28
Oct
09

I Can Prove That You Are a Slave in America

When someone mentions “slavery” we immediately think of black people being forced to work for free. If they do not work for us for free then we beat them with fists, whips, or threaten death. Sure the 13th Amendment was ratified in 1865, but I contend that slavery still continues today and with even greater fervency than it did in the past.

The 13th Amendment reads:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Definitions:
Slavery:

Peonage:
18 USC 1581: (a) Whoever holds or returns any person to a condition of peonage, or arrests any person with the intent of placing him in or returning him to a condition of peonage, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If death results from the violation of this section, or if the violation includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or the attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, the defendant shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both. (link)
Forced Labor:
18 USC 1589: Whoever knowingly provides or obtains the labor or services of a person— (1) by threats of serious harm to, or physical restraint against, that person or another person; (2) by means of any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause the person to believe that, if the person did not perform such labor or services, that person or another person would suffer serious harm or physical restraint; or (3) by means of the abuse or threatened abuse of law or the legal process, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If death results from the violation of this section, or if the violation includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or the attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, the defendant shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both. (link)

Involuntary Servitude:

18 USC 1584: Whoever knowingly and willfully holds to involuntary servitude or sells into any condition of involuntary servitude, any other person for any term, or brings within the United States any person so held, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If death results from the violation of this section, or if the violation includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or the attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, the defendant shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both. (link)

So what the 13th Amendment outlaws is you forcing people to work for free for repayment of a debt. You cannot hold someone captive by phyiscal force, threats of physical force, or legal coercion to be bound into compulsory service against ones will. In Bailey v. Alabama 219 U.S. 219 (1911) it was decided by the Supreme Court that one could not be forced to refund money (link).

Later on in 1988 in the Supreme Court case of United States v. Kozminski it was decided that you could not place someone in [psychological] fear of involuntarily servitude. The Court held that, “[a] holding in involuntary servitude occurs when an individual coerces another into his service by improper or wrongful conduct that is intended to cause, and does cause, the other person to believe that he or she has no alternative but to perform labor.”

With this said, what does that make of the taxation scheme of America?

We are told that we must pay taxes. The good old saying of “Two things in life are certain, death and taxes” is familiar to many Americans. But, why are taxes so certain? If the 13th Amendment does not allow us to be forced into physical labor and the courts have ruled that you also cannot be forced to believe that you have no option of working against your will, then why is it that you are working against your will?

If you don’t think that you are enslaved, then try to tell the IRS or the government that you are not going to pay taxes anymore. They are going to threaten you with penalties, fees, court, levying on your paycheck, coming and taking your property, and lastly… putting you in prison. Back in the “slave days” if a salve said they were not going to work for free, they were beat. Today, if you say that you are not going to work for free, the IRS threatens and sends the dogs after you. Same thing but different methods of accomplishing the same thing – salvery.

In United States v. Warren, 772 F.2d 827, 833-834 (CA11 1985) the court specifically said, “Various forms of coercion may constitute a holding in involuntary servitude. The use, or threatened use, of physical force to create a climate of fear is the most grotesque example of such coercion.” (link)

Ask any American, do you fear the IRS and they will probably say “yes” or they will say “no, because I do everything they say.” I plea now to you, how is this not a “climate of fear”? Either you pay the government out of fear or you do whatever they say out of fear (i.e. highway robbery).

It is important to note at this point that I am not against taxation itself. But, I am against forced taxation. If you tell me that I must pay taxes on every dollar I earn, then how is that not slavery? Would it be any different if the government told you that you can keep 100% of whatever you make at Job A and then you have to come to Job B (government factory or something) and work for free? I contend, no. Just because the government does not force you to work in a certain location, them demanding a percentage of your earnings is still them forcing you to work for free – is it not? If you do not understand what the difference is between forced taxation (direct) and voluntary taxation (indirect), I suggest you read up on each and decide what type of taxation the Federal/State Income Tax really is. (Crash course: Direct taxation is a tax that you cannot avoid and essentially says, you are a human so pay it. Indirect taxation is a tax that you can avoid, such as a tax on liquor which you can circumvent by distilling your own, buying from someplace that does not have tax [Indian Resevervation maybe?], or simply by not buying liquor.).

If you disagree with me, then I’d be happy to entertain your thoughts. I’ve yet to find anyone that can rebutt my case above. Even if you feel that paying taxes is your duty then that still does not answer my question of whether or not taxation as it is now is slavery or not. The issue is, does the government force you to give them a cut of your labor pay otherwise they threaten you?

Furthermore, if you agree with me then why are you continuing to be a slave – either by choice or by your silence. Is this what you want of your children, friends, and neighbors – to be enslaved in fear? Is it somehow OK for your government to enslave you instead of an individual? As I started out, slavery can no longer be considered just for black people – it is for everyone. You are living it now and have been for some time…

Advertisements

14 Responses to “I Can Prove That You Are a Slave in America”


  1. 1 Josh Steadman
    1 November 2009 at 20:57

    I’ll mostly just repost my original argument (with a few mods)that I sent via email (through N.M.):
    I contend that this argument is SEVERELY flawed for the following simple reason:
    Slavery is forced LABOR….no one forces you to work, or to shop, or to buy anything.

    To claim that taxation is a type of slavery is like saying that having to pay for gas should be against the law…no one forced you to buy the car or to drive, and gas is an understood cost of operating for (most) motor vehicles…but the cost of the gas is outrageous. That’s where they get us, it’s not the existence of tax that is unethical, it’s the amount and method. Neither of which constitute being called “slavery”.

    The homeless and unemployed in our country go along everyday and don’t pay a dime in taxes, no one expects them to.
    SO, if you want that type of lifestyle, stop working, and you won’t owe anymore taxes.

    For the argument of slavery to be accurate there would be droves of bureaucrats literally forcing us to work, collecting the profit and goods that said work yields, and then giving us what they think we are entitled to, or nothing at all. That’s what the mad liberal democrats want, but we aren’t there yet.
    Socialism…haven’t we fought in at least 2 wars over this exact idea…and now the bastards are in the White House?

    Theft, to paraphrase, is the forced turning over of monies or goods that one does not wish to submit, due to violence or fear.
    Income Tax= theft. No provision in the constitution allows for the taxation of INCOME, that is a horrible wrong that our parents and grandparents allowed to befall us. Nothing in the tax code or the constitution suggest that you have to work however, so it can not be called slavery. However, should you choose to work, you will in turn pay taxes.

    The closest things to slavery that we have in our country at this time (on large scale, in small, isolated groups who knows what could be going on) would be illegal immigrants working for pennies on the dollar, that and working “voluntarily” for Acorn.

    To carry your argument you’ll need to prove instances where;
    A: The government has deported or banished citizens for refusing to work.
    B: The government has forced people into service in areas which they did not choose and refused to pay them for said service.
    While I agree with you on how wrong the ethics and practices of the current taxation are, I disagree with your symantics. The verbage is wrong, I’d be aiming more for “I can prove that you are VICTIM in America”. And then pursue the argument of being robbed, long before being a slave.
    To continue the “Slave” argument I suggest pursuing examples behind the act of Drafting soldiers (no longer happens) and questionable practices regarding Green Card immigrants or illegal immigrants. Any of which could be related to forced labor of a sort, none of which involve taxes. Perhaps if you could link the two…..

  2. 1 November 2009 at 22:04

    @ Josh Steadman: Hi and welcome to my blog.

    I will try to be brief in my understanding of your beliefs.

    (1) I do have the option to pay taxes – If I want to escape taxes, I can be homeless or unemployed.
    (2) For slavery to be true, there has to be a bureaucrat physically forcing us into work.
    (3) The Constitution does not set up any sort of taxation scheme, especially not on “Income.”
    (4) There is no law that forces us to work.
    (5) Illegal Immigrants voluntarily chosing to work for “pennies on the dollar” is slavery or close to slavery.
    (6) Voluntarily working for ACORN is slavery or close to slavery.
    (7) to prove that I am enslaved I need to show the following
    (7A) That the government is deporting and/or banishing citizens for not working.
    (7B) The government forces people to work jobs they do not want and did not pay them.

    Please confirm or deny each point so I can fully rebutt your positions. Thanks.

  3. 3 Josh Steadman
    1 November 2009 at 23:13

    “(1) I do have the option to pay taxes – If I want to escape taxes, I can be homeless or unemployed.”
    – correct. That is your choice, no one forces you to work. There are other means of escaping taxation as well, though that is hardly relevant to this conversation. The fact remains that your argument requires an atmosphere of fear or intimidation making it mandatory (socially or physically) to work. That is only “necessary” so far as our own desires to live a higher quality of life than that afforded to us by not collecting an income.

    (2) For slavery to be true, there has to be a bureaucrat physically forcing us into work.
    – correct, though partial. “Bureaucrat” here would mean any agent of the government, and slavery would be, as you’ve defined, “involuntary servitude”.

    (3) The Constitution does not set up any sort of taxation scheme, especially not on “Income.”
    – incorrect. While the constitution does include means of taxation, it says nothing of taxing income (I personally don’t believe that our founders would have ever thought of such a load of crap)without import, export, or sales being involved. We are essentially being taxed to work even if we don’t want to pay it…herein lies your argument…but we are not forced to do the work in the first place.

    (4) There is no law that forces us to work.
    – correct. I’ve seen no law which forces employment or service, nor have I ever heard of such a thing.

    (5) Illegal Immigrants voluntarily choosing to work for “pennies on the dollar” is slavery or close to slavery.
    – correct. It is our corporations taking advantage of their lack of education, options, and chances to succeed. While I by no means intend to project them as victims (I say send them all home unless they intend to become citizens) their treatment is one of the closest things to slavery you will find. (18 USC 1589: Whoever knowingly provides or obtains the labor or services of a person— (2) by means of any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause the person to believe that, if the person did not perform such labor or services, that person or another person would suffer serious harm or physical restraint;) Near slavery, but not tax related.

    (6) Voluntarily working for ACORN is slavery or close to slavery.
    – correct, though out of context. The comment was meant more generally. My opinion is that these people volunteer to work for Acorn, or organizations like it, an organization whose agenda and greater purpose they are unaware of. So, one could argue that they are forced to do things they do not understand under false pretenses, an argument close to supporting that of your assertion that slavery is defined as (18 USC 1589: Whoever knowingly provides or obtains the labor or services of a person— (2) by means of any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause the person to believe that, if the person did not perform such labor or services, that person or another person would suffer serious harm or physical restraint;) while I have not been involved with this group, or any like it, it is my understanding that threats and intimidation are part of their regular operations. Again, near slavery, but not tax related.

    (7) to prove that I am enslaved I need to show the following
    (7A) That the government is deporting and/or banishing citizens for not working.
    (7B) The government forces people to work jobs they do not want and did not pay them.
    – correct, these criteria, among others, may prove your case. To clarify, 7B would imply that the government has in some way forced it’s citizens to labor at a task they did not choose, can not quit, and are not paid for. : outside the bounds of forced labor within the prison system as outlined by your original argument. While any of these acts would be deplorable and illegal, it would require all 3 of them to constitute true slavery.

    I look forward to hearing your take on these items.
    Too often the intellectuals among us go wasted and do not tackle the larger, more necessary questions of our existence. Our country needs more big questions, and less blind acceptance.
    I just hope it doesn’t end in blood shed like the last time we were treated like this, even though it was the greatest time in history…(circa late 1700’s)

  4. 2 November 2009 at 05:16

    @Josh Steadman:

    “(1) I do have the option to pay taxes – If I want to escape taxes, I can be homeless or unemployed.”
    – correct. That is your choice, no one forces you to work. There are other means of escaping taxation as well, though that is hardly relevant to this conversation. The fact remains that your argument requires an atmosphere of fear or intimidation making it mandatory (socially or physically) to work. That is only “necessary” so far as our own desires to live a higher quality of life than that afforded to us by not collecting an income.

    I’ll give you that nobody is cracking a whip at you to go work. However, I find your position wrong and against the Founding Fathers. You are telling me that we have three options here (1) be free by being homeless/unemployed (2) be enslaved by making a decent life or (3) avoid taxation by illegal means. Interesting. So essentially we are chosing between being placed into poverty or enslavement or criminality. Nice.

    What do you think the Founding Fathers mean by “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” when they wrote the Declaration of Independence?

    (2) For slavery to be true, there has to be a bureaucrat physically forcing us into work.
    – correct, though partial. “Bureaucrat” here would mean any agent of the government, and slavery would be, as you’ve defined, “involuntary servitude”.

    I didn’t know there was a difference between a “bureaucrat” and a “bureaucreat who is an agent of the government” but OK. I also didn’t know there was a difference between “slavery” and “involuntary servitude” as I discussed in the original that the definitions are interlinked per the USC.

    (3) The Constitution does not set up any sort of taxation scheme, especially not on “Income.”
    – incorrect. While the constitution does include means of taxation, it says nothing of taxing income (I personally don’t believe that our founders would have ever thought of such a load of crap)without import, export, or sales being involved. We are essentially being taxed to work even if we don’t want to pay it…herein lies your argument…but we are not forced to do the work in the first place.

    The Constitution says in A1S8, “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”

    In this section it says they can (1) lay/collect taxes, (2) lay/collect duties, (3) lay/collect imposts, and lay/collect imposts. Where are you getting they they only wanted to finance this country with import/export/sales? Are you negating the first item in the sentence?

    A1S9 states, “No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”

    In this section it is talking about laying taxes on people, hence the words “capitation” and “census.” Nowhere it is mentioned about import/export/sales. Of course, this is the Limits Section, but I still contend that if it is limiting here, that it is protecting people from being overtaxed. What about people can be taxed besides money they make?

    (4) There is no law that forces us to work.
    – correct. I’ve seen no law which forces employment or service, nor have I ever heard of such a thing.

    I agree there is no law that makes someone work. However…

    If you contend with #1 that you can escape taxation you can be homeless/unemployed, how long do you think that will last? Is this scheme sustainable and/or even logical? I don’t think it is.

    Let’s say that everyone wants to be free and escape income taxes. Your contention is that we all quit working and become vagrants/unemployed. I argue that we cannot all be unemployed because for people to be unemployed there has to be people employed (filling out those unemployment checks). After a short while, even the homeless would cease to exist because everyone is just sitting around doing nothing.

    I guess this is the pit of my problem with your arguement – I am arguing for EVERYONE to be free. You are arguing for an option for me to escape being enslaved/robbed. For everyone to avoid taxes, then there has to be someone that IS enslaved.

    And lastly, the 26 USC + Court cases does say that if you perform services, you are liable.

    (5) Illegal Immigrants voluntarily choosing to work for “pennies on the dollar” is slavery or close to slavery.
    – correct. It is our corporations taking advantage of their lack of education, options, and chances to succeed. While I by no means intend to project them as victims (I say send them all home unless they intend to become citizens) their treatment is one of the closest things to slavery you will find. (18 USC 1589: Whoever knowingly provides or obtains the labor or services of a person— (2) by means of any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause the person to believe that, if the person did not perform such labor or services, that person or another person would suffer serious harm or physical restraint;) Near slavery, but not tax related.

    OK, no. Taking advantage of someone due to their lack of education/options/chances is not slavery. These people are CHOSING to work for that amount, not being forced to. Even you said so yourself, where is the FORCED LABOR when I ask Juan to cut my grass for $5 and he accepts?

    You are talking absolute nonsense here. If they VOLUNTARILY accept a job for a low amount, then how in the world can you say it is slavery or even close to slavery? Low pay does NOT equal slavery. Under your logic, back in the slave-days if we paid slaves $0.01 a year they would NOT be slaves anymore, but “almost slaves.” Please.

    (6) Voluntarily working for ACORN is slavery or close to slavery.
    – correct, though out of context. The comment was meant more generally. My opinion is that these people volunteer to work for Acorn, or organizations like it, an organization whose agenda and greater purpose they are unaware of. So, one could argue that they are forced to do things they do not understand under false pretenses, an argument close to supporting that of your assertion that slavery is defined as (18 USC 1589: Whoever knowingly provides or obtains the labor or services of a person— (2) by means of any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause the person to believe that, if the person did not perform such labor or services, that person or another person would suffer serious harm or physical restraint;) while I have not been involved with this group, or any like it, it is my understanding that threats and intimidation are part of their regular operations. Again, near slavery, but not tax related.

    I think you are off your rocker Josh. If someone VOLUNTARILY donates their time to anything, then that is their CHOICE and therefore CANNOT be SLAVERY. Period.

    Do these volunteers not have the option to walk out or something? Are they being forced to stay?

    (7) to prove that I am enslaved I need to show the following
    (7A) That the government is deporting and/or banishing citizens for not working.
    (7B) The government forces people to work jobs they do not want and did not pay them.
    – correct, these criteria, among others, may prove your case. To clarify, 7B would imply that the government has in some way forced it’s citizens to labor at a task they did not choose, can not quit, and are not paid for. : outside the bounds of forced labor within the prison system as outlined by your original argument. While any of these acts would be deplorable and illegal, it would require all 3 of them to constitute true slavery.

    I think your definition of what slavery is and is not is completely archaic. You think that if nobody is standing over my shoulder with a whip telling me to WORK and not paying me, that it is not slavery.

    It is my contention that every person has the unalienable right to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” If nobody labors then there is no life, liberty, or happiness because there is no way to progress. Hell, there isn’t even life because there would be no food. Ergo, for society to exist, someone has to labor. And if they labor and the government taxes them just on the basis that they labored, then that person is enslaved. Very difficult to explain here but I really wish I could show you your society where everyone is homeless/unemployed and show you how ridiculous it would be. Even laws would be dissolved because there would be nobody to enforce them.

    We are not just directed by written laws in the USCs and CFRs. We are also bound by court decisions. There are many Supreme Court decisions that explicitly state that you have a RIGHT to your labor. I believe we all have a right to do what we wish with that labor. I don’t think that we have to put ourselves down to the bare minimum just to be “free.” I can find the one court case on this issue if you want… but it might take me a while.

    I look forward to hearing your take on these items.
    Too often the intellectuals among us go wasted and do not tackle the larger, more necessary questions of our existence. Our country needs more big questions, and less blind acceptance.
    I just hope it doesn’t end in blood shed like the last time we were treated like this, even though it was the greatest time in history…(circa late 1700’s)

    Have you ever read Alexander Tytler’s quote? I find it scary (link).

    I hope we don’t get to that point either. But with the amount of people on the Oblivious Train to tyranny, those of us that are not on that train are going to have to fight for it I am afraid. 1787 part-deux.

  5. 5 Josh Steadman
    2 November 2009 at 10:37

    Ok, let’s start over here, I think you’ve taken a few unwieldy tangents in an effort to make this a full on argument, and I’m not going to bother reasserting myself from the start. You’ve put a lot of thought into arguing the many points above, so I’ll respond.

    1-No one is infringing upon your rights to pursue the lifestyle of your choosing. However they are leaching off of it…again, suggesting theft more so than slavery.

    2-You’ve taken the term bureaucrat out of context. My assertion is that there is no distinction, and that ANYONE (person or group of persons) from the government forcing you to work would be slavery. You’ve shown no examples of this.

    3-My assertion was, and is, that they lay provisions for taxation, but not to income. That came later and is against the original wording of the constitution. My comment was no exclusive, you’ve either intentionally misread my comments, or need to try again.

    4- Inarguably the act of simply not working would lead to an overall miserable lifestyle and the eventual collapse of society as we know it…still…it’s our choice, therefor, not slavery. If everyone stops working then this may eventually be a lead into slavery when the government intervenes and forces us to work. However, in the common definition of slavery we aren’t there yet.

    5-I suggest that the fear of being deported should these individuals not perform the task they were brought in to do, would fall solidly under ” by means of any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause the person to believe that, if the person did not perform such labor or services, that person or another person would suffer serious harm or physical restraint”.
    However, since those in question are not citizens, we’ll just let that one go.

    6-You’ve hardly made an intelligent argument against this one. As stated above they are working under terms of a “scheme”. While I did not suggest that they were in fact slaves, I offered that their voluntary labor was being misrepresented and that the intimidation tactics used in their work are tantamount to what one might argue as an abuse of power, leading to a form of slavery. That one was to aid your argument, and you didn’t run with it. I don’t think they are slaves so much as idiots, but much closer to slaves than you or I, despite the ridiculous taxes we pay.

    7-For the purpose of an intellectual argument you can’t simply redefine a word and then work around it.
    Slavery, as defined by Merriam-Webster.com:

    1 : drudgery, toil
    2 : submission to a dominating influence
    3 a : the state of a person who is a chattel of another
    b : the practice of slaveholding”

    I find that your loose interpretation of “slavery” is the downfall of your entire argument.
    Again, I suggest you’d have much better luck asserting that we are being robbed, or perhaps, if you could define slavery in a concise way, like Webster, that the average person would accept.

    For the most part, I agree with you. Income tax is wrong. Taxes in general are not wrong, though as I stated earlier should be connected to the purchase, sale or ownership of something, this is supported as you’ve quoted from the Constitution. That was the original intent, to allow taxes to be collected based on what one has, where one lives, and what one buys. Not on what one makes or earns, that was clearly spoken against.

