She wouldn’t be happy when she arrived, but she’d get there.
Nope. The horses would be dropped in their tracks.
Thump thump thump thump thump . . .
Tennessee is a carry state. 
Dragging her isn’t happening.
Meanwhile, she’s already crossing the panhandle. I’m guessing any photos she takes along the way are going to be blurry.
The horses wouldn’t make it 10 feet. But continue on with your silly fantasy if you wish.
You might get one of them, but then the team would be dragging your wife and one supremely angry horse.
We would get them both. Have a nice day.
Nah, this is a team of horses. You wouldn’t want to shoot two of them. They’d only bookend your unfortunate wife all the way to Fresno.
You apparently confuse opinion as being “truth”. Aside from that the question under examination is, can the force of taxation be used in a manner which creates the elements of slavery?
There are two essential ways to tax. One is by indirect taxation which are costs added by government to things which individuals are free to acquired or reject. Under this form of taxation, and generally speaking, individuals are not forced into surrendering the property each has in their own labor to pay such taxes, and slavery is thus not an issue. A reasonable exception could be taxing the essentials of life.
The second form of taxation includes those which are direct and they can be assessed to the individual by government. Under this form of taxation force is one of its characteristics and the product of a person’s labor can be taken by force.
Our founders understood the distinction between direct and indirect taxes, and that is one of the reasons they demanded in our Constitution that No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
One of the benefits of requiring direct taxes to be apportioned is, if such a tax is levied directly upon the people, it turns out to be an equal per capita tax and the burden is distributed equally and to all!
As to indirect taxation, its benefits and protections against abuses by government, see Hamilton in Federalist No 21 regarding taxes on articles of consumption:
“There is no method of steering clear of this inconvenience, but by authorizing the national government to raise its own revenues in its own way. Imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles of consumption, may be compared to a fluid, which will, in time, find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions. If inequalities should arise in some States from duties on particular objects, these will, in all probability, be counter balanced by proportional inequalities in other States, from the duties on other objects. In the course of time and things, an equilibrium, as far as it is attainable in so complicated a subject, will be established everywhere. Or, if inequalities should still exist, they would neither be so great in their degree, so uniform in their operation, nor so odious in their appearance, as those which would necessarily spring from quotas, upon any scale that can possibly be devised.
It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four.’’ If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.”
The bottom line is, direct taxation can be used to impose a form slavery in that the property a person has in their own labor is taken by force, and then re-distributed by government to another for their personal use and enjoyment, which meets the basic elements of slavery and the taxpayer has become a “slave and bondsman to Government”, as noted by one of our forefathers:
*"Under a just and equal Government, every individual is entitled to protection in the enjoyment of the whole product of his labor, except such portion of it as is necessary to enable Government to protect the rest; this is given only in consideration of the protection offered. In every bounty, exclusive right, or monopoly, Government violates the stipulation on her part; for, by such a regulation, the product of one man’s labor is transferred to the use and enjoyment of another. The exercise of such a right on the part of Government can be justified on no other principle, than that the whole product of the labor or every individual is the real property of Government, and may be distributed among the several parts of the community by government discretion; such a supposition would directly involve the idea, that every individual in the community is merely a slave and bondsman to Government, who, although he may labor, is not to expect protection in the product of his labor. An authority given to any Government to exercise such a principle, would lead to a complete system of tyranny." ___ See Representative Giles, speaking before Congress February 3rd, 1792
JWK
"If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property." POLLOCK v. FARMERS’ LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)
Johnwk, you are arguing fiction in the face of facts.
And?
JWK
And that’s it, John.
I don’t know how sane people adopt insane ideas and defend them for decades in the face of fact, superior counterargument, and reality.
If they just admitted they were wrong, they’d be surprised to see how good they feel.
California has $450B in unfunded pension liabilities.
1 Like
What does all that have to do with California expanding tax-slavery among its citizens to pay for the health care needs of illegal entrants residing in California? EH?
JWK
And California’s Total State and Local Debt is about $1.5 Trillion
JWK
1 Like
The question was, what do the quotes you posted from the U.S. Constitution have to do with California expanding tax-slavery among its citizens to pay for the health care needs of illegal entrants residing in California? EH?
JWK
