• 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
TurtleDude said:
lots of people say that because

1) I have no problem with gays adopting children or getting married or serving in most military roles openly and proudly

2) I think the war on drugs is a massive failure and a sinister and cynical ploy to rape our constitutional freedoms

3) I support abortion rights and think-as long as we pay for the healtcare of unwanted children, we ought to pay for abortions

4) I think bible thumpers are almost as idiotic as socialists and obama-slurpers
Click to expand...

I agree on 1 and 2 but I disagree on 3 and 4.

I believe that life starts at conception. Personally my wife and I are both against abortions. We think it is a horrible thing. I notice that a lot of women who had abortions when they were young suffer in their later years from the guilt it inflicts upon them. Having said that I am against a lot of the tactics used by anti-abortion foes, especially the violence and intimidation tactics used to foist their beliefs on others. To me the better tactic would be to use science and common sense in these matters and to help unwed mothers with monetary and social support to help raise their children.

I would add the word "some" to your sentence. Not all bible thumpers are what you say they are. The good they do often out weighs the bad but the good they do often goes unreported. Religion is a little bit like sh!t. It can cause e-coli and make you sick or it can be used for fertilizer in order to make the flowers grow.
 
Helvidius said:
You follow the Constitution of the U.S. and of your respective state which, though on a national level calls for limited government, calls for a government nonetheless. The Constitution is a contract you yourself wrote you have agreed to. It is a social contract because the federal government receives its rights from you. By agreeing with the Constitution you consent to give the federal government certain powers (such as defense) rather than living in a world of anarchy.
Click to expand...

First, the federal government has violated the Constitution by getting involved in things it shouldn't be. Since it has violated the Constitution then it becomes null and void because I never consented to it doing the things it does. Governments do not have rights, but powers delegated. I never delegated the powers that the federal government uses that are beyond the powers in the Constitution. A social contract is a myth.
 
The_Patriot said:
First, the federal government has violated the Constitution by getting involved in things it shouldn't be. Since it has violated the Constitution then it becomes null and void because I never consented to it doing the things it does. Governments do not have rights, but powers delegated. I never delegated the powers that the federal government uses that are beyond the powers in the Constitution. A social contract is a myth.
Click to expand...

What the heck is that bold statement even supposed to mean? Were you alive during the ratification of the constitution or something?
 
megaprogman said:
What the heck is that bold statement even supposed to mean? Were you alive during the ratification of the constitution or something?
Click to expand...

It means that I never consented to the expansion of powers beyond the ones delegated in the Constitution like federal welfare and education.
 
The_Patriot said:
It means that I never consented to the expansion of powers beyond the ones delegated in the Constitution like federal welfare and education.
Click to expand...

Ok. I am confused, as far as I can tell, you never consented to anything since the constitution was well established law way before you were born.
 
megaprogman said:
Ok. I am confused, as far as I can tell, you never consented to anything since the constitution was well established law way before you were born.
Click to expand...

One can give consent once they acheive the age of majority that this is how they would like to live and the government to operate.
 
The_Patriot said:
One can give consent once they acheive the age of majority that this is how they would like to live and the government to operate.
Click to expand...

So you are talking about voting?
 
The_Patriot said:
I don't even know where you came up with that idea. Did I say anything about voting?
Click to expand...

Well, by voting, you are giving consent to a politician to be in power. The politician is one of the officials in the government that exercises constitutional power. Honestly, I am trying to figure out what you are going on about, and this is the closest thing I can come up with.
 
megaprogman said:
Well, by voting, you are giving consent to a politician to be in power. The politician is one of the officials in the government that exercises constitutional power. Honestly, I am trying to figure out what you are going on about, and this is the closest thing I can come up with.
Click to expand...

You're making a false statement since the government isn't exercising constitutional power now. It has exceeded the limits and constraints of the Constitution. Voting does not mean that you consent. It just means that you're participating in the process blindly. When I stated consent you agreed to adhere to the political system. By not agreeing with the political system you are advocating change within the way the Constitution sets forth. There are many ways to effect change that you can consent to from the ballot box to the bullet box. Not that I advocate using the bullet box, since that is reserved for when a government has become so tyrannical that the only way to effect change is in that manner.
 
The_Patriot said:
You're making a false statement since the government isn't exercising constitutional power now.
Click to expand...

I am not trying to make a point, I am trying to understand what you are outraged about.

The_Patriot said:
It has exceeded the limits and constraints of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Yes, you do feel that way, that is not what I am confused about.

The_Patriot said:
Voting does not mean that you consent. It just means that you're participating in the process blindly.
Click to expand...

So, people do not research candidates before voting? Or do you mean blind in some other sense?

The_Patriot said:
By not agreeing with the political system you are advocating change within the way the Constitution sets forth. There are many ways to effect change that you can consent to from the ballot box to the bullet box. Not that I advocate using the bullet box, since that is reserved for when a government has become so tyrannical that the only way to effect change is in that manner.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know you are not happy with the current state of government. This is not what I was asking about.

Ok, none of that addressed my question. You said you did not give consent, but given that the consent to the constitution happend over 200 years ago, I am trying to figure out how you are supposed to give your consent since you were not alive at the time. Are you trying to say that no politician is supposed to do something unless you agree to it? If so, what about all the other citizens of the country? Surely all of them are never going to agree on the same things all the time.
 
Do you have trouble reading because I already stated what I didn't give consent to?

It means that I never consented to the expansion of powers beyond the ones delegated in the Constitution like federal welfare and education.
Click to expand...

Is that so hard to understand?
 
The_Patriot said:
Do you have trouble reading because I already stated what I didn't give consent to?

Is that so hard to understand?
Click to expand...

Maybe I am misreading or something, but I am just trying to understand how it is even possible to give consent when the constitution was ratified before we were born. This is the system we inherited, not the system we gave consent to.
 
megaprogman said:
Maybe I am misreading or something, but I am just trying to understand how it is even possible to give consent when the constitution was ratified before we were born. This is the system we inherited, not the system we gave consent to.
Click to expand...

As I said before are you having trouble reading because I answered your question.

When I stated consent you agreed to adhere to the political system. By not agreeing with the political system you are advocating change within the way the Constitution sets forth.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
The_Patriot said:
As I said before are you having trouble reading because I answered your question?
Click to expand...

OK, the political system is the constitution, at least the constitution is the skeleton of it. It is fleshed out by various laws, judicial precedent, etc, but its supposed to be based on the constitution. I think we can both agree to that principal.

I am not sure you mean by the term "the way the constitution sets forth"

Are you simply saying that you don't like some of what the government is doing and you think it is unconstitutional? Well, I think most people have that opinion. I have a bit problem with stuff like the patriot act, for example.
 
megaprogman said:
OK, the political system is the constitution, at least the constitution is the skeleton of it. It is fleshed out by various laws, judicial precedent, etc, but its supposed to be based on the constitution. I think we can both agree to that principal.

I am not sure you mean by the term "the way the constitution sets forth"

Are you simply saying that you don't like some of what the government is doing and you think it is unconstitutional? Well, I think most people have that opinion. I have a bit problem with stuff like the patriot act, for example.
Click to expand...

I already answered that question twice as a matter of fact.

It means that I never consented to the expansion of powers beyond the ones delegated in the Constitution like federal welfare and education.

It has exceeded the limits and constraints of the Constitution.
Click to expand...
 
The_Patriot said:
I already answered that question twice as a matter of fact.
Click to expand...

I think you are just using different language than I am used to. For me, consent has connotations of legitimacy while you are simply speaking of preference. I am pretty sure that welfare programs and the federal department of education have had constitutional challenges in court, so their legitimacy already has been affirmed. :shrug:
 
megaprogman said:
I think you are just using different language than I am used to. For me, consent has connotations of legitimacy while you are simply speaking of preference. I am pretty sure that welfare programs and the federal department of education have had constitutional challenges in court, so their legitimacy already has been affirmed. :shrug:
Click to expand...

I don't look to politicians nor bureaucrats nor judges since they have a consistent disregard of the limitations in the Constitution. Just because they say it is alright doesn't make it so, especially considering that the Constitution is written in plain english that anyone can understand.
 
The_Patriot said:
I don't look to politicians nor bureaucrats nor judges since they have a consistent disregard of the limitations in the Constitution. Just because they say it is alright doesn't make it so, especially considering that the Constitution is written in plain english that anyone can understand.
Click to expand...

Everyone is entitled to their own view of the constitution, so if that is yours, that is cool.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
I made a typo. I was not talking about social security and did not try to connect it to the 13th amendment typo.
Click to expand...

Really.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-co...rovide-general-welfare-19.html#post1058859104
Originally Posted by Goobieman
So you agree that the CD/GWC gives Congress the power to spend revenue to that effect, but not the power to create the legislation necessary to achieve that effect.
Good.
Click to expand...
The 13th amendment does that.
Click to expand...
Explain how my interpretation of my response is in error.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
I have no idea what you are talking about
Click to expand...
That should have read:
Explain how my interpretation of YOUR response is in error.

I just provided proof of you stating that the 13th amendment gave Congress the power to create SocSec.
 
The_Patriot said:
It means that I never consented to the expansion of powers beyond the ones delegated in the Constitution like federal welfare and education.
Click to expand...

That's OK. I gave consent.
 
Goobieman said:
That should have read:
Explain how my interpretation of YOUR response is in error.

I just provided proof of you stating that the 13th amendment gave Congress the power to create SocSec.
Click to expand...

Never mind -- I saw where you corrected yourself.
 
Taxation for unconstitutional government programs IS slavery.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom