuon but a war between two states (USA and CSA).

To do THAT you have to show that secession is prohibited by the Constitution, which you -cannot- do by citing the power to suppress insurrection.
Click to expand...

I am not even going to bother responding to this as it is stupid.

The law dictionary says they are the same. The regular dictionary says they are the same. By succeeding it was an insurrection. The moment they tried to take Federal property, it became illegal.

I notice you cut that out of my post. I wonder why?

Take it up with the legal minds. :roll:
 
Last edited:
LiberalAvenger said:
After you show me an amendment where they are allowed to be insurrectionists and secede from the union.
Click to expand...
Since you apparently dont understand the issue here, I'll simplify it for you.

The question as to If secession is allowed/prohibited by the Consitution is irelevant, as your quandry lies here:
-If they did not leave the union, they cannot be forced to ratify an amendment.
-If they did leave the union, there was no insurrection, and then, not being states, are not eligible to ratify an amendment.

You can have it either way -- but either way directly calls into question the constitutionality of the ratification of the 13th-15th amedments.

So, which way do you want it? You pick, and then address the relevant issue.
 
Blackdog said:
I am not even going to bother responding to this as it is stupid.
Click to expand...
More likely, its because you do not posess the means to effectively and soundly counter what I said.

The law dictionary says they are the same. The regular dictionary says they are the same.
Click to expand...
This is, of course, false.
 
Goobieman said:
More likely, its because you do not posess the means to effectively and soundly counter what I said.
Click to expand...

No it's because you are trying to play a game because you were wrong, but you know this.

Goobieman said:
This is, of course, false.
Click to expand...

And yet you cut it out of my post rather than respond to it. I wonder why?

Here for your reading pleasure....

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

The only thing that is false here is your argument. Of course it is only because the law dictionary disagrees. I guess you know far more then they do. :lol:
 
Last edited:
The_Patriot said:
Yes because it requires your own independent source.
Click to expand...
Why?

If I or anyone else can use a source you provided to prove your own statements incorrect/partially incorrect...should we refrain from doing so simply because you provided the source?

What on earth for?

And, where did these requirements arise from?

The_Patriot said:
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.
Click to expand...
I defended her later statement, not this one.

Out of context, it would appear that your statement was correct, in that she said rebel soldiers were uneducated.

But instead, you attacked a statement of hers that was not clear in it's accusation, which led to confusion.

Lastly, it appears a disconnect exists.

In my understanding of things, literacy =/= education.

So proving that southern soldiers were literate =/= proving southern soldiers were educated.

I see it this way:

Being literate is a necessary precursor to acquiring an education, but one is not educated if they are ONLY literate.

In my mind, literacy = communication skills, not knowledge.

And, education = knowledge, in general.

Perhaps our definitions are in disagreement?
 
Blackdog said:
No it's because you are trying to play a game because you were wrong, but you know this.
Click to expand...
On the contrary. I am absolutelty correct, and remian correct until insurrection and secession are shown to be synonyms. You cannot simply use the words interchangeably as it is absolutely possible to engage in one without engaging in the other.

And yet you cut it out of my post rather than respond to it. I wonder why?
Here for your reading pleasure....
sedition
n. the federal crime of advocacy of insurrection against the government
Click to expand...
I skipped it last time because it was -obviously- not relevant. I guess you need me to explain why.

You provided the defintion of sedition. So what?
That doesnt in any way show that secession and insurrection are the same, and does nothing to address the argument I presented.

The part you seem to miss is that once the states seceed, its impossible for them to enter into an insurrection with the Union because they are no longer part of the Union -- and so, for nything related to insurrection - including sedition - to apply in any way, you have to show that the states could not seceed, and thus remained part of the union.

Given that, there's no way to argue that the power to suppress insurrections is a constituionl prohibition against secessiion (as if the faulty logic alone doesnt illustrate the absurdity of the idea).

Can Canada openly rebel against the United States?
No. Neither can the CSA, for the same reason.
 
Goobieman said:
On the contrary. I am absolutelty correct, and remian correct until insurrection and secession are shown to be synonyms. You cannot simply use the words interchangeably as it is absolutely possible to engage in one without engaging in the other.


I skipped it last time because it was -obviously- not relevant. I guess you need me to explain why.

You provided the defintion of sedition. So what?
That doesnt in any way show that secession and insurrection are the same, and does nothing to address the argument I presented.

The part you seem to miss is that once the states seceed, its impossible for them to enter into an insurrection with the Union because they are no longer part of the Union -- and so, for nything related to insurrection - including sedition - to apply in any way, you have to show that the states could not seceed, and thus remained part of the union.

Given that, there's no way to argue that the power to suppress insurrections is a constituionl prohibition against secessiion (as if the faulty logic alone doesnt illustrate the absurdity of the idea).

Can Canada openly rebel against the United States?
No. Neither can the CSA, for the same reason.
Click to expand...

You still don't get it, you have no argument on this issue...

Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869) In accepting jurisdiction, the court ruled that Texas had remained a state ever since it first joined the Union, despite its joining the Confederate States of America and its being under military rule at the time of the decision in the case. In deciding the merits of the bond issue, the court further held that the Constitution did not permit states to secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null".

End of debate unless you want to try and weasel a little more?

PS lets go furthure...

This is the definition of sedition:

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

The very act of sedition IS considered insurrection by the law of the US.

You got nothing.
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
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.
Click to expand...

No. Texas v. White did not do that. It indicated that secession was NEVER Contitutional. The issue it was discussing was from prior to the decision.

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.
Click to expand...

The Federalist Papers are documents that explain the meanings behind some of the issues contained in the Constitution. The have been heavily cited, throughout history in SCOTUS cases regarding Consitutional law.

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.
Click to expand...

True.

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?
Click to expand...

The states were not re-admitted to the Union. They were re-admitted to having representation in Congress, having pulled out of Congress, voluntarily, in 1861. Further, the states were in a state of illegal rebellion, and after 1865, were under military rule until it could be secured that their governments were willing to abide by the laws of the Constitution.
 
Goobieman said:
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.
Click to expand...

I've heard plenty of Republicans use this argument when things like that occur.
 
Goobieman said:
Since you apparently dont understand the issue here, I'll simplify it for you.

The question as to If secession is allowed/prohibited by the Consitution is irelevant, as your quandry lies here:
-If they did not leave the union, they cannot be forced to ratify an amendment.
-If they did leave the union, there was no insurrection, and then, not being states, are not eligible to ratify an amendment.

You can have it either way -- but either way directly calls into question the constitutionality of the ratification of the 13th-15th amedments.

So, which way do you want it? You pick, and then address the relevant issue.
Click to expand...

They seceded from the union, therefore losing their right to vote on an amendment. Criminals can not vote.

There is no quandry here, only your refusal to ignore the rule of law and fallacious reasoning

I am correct and you are wrong, again.:prof
 
I guess the best answer to this thread is

if you are being taxed for what you use and taxed on a fair amount of common stuff (you cannot define how much military you use or say coast guard patrols) as well as being taxed to pay for those who really need help (disabled vets, the orphans of K IA vets or cops etc) then no-you are being charged fairly

If you are soaked to pay for the vote buying schemes of socialist politicians than it is closer to slavery
 
TurtleDude said:
I guess the best answer to this thread is

if you are being taxed for what you use and taxed on a fair amount of common stuff (you cannot define how much military you use or say coast guard patrols) as well as being taxed to pay for those who really need help (disabled vets, the orphans of K IA vets or cops etc) then no-you are being charged fairly

If you are soaked to pay for the vote buying schemes of socialist politicians than it is closer to slavery
Click to expand...

Don't you think that giving tax cuts when we have such a huge deficit is pandering to a certain class of voters? Or, are they special?
 
LiberalAvenger said:
Don't you think that giving tax cuts when we have such a huge deficit is pandering to a certain class of voters? Or, are they special?
Click to expand...

it sure beats making that small segment be the only group that has to pay more and more and more

since the dems claim that only the rich need to pay more, there is absolutely no incentive for the vast majority of voters to worry about increased deficits since they aren't being forced to cover them


why not make everyone pay the same rate and if the government needs more money (I use the word NEED rather loosely since half of what the government does is wasteful or outright unconstitutional) make everyone suffer an equal rise in tax rates meaning everyone keeps the same lesser amount of each additional dollar they make. FOr those who don't pay taxes but still vote-cut their entitlements equally.
 
TurtleDude said:
it sure beats making that small segment be the only group that has to pay more and more and more

since the dems claim that only the rich need to pay more, there is absolutely no incentive for the vast majority of voters to worry about increased deficits since they aren't being forced to cover them


why not make everyone pay the same rate and if the government needs more money (I use the word NEED rather loosely since half of what the government does is wasteful or outright unconstitutional) make everyone suffer an equal rise in tax rates meaning everyone keeps the same lesser amount of each additional dollar they make. FOr those who don't pay taxes but still vote-cut their entitlements equally.
Click to expand...

No, I believe that would be unacceptable to the majority. It would be unjustifiable to do that.
 
the makeout hobo said:
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).
Click to expand...

Um no original appropriation of land can only come about legitimately through mixing ones labour with the soil or by entering into a voluntary contract for transfer of title from someone who has or someone who has legitimately acquired the title of said land from someone who has and so on and so forth.

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?
Click to expand...

You are missing the homestead principle. You can't simply claim possession of territory and be entitled to legitimate ownership. The state has no legitimate claim to ownership of anything. The state does not have rights the state itself is an illegitimate entity based upon the violation of individual sovereignty and the non-aggression principle.

To say if you don't like the state then simply move presupposes that the state is a legitimate entity to begin with when my entire premise is that the state itself is illegitimate thus you are begging the question.
 
Last edited:
Your Star said:
No, taxation isn't slavery. If you don't like the tax laws here your always free to leave.
Click to expand...

Again, this is a 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
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom