Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I thought the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence were intended to address the concept of men being born into involuntary servitude. Certain "inalienable" rights. "Life, liberty,..."
If one is born into a society and is subject to involuntary taxes at birth, he hardly seems free.
In order to be in "servitude" there must be a master. Who are you suggesting that is?
Taxes do not seem to me to qualify as "servitude". They are an obligation I have to the country I live in.
Quote:
The unborn children of today already owe trillions to the Fed. How does that work?
No, children of today don't owe anything to the Fed. The fed's role is money creation.
I don't "owe" anything to the fed, for example -- the Fed simply confiscates my purchasing power and redistributes it among the primary dealers (Goldman Sachs, et cetera).
As in not prohibited it was and now it is prohibited.
It was always immoral just as exercising powers not granted is as well.
But that flies in the face of your first post, where you cited Constitutional authority as the discerning factor.
"There is a vast difference between the amount of taxes taken from a person and those taken above that to use for that which is without Constitutional authority and exceeds the powers granted to the government", remember?
Quote:
My point is that there is nothing immoral in taxation to execute the duties given but there surely is in doing things beyond that in which there is no authority.
Upholding slavery was among the "duties given" to the Federal government for decades. It was 100% within the government's authority. Was it moral? I think not. Was it Constitutionally sound and within the government's legal authority? Without a doubt.
I'm not surprised that many of you lack the critical thinking skills to understand Dr. Williams point.
Liberals just do not get it and never will. As an example of this they came howling out of the woodwork and made post after post on this thread with personal attacks on Williams, long rants on why taxation is good and why confiscating other peoples money and property is a wonderful service that government provides, and finally, comments on the literal act of rape, which was never the focus of Dr. Williams remarks. As a Black intellectual and educator that rejects the socialist/entitlement mindset that the Democratic Party and leftists demand from African Americans, Williams has long been the target of much criticism from these groups. His calm, logical destruction of liberal theorys and ideology is just too much for the left to tolerate, thus the attacks.
Then why did this "intellectual," as you call him, phrase his argument around rape?
The concept of similes, metaphors, and analogies is not clear or is somewhat foreign? Williams earned a doctorate at UCLA and is currently Professor of Economics at George Mason University. He has written several books, hundreds of articles and is a syndicated columnist. Most surely he qualifies to be deemed an intellectual.
The concept of similes, metaphors, and analogies is not clear or is somewhat foreign? Williams earned a doctorate at UCLA and is currently Professor of Economics at George Mason University. He has written several books, hundreds of articles and is a syndicated columnist. Most surely he qualifies to be deemed an intellectual.
I'm sure his academic work is beyond reproach. But when he picked rape as a metaphor for taxation - or, it appears, for taxation used for purposes he doesn't like - he deliberately chose one of the most emotionally charged crimes there is, and he's not so stupid as to not know it.
In other words, he established the moral equivalence between the literal act of rape and taxation. Not the readers.
I'm sure his academic work is beyond reproach. But when he picked rape as a metaphor for taxation - or, it appears, for taxation used for purposes he doesn't like - he deliberately chose one of the most emotionally charged crimes there is, and he's not so stupid as to not know it.
In other words, he established the moral equivalence between the literal act of rape and taxation. Not the readers.
The only thing worse would be for someone to equate increasing the national debt to child rape.
Stupid comparison, and really a silly argument to suggest that the wealthy get nothing from the taxes that they pay.
Stupid comparison, and really a silly argument to suggest that the wealthy get nothing from the taxes that they pay.
Well, it does lead to some interesting places. If we go with the (admittedly tortured) logic that confiscation of part of one's resources equals rape, then freely giving up one's resources - in the form of time and effort - for compensation must be akin to prostitution. Making employers either johns or pimps, a comparison that I'm sure Dr. Williams or his followers wouldn't necessarily embrace.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Employment is prostitution.