    The only real disagreement we have is the definition of slavery. I think we are being outright ROBBED of our money and rights concerning ability to make money.
    I have seen nothing in your arguments to make me see this as slavery and not robbery, since you yourself say that we don’t HAVE to work.
    The assumed circumstances for society or ones lifestyle are not acceptable arguments, since no one is forcing you to make either choice.

    I am in fact familiar with Alexander Tytler’s quote. One of the best modern references to this was on Glenn Beck, whom if you don’t watch I recommend.

    Sadly, I agree about the path we are on. The current administration is spewing rhetoric shockingly similar to that of the young National Socialist party, and the weak failing opposition is sounding more and more like the hobbled rantings of the Weimar Republic. We are rapidly printing money and spending it even faster in an ill advised effort to uphold what a minority of the ill informed feel entitled to, while what we really deserve and have is slipping away.

    Without action we are hopelessly and utterly screwed.

  6. 10 November 2009 at 01:54

    @Josh Steadman: FIRST, sorry for the very long response time. I have been very busy and on top of that sick… I started writing my response back on the 3rd and just now am getting time to continue…

    In this light I somewhat agree with you. I think we are being robbed, but I also think we are enslaved. I think that you are talking about complete enslavement while I am talking about partial enslavement. It is my contention that if you are enslaved to any degree, you are still enslaved. I also believe that theft is an indirect form of enslavement and that enslavement is a direct form of theft. Maybe this is the disconnect with the slavery/robbery thing between us.

    As I stated in #4, I believe very strongly in a few ideas. First, the Declaration of Independence says, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” From this snippet I base a lot of my slavery arguement. In life we have a set amount of time we can “spend” doing various things. We can spend our time without reimbursement (because we like it or want to do it) – watching TV, hanging out with friends/family, buidling something in the back yard, etc. Or we can spend our time on someone else but in this case because we are not directly benefiting from our time, we are to be reimbursed for our time – working. If you have the right to life and in this case, time, then you have the right to spend your time as you se fit. If you want to spend it sleeping in cardboard boxes and eating out of the dumpster, so be it. However, if you want to exchange your time for a various task, this is your right to do so and nobody can interfere with that right.

    I believe that the US Supreme Court also agrees with me on this when in 1883 in Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746, “Among these unalienable rights, as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant, the right any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give them their highest enjoyment…It has been well said that, the property which every man has is his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property so it is the most sacred and inviolable…”

    It seems to me that the government through the Supreme Court has derived that every person has something in which nobody can take away, their right to labor (in the decision above, “business or vocation.” It is not just a right, but an unalienable right according to our very own government. If it is an unalienable right (something we are born with, not something our government gives us by law) to labor for pay (in the decision above, “increase their prosperity or develop their faculties”) and someone says that if we labor, we must pay… that is slavery and theft of rights, money, and labor.

    You are right, I have shown that nobody is forcing anyone to work. there is no slave driver and I admit this. However, as I started out I believe we differ on what exactly slavery is. To me it is my right to labor for pay. If anyone taps into that pay without my consent, you are right, it is theft. It is my choice of whether you tap into it (an indirect tax) and that is the end of the story. However, if I believe that it is my right to work for pay as I’ve described and I exercise that right, and someone tells me that I need to pay them, then this is slavery. As I’ve said, I believe that slavery is theft of a right to work as I alluded to in the original paragraph. So yes, we are not forced to work and we do not HAVE to work… but as I showed above in my original post, slavery doesn’t even have to be forced labor… it can be implied. If someone even makes you think that you have to work or give up your labor pay then that is slavery. The courts have ruled on it. What do all American’s believe, “If I work, then I MUST pay taxes to the government because that is my debt to the government. If I do not pay the taxes, then I will be punished.” This is fear and coercion straight up.

    As for the word “income” I find it to have no bearing and no change on the Constitution. I am guessing that you are referring to the addition of the 16th Amendment which specifically lists “income.” Again, I quote the Supreme Court when it says in 1916 in Brushaber vs. Union Pacific Railroad, 240 U.S. 1, “the proposition and the contentions under [the 16th Amendment]…would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy
    another; That is, they would result in bringing the provisions of the Amendment exempting a direct tax from apportionment into irreconcilable conflict with the general requirement that all direct taxes be apportioned;

    This result, instead of simplifying the situation and making clear the limitations of the taxing power, which obviously the Amendment must have intended to accomplish, would create radical and destructive changes in our constitutional system and multiply confusion.”

    And slightly later in 1916 in 1916: Stanton v. Baltic Mining, 240 U.S. 103, “…by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived, that is by testing the tax not by what it was — a tax on income, but by a mistaken theory deduced from the origin or source of the income taxed.” (emphasis mine)

    And also later in 1918 with Peck v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165, “The Sixteenth Amendment, although referred to in argument, has no real bearing and may be put out of view. As pointed out in recent decisions, it does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects, but merely removes all occasion, which otherwise might exist, for an apportionment among the states of taxes [247 U.S. 165, 173] laid on income, whether it be derived from one source or another.”

    So as you can see, the word “income” in the 16th Amendment really does have no bearing on what is and what is not taxable. If you were not taxable before the 16th then you were not taxable after the 16th. What people do not realize is that “income” is not “everything that comes in” as traditionally defined. It cannot be defined as such because that means that the Constitution and the 16th give the right to the government to either enslave or thieve or both. Income, as most do not understand, still relies on the rule of indirect taxes. Indirect taxes means that you must be able to circumvent it (while still maintaining your right to labor for pay) so it ends up that the government is actually taxing very specific types of income. It is my belief that the word everyone pays attention to is the word “income” when in reality we should be paying more attention to the word “derived.” It matters more of how the money was DERRIVED, not just that it was money coming in.

    I still vehemently disagree about the illegal aliens being enslaved. They are not misrepresented or intimidated except by their own choice. They come here voluntarily to live and work. They know they are illegal so they have to work in the shadows. They may get treated bad but it is still their voluntary decision to come here… and then work. As I stated before, they are less enslaved and stolen less from because most of the time they do not have to deal with someone forcing them to work or someone focing them to pay taxes because they do it all under the table.

    I don’t think I am just redefining “slavery” at all. I have already shown court cases, the law, the Declaration, and the Constitution. I’ve also shown how words in law do not hold their common definitions so that is why Merriam des not hold up to my arguements.

    Awesome, +1 for you on the Tytler quote. I do not watch Glenn Beck except what I can watch on Youtube. I do listen to him on the radio when I can, though. I am a fan of Glenn Beck though, no doubt.

    In either case, slavery or robbery or both, it is wrong. So what are you going to do about it? I’m doing something about it.

  7. 7 elle
    13 November 2009 at 08:45

    “Ask any American, do you fear the IRS and they will probably say “yes” or they will say “no, because I do everything they say.”

    This is true of almost any American, with the seeming exception of those who are in Congress (e.g. Charlie Wrangle) or “working” in or for the White House.

    Just sayin’.

  8. 20 November 2009 at 06:24

    Here is a quote that I found to be relevant…

    “Fear is the mark of a slave” – Diogenes of Sinope.

  9. 20 November 2009 at 06:31

    “Money is a new form of slavery, and distinguishable from the old simply by the fact that it is impersonal – that there is no human relation between master and slave” – Leo Nikolaevich Tolstoy

  10. 10 Goosef
    1 December 2009 at 10:49

    Proof that we are slaves in America:

    You must allow the federal gov’t to withhold a certain percentage of your pay for income tax, social security and medicare, then the state gets some. What happens if you do not file your taxes at the end of the year to make sure the gov’t got what they want? You go to jail. Pay taxes to the gov’t under threat of punishment, that pretty much sums up slavery to me!

    BTW even if you are homeless or unemployed you still pay taxes to the gov’t everytime you make a purchase, and federal income tax withholding from paychecks is a new thing in America’s life having started during WWII as a “temporary” way to support the war effort.

    All politicians lie, they do it in order to gain power and continue their reign, the only way we can stop this madness is to vote the bums out all 535 of them, elect new ones with fresh ideas and see to it that they enact term limit legislation so that we no longer have career politicians and political dynasties in America!

  11. 11 Mister Guy
    2 December 2009 at 22:04

    One does not need to have federal income tax withheld from their paychecks. All that’s required is a simple change to your W-2. You will have to pay all of your federal income taxes when you file your taxes the year after though. FICA taxes must be withheld from an employee’s wages.

