muff528

I just saw him the other day and , I swear, he seemed OK then!

Article IV, Section 2 does not explicitly mention the return of slaves. This section deals with extradition and while it was likely written to gain support from slave States/owners, the last paragraph can also be interpreted to refer only to the return of escaped convicted prisoners (the previous paragraph referring to the return of a person charged with a crime). In that case "the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due" would be the State and not a person. I believe the word "Party" could have intentionally been chosen for ambiguity. The word "Owner" or something similiar could have easily been used. The XIII Amendment basically repeats the last paragraph of Art. IV, Sec.2 but clarifies the meaning in that it refers to escaped convicts, not slaves. I am just saying that taken together (Declaration and Constitution, along with other writings), the idea of ownership of some people by other people already contradicted the original principles. Also, the words "...under the laws thereof,..." is conspicuous. Can a State write a law that denies a person his inalienable rights as guaranteed by the Constitution? Who then gets to choose who is eligible for slavery and who is not? I think it was "known" that the idea of slavery would not stand up to a future challenge. And I don't think the founders would have left open the possibility that anyone could be subject to ownership by another. "Section 2. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime. No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due." Of course the last paragraph was "superceded" by the XIII Amendment. Edited to include: Look at the 1st sentence of Section 2. Seems a little unrelated to the following paragraphs in that section unless those paragraphs also refer to citizens and not property. No accident there either. Also see the references to personhood in both paragraphs.

Ah... In that case, yeah contempt would be understandable. My point was that if he tries to make this a strictly monetary argument, he'll end up concluding that progressive income taxes actually are the fairest way to pay for things considering the way many things the federal government spends money on are "distributed." I recommended that if someone has a problem with specific expenditures they should make their arguments there as opposed to making convoluted (and invalid) arguments against the federal income tax I think this is where I reach an impasse with dj. I don't think there is an argument about whether we should be taxed. Only how we are taxed and how we determine how much a particular individual should be taxed. Personally I don't think we needed an amendment to the Constitution to establish a tax system. We could have done it by law. And to butt heads with billvon, nor do I think we needed the 13th to abolish slavery. If we interpret the Constitution through the lens of other writings, i.e. The Declaration of Independence (We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, ....) then the abolition of slavery is already addressed and there was only the need to enforce it in the future when the time became right. Further, I think it is entirely possible that the question may have been intentionally (and stealthly) left for future interpretation. Unfortunately, it took a century and a terrible war to just begin to come to that realization. As dj pointed out earlier, the founders stumbled over the question of slavery and a compromise was reached. But the writers left an opening......

A typical Conservative attitude. ? ? Sorry. I assumed you were implying that the property owner has more to lose and thus has a lower net benefit than the person who pays zero. Well, one loses Freedom. The other loses Freedom + property. I don't see where that is either a conservative or a liberal concept. Just math. What if neither one loses their Freedom? The military preserves both of their Freedom. The one who paid 30K (presumably the property owner) feels that he's been under-compensated. If he's a liberal, he doesn't mind, but the conservative feels that the lazy bum who paid nothing is getting a free ride. If the guy who has the property is unwilling to support the military (or other essential services) then how can Freedom be preserved for either one? Well, his question was "Who really has more to lose if the military fails to defend the country?"

A typical Conservative attitude. ? ? Sorry. I assumed you were implying that the property owner has more to lose and thus has a lower net benefit than the person who pays zero. Well, one loses Freedom. The other loses Freedom + property. I don't see where that is either a conservative or a liberal concept. Just math.

I think you're just a troll. I do live under a bridge ,in a van, down by the river. Still I believe the 5th Ammendment argument against income tax to be valid. Problem is how can it be argued in a court where the judge is on the payroll of the plaintiff? Blue Skies, DJ Not supposed to be argued in court. It is supposed to be argued in the halls of Congress by our elected representatives.

I do!! I want to buy your property at auction. Why don't you just charge extra for the "fruits of your labor" to compensate for tax you will have to pay? It's the American way! .....not that there's anything wrong with that!

Absolutely!! We will just have to disagree on whether or not you are being "justly compensated" for your confiscated property. In reality, I will agree that you (we all) probably are sending some of your (our) taxes into the black hole of gov't waste and abuse but you do still have the ability (Freedom) to try to convince other citizens to see things your way and elect representatives who will do your bidding. If not, "throw the bums out" and elect new ones.... or give it a go yourself! Like I said in my first post...... it is an endless struggle! Unfortunately, as soon as you get what you want out of government, someone else will feel like he's getting shafted and the cycle repeats. But during all this we get a reasonably stable society and are free to piss and moan about our gov't and leaders without worrying about getting shipped off to some cold labor camp for re-education.

Democracy?? The Founding Fathers abhored the idea of "democracy". That was Roosevelts' idea. The United States of America was founded as a Constitutional Republic. Blue Skies, DJ Yep! ....for some people democracy = tyranny and oppression.

>Now here we are nearly a century after that law came into effect and we >allow the government to make us into slaves. Confiscating the fruits of our >labour by threat of violence or incarceration!! If this bothers you as much as it appears to, Kuwait does not have any income tax. One of the cool freedoms we have here is the freedom to leave. Or I could stand my ground on my property. I can't imagine Thomas Paine or Jefferson would have just moved to Kuwait. Blue Skies, DJ I think they would probably have reached a compromise with their political adversaries.... much like they did when hashing out the details of the Constitution.

Because we aspire to be a just and compassionate society. No! We as a society agree or disagree with governments philanthropy at the ballot box! Having said that, I believe a large percentage of the "rich" in this country really are personally compassionate and generous.

Although, that has happened in the past and is still happening now. Sometimes taxation is used as a powerful political tool and is applied under the guise of "for the common good". Sometimes the "common good" argument is so powerful that taxation and due process are bypassed altogether if enough public sentiment is mustered. Dangerous territory!

I'm talking about Freedom and Liberty my man. Those are the ideals the founding fathers hoped to aquire for all of us by escaping the yoke of the British Crown. Do you feel like you are a Free Man? Blue Skies, DJ Jeez. If any one is free on our planet earth, it's the Swiss. I know many of them. Never ever I heard any one palaver about *freedom* or *liberty* (my man?). They simply live it and are free. Vive la différence. Vive les Pommes Frites. hmmmm! ....... I wonder how free the Swiss (or Swedes, or Irish ..... or the US for that matter) would be today had the "Allies" failed.

I'll be darned! .... I do occasionally agree with you!

Now explain to me "just compensation". Would not just compensation require the return of a dollars' value for every dollar confiscated by the government? And how is "just compensation " achieved when one who pays no taxes is entitled to the exact same protection and services as one who pays $30,000.00? Blue Skies, DJ Because we aspire to be a just and compassionate society. Obviously there are extreme opinions on both ends of that issue. The nuts and bolts of taxation and by what devices and rules taxes are collected and distributed are (or should be) left in the realm of the legislative (representative) arm of our government. I do completely disagree with manipulation (amendment) of the Constitution for things like taxation which can be addressed by laws. Any disagreements with our reps can then be hashed out on each election day. There will never be parity for the majority of individuals but ideally there will be for the society as a whole. Also, what can't be quantified is how some disparity in the distribution of taxes can keep desperation from causing wholesale uprisings by the lower economic echelon.

Sold my Harley. That pretty much paid for training and most of the cost of a used rig and alti, suit, hat, etc. Also, I quit doing other fun stuff and dedicated all my free time to hanging out at the DZ.

Your wages or monies you have earned are "private property". Noodle all that out . You stated that the first ten (and I'm taking the Liberty to paraphrase) can't be cancelled by subsequent ammendments. So is the federal government via the income tax violating your Natural Right to Freedom? I'll be back in a couple of weeks to discuss this some more. In the mean time thanks for the discussion. Blues, DJ In a nutshell: Taxes, in general, are necessary and good when used to provide for the common defense and to pay for services and projects agreed upon by the representatives of the population. Of course, the just compensation would be the protection or services themselves. I would expect that different people would view different expenditures differently and may or may not agree with all spending. Taxes are bad when they are used for punishment or manipulation of any person or group of people or are used to gain political advantage or power...... or to pit one group of people against another. This will have a tendency to allow tyranny to take root unless it is recognized and denied by a vigilant and engaged population before it is too late to fix it at the ballot box.

RATS!!! ...... and all I find is "cute stuff" except once at a pawn shop I found a red Sodfarm container with R2's and inside was a round reserve (I think I either left it at the loft at Zhills or gave it to the kids) and a Strato-Star (sold it to a guy who was going to make a kite ). I still have the container, though. Oh, and an old PD 7-cell base canopy at another shop.

Sure! I can C&P like most anyone can: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Not sure what your point is or how this, explicitly, applies to the discussion. Point me in a direction.

Listen, I can't speak for the women but I am Black and I am a Free American. Blue Skies, DJ These posts are getting out of order and making my head hurt! What part of the 5th Amendment are you referring to? Also... The problem with the treatment of various people's in this country (most notably the black population) is not the fault of the Constitution. As always it is the fault of men who have not lived up to their own ideals. The interpretations and definitions (even those applied by the founders!) were the source of our "original sin". If the founding ideas of this country are applied equally to everyone, as was "untentionally intended", we really would be a nation of free people. (as defined by me

Funny, the very first thing to come to mind is to move to an isolated island and escape people altogether! My point?.... true Freedom and Liberty = isolation = prison! You state that Freedom and Liberty = isolation = prison. Are you isolated or incarcerated muff528? If not can I assume that you are an American who doesn't feel the Providence of Freedom? Now I'm serious. Do you, living in the United States of America, really believe that you aren't Free? Blue Skies, DJ You're beginning to get my point. Even with your libertarian definition of freedom no one gets to be entirely free! Not if you want to live in peaceful coexistence with other people. There will always be rules written that will not be embraced by everyone in a society. We are back to the endless struggle for Freedom and Liberty. We can do battle with ideas at the ballot box and accept the lawful results or we can do battle with hardware. To answer your question... I think we (collectively) are as free as any people has ever been or can hope to be, even if individually we are constrained from "doing things" by laws that we collectively agree upon.

How about if we use the Libertarian definition which basicly says you can do what ever you like as long as it doesn't interfere with the Rights of Another. As an American ,and considering that definition of Freedom, do you consider yourself a Free Man? Blue Skies, DJ Now we have to define "rights". I, and all other citizens of the US, have the right to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness".....in that order! along with the rights enumerated in the irrevocable "Bill of Rights". (All other amendments may be repealed except the 1st Ten. They are part and parcel of the Constitution as it was originally ratified and along with the Declaration of Independence form the foundation of the Union.) .... and that's it! My right to "Life" supercedes your right to "Liberty" (which supercedes someone else's right to the "Pursuit of Happiness".) I also think that "Liberty" in this context is not to be confused with "Freedom". For example, there is no inherent "right to privacy". We allow our citizens to enjoy their privacy as provided by law.

........... Interesting. So do you know of any way one can experience true Freedom and Liberty other than engaging in struggle and conflict ? Blue Skies, DJ Do you really want "true Freedom and Liberty"? Even two people stranded on a desert island will have to come to some understanding and make up some rules (laws) in order to coexist peacefully........either that or one kills the other! Funny, the very first thing to come to mind is to move to an isolated island and escape people altogether! During one of our fishing trips to Bimini several (many!) years ago we met a local fellow who showed us around some fishing spots in the area. He said he always dreamed of going to the Charlotte Harbor area of Florida to live. To him that was paradise! We told him that he already lived in paradise..... and then we realized that that island (that was a couple hundred feet wide by a couple of miles long) was his whole world! My point?.... true Freedom and Liberty = isolation = prison!

Which did you show up for Lamb Hands? No point . I'm just curious as to how many Americans believe themselves to be Free. Blue Skies, DJ You probably need to define "freedom" to be able to continue a dialogue that would make any sense. (Freedom is not anarchy, IMO).

Why do you think that is? Blues, dj Simple. My vision of Freedom and Liberty may infringe upon your vision..... and vicey-versey.