Right you are. So, am I beholden to some master in because of it?
That sir is a personal opinion, not a fact. If you choose to believe what you do and I stick to my belief, there is no skin off either of our noses. In short, it’s not worth becoming adamant.
In other words … don’t become a slave to your opinion. 
Because it doesn’t fit the definition.
So your a slave to Kroger.
No. That’s the whole point. Paying a royalty for intellectual property or paying money for products in a store is fair exchange of your labor (as represented by money) for goods and/or property. You know, commerce. It is nothing at all like the tribute demanded by the government just for the privilege of living in their realm.
Sure it does. You are just too we’d to your opinion to accept it.
Nope. I go to Kroger’s (Safeway actually) because I’m too practical (they will sell me all the food I need for a lot less money than it would cost to provide myself … not to mention the value of time) to try to hunt, grow, or gather all the food I need to survive. If I am a slave to anything there, it is to my human physiology which demands organic calories to exist.
1 Like
So your an anarchist then.
Is it? What was the purpose of slavery?
I love that bumper sticker.
John,
Right or wrong, income tax has been ruled to be indirect tax. The 16th removed the requirement for apportionment on income as a response to Pollock.
Hush. You’re being rude.
And if I think IP is illegitimate?
It was to get stuff without paying a price, but that is also the purpose of theft. If that is a sufficient qualification for slavery, then shoplifting is a form of enslavement. I take it as a given that shoplifting is not slavery, so via reductio ad absurdum income taxation isn’t slavery either.
Not stuff Samson, labor. They didn’t buy slaves to collect them.
That’s Vice President Mike Pence saving the President from a rabid feminazi. 
lol in reality, it’s from a group of feminist protesters who tried confronting Putin in public. I think Putin liked what he saw though. Merkel? Not so much… 
Direct vs indirect taxation and slavery
Slavery also has to do with owning the property another has in their own labor. The very object of slavery is to forcefully acquire the property which the victim has in their own labor, which is then enjoyed by its recipient. So, let us explore the issue, as applied to taxation, according to truth and substance, without an intentional parsing of words intended to cloud and confuse the issue.
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 taxes do have the characteristics of slavery in that the property a person has in their own labor is taken by force, and when that property is re-distributed by government to another for their personal use and enjoyment, the basic elements of slavery have been met 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)
Exactly. Human beings were bought to forcefully acquire the property each had in their own labor, which is the very purpose of “slavery”.
JWK
“The property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands; and to hinder him from employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property.” ___ Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 (1884)
Which is not the case for taxation. Marxists call wage labor slavery or wage slaves, your definition is just as much a stretch.
He should have brought more electrodes.