  12. 4 December 2009 at 08:58

    Miste Guy: Orly?

    HOW?

    I cannot place a checkmark in the “exempt” because I don’t meet the requirements they put forth.

    I also cannot claim more exemptions than I am entitled to.

    So, how exactly can I NOT have taxes withheld? And if you reply, please quote any relevant law, court cases, etc. (I know you won’t, you never do). Thanks.

  13. 13 Al
    7 February 2011 at 22:49

    Josh: “No provision in the constitution allows for the taxation of INCOME …”
    Not true. The Constitution on its face empowers the congress to levy EXCISE taxes. On income or any thing. The restriction is that such taxes must be apportioned according to the populations of the respective states.
    Essentially this does not really make incomes as such taxable. The states can raise the needed revenue as they choose. How they get the money is not the concern of the federal government as long as they do not violate the constitution or federal laws made pursuant thereto.

    Income within the meaning of the law is not everything that comes in.

    “‘I said there was a society of men among us, bred up from their youth in the art of proving by words multiplied for the purpose, that white is black, and black is white, according as they are paid. To this society all the rest of the people are slaves.’
    “Mr. Lemuel Gulliver, explaining to the Houyhnhnms the concept of lawyers, from Gulliver’s Travels, by Jonathan Swift, 1735”

    When you trade a portion of the remainder of your life for something, it is an even swap. No profit, no gain. By “profit” and “gain” are meant “net profit” and “net gain” but “net” is unnecessary as “profit” and “gain” already mean what you have left after the cost of getting it. As “income” as used in the law means not “gross receipts” but the remainder after the cost of getting the gross receipts is deducted. If you, a natural human being, a person, do the getting, whatever is left after the cost of the thing is deducted is your compensation, wage. It is what you traded your labor for. It is what you traded a piece of your life for.

    Income cannot be “the sum total of everything that comes in” as that would include the air you inhale. How much is that worth? Just let me deprive you of the air you are about to inhale and we’ll see how much you’d be willing to pay for it if you couldn’t get me to let go any other way. That’s its value.

    Unfortunately, the revenue bureau does not see things that way. Labor is presumed to cost you nothing, as your life was given to you by your parents, by God, whatever.

    Corporations, on the other hand, do not labor. they are mere mental constructs described on paper. They do not have finite life. a corporation, unless dissolved by a positive act of some person, has the potential to exist forever. There are corporations over 600 years old still in business.

    Now, almost everyone who has given it a thought wants to avoid taxes as much as is practical. Few like paying taxes, though most who have given it a thought realize that the government has to get funds to run on from somewhere. Lowering one’s tax liability legally is called “tax avoidance” while doing it illegally is called “tax evasion.” Both words have the same general meaning (synonyms) but in relation to taxes one is used to designate legality and the other, illegality.
    Judge Learned Hand, dissent in Gregory v. Helvering 69 F.2d 809, 810 (2d Cir. 1934):
    “Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one’s taxes. Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands.”
    The flip side is that every individual owes a legal duty to pay the amount the law demands of each individual respectively.
    Therein lies a severe difficulty for all but those who have the very simplest financial matters.
    Most taxes are set by statute. Sales taxes, excise taxes of most things subject to them, customs duties, property taxes, you name it. But some taxes, notably income taxes, require each individual to determine what (s)he owes, if anything, at his/her own expense, and to be perfectly accurate as far as paying enough. But no two revenue agents, no two tax preparers, not two tax attorneys ever come up with the same tax due on exactly identical information! This is why it is so onerous. Everyone who comes up with less tax owed than the revenue agent who checks the report (return or answer) is a criminal.
    Now, IRS is more interested in collecting revenue than in jailing good taxpayers who misjudged details, so all that usually happens is that the taxpayer has to pay the difference plus interest and a penalty. But each revenue district needs an example or two for scare purposes, so if no determined cheat can be found (and they often will put up a legal fight), why, some dumb goof will be used to make an example of. Well-known people are common targets.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Quotes:

"We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth... For my part, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst; and to provide for it." - Patrick Henry

"Politicians and diapers both need to be changed, and for the same reason." - Anonymous

"Right is right, even if everyone is against it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it." - William Penn

"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country" - Hermann Goering

"I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do this I keep on doing." - Romans 7:18-19

"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." - Mark Twain

Categories


%d bloggers like this: