The African relationship with the transatlantic slave trade was not as innocent as you portray. European slave traders created and armed puppet states in order to get slaves, such as the Ashanti kingdom and the Dahomey kingdom. It was a 16th century version of the same corrupt warlords you see today in eastern Congo -- they sold slaves to the Europeans because it kept them rich and powerful -- and that's again a statement about the valuation of humans.
Zeth, I see you have no problem speaking on things you have absolutely no knowledge of, you are much to much the modern philosopher for me.
Perhaps it will be easier if it is explained that each and every body acquistion system of a living organism functions to maintain and promote the life of that organism, when the products of that system is taken by another organism, that is slavery. This is the sense used in the Judeo-Christian scripture, and the sense used by Plato. It is also the techinical sense used in science. Fact is, it is not a "sense" at all but used by definition.
You must excuse me, I have no idea of what "traditional sense" means. Words either are, or are not used in accordance with definition.
Example, when you work to buy a house and furnish it, and then the state comes and says it can take anything and everything you own, as in my case, and give it to whomever they damn well please, then slavery takes place. If you have no idea what slavery is, you cannot very well speak and judge about it. I suppose I could have walked away from my family and had them fend for themselves, invalidate my word and responsibilities but then I would be much too modern for myself.
And to toss in a real monky wrench, slavery is the state of a human body acquisition system whose product is taken to sustain and promote the life of an organism that is not its own body.
This means that slavery has nothing to do with force, but with where the product goes. One can be forced into labor, where the product of that labor sustains and promotes the individual, but by definition, this is not slavery.
One learns in elementary mathematics that there are two, and only two methods of constructing a set. enumeration and definition. Enumeration is to material as definition is to form.
In the realm of what people call definition one has the same division, definition and description. When you learn the foundation of language, perhaps you will come to understand the difference, you words indicate that you do not.
Definition, and definition alone, is a standard. Your source is a description. I know you do not understand, but I am not interested in how much you do not understand. Study Plato, I have posted several audio-book translations on the internet archive. Also, study in the Lucid Dreamstate, it is not a free for all fantasy state. Everything about that is explained in a common Book.
Example, when you work to buy a house and furnish it, and then the state comes and says it can take anything and everything you own, as in my case, and give it to whomever they damn well please, then slavery takes place.
That hasn't happened to me. Probably because I honor contracts with my creditors, and I accept that citizenship in this country assumes adherence to state laws. That's not slavery -- I can choose to stop paying for my car or house. I can choose to stop paying taxes. I then have also made the choice to accept the consequences that may ensue.
I'm not required to pay taxes. I can go move to the mountains in northern Pakistan or go hide in the forest and the IRS will never bother me again.
But I'm willing to accept the authority of the governing body of my municipality, which paves the roads and maintains the pipes and power lines, which makes my house approachable and liveable -- and therein I'll pay the property taxes. After all, I own the lot and the house but I don't own the town or the utility companies.
I just don't get libertarian types who complain so much about the taxes, yet go on living here. Is it hypocrisy?
You are aware that it states in the constitution that the government is not allowed to collect income or property taxes? There is actually no law that states you must pay them, however; if you do not pay them, you'll end up in jail for it. No actual law on the books yet somehow you get treated like a criminal?
You pay utility companys for their services, how does that involve taxation?
You are aware that it states in the constitution that the government is not allowed to collect income or property taxes?
Libertarians are only trying to preserve the rights this country started off with
Except that none of this is true. Go talk to an attorney or a certified personal accountant and get these facts set straight.
Did we forget the 16th Amendment which gives the government the right to "lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration."?
Because they're heavily subsidized, especially the water. And no utility company maintains the road to my house.
Let the revolution begin. Amazing that no one has noticed this before.
Well good luck with that, it's a democracy, but judging how people vote you're in the minority.
Rights this country started off with? Tell that to blacks, immigrants, women, ect....
The country DID start off with blacks and women being equal. It says "We the people..."
Abraham Lincoln said "If slavery is not wrong, then nothing is wrong"
Was Lincoln right? or
Is the notion that slavery is wrong just a modern social convention?
A subjectivie opinion?
Are there any transcendent eternal values?
Was Nietschze right about the death of God and values?
Yes, the 16th Amendment was added later - that's why it is an Amendment buddy.
You can lecture all day on history if you like, but when you lecture on history to me, you do so to a history major. When it comes to US history, unless you have some obscure anecdotes, I'm not likely to be surprised by what I hear. In between posting, I go back to my Barbara Tuchman - cheers.
Let me give you a quick lesson on the Constitution: Amendments are part of the Constitution, and when an Amendment contradicts original parts of the Constitution, the Amendment reigns as law. Therefore, the 16th Amendment takes precedent.
I spent a year living next door to a law student who became a best friend of mine. At the time, I was of the same opinion as you - and he set me straight. I know where you're coming from, it just so happens that you're wrong.
No: once again, you are substituting ideals for reality.
Talk about "We the people..." all you like- at that time women lacked the rights of white landowning males, and blacks had nearly no rights whatsoever. Even hero Jefferson only wanted land owners to have full rights as a citizen.
Yes and once again, just because congress does something, doesn't necessarily make it "right" or "just". Most citizens just accept everything congress does but that doesn't mean they are not violating or abusing their power.
There is actually no law that states you must pay them (taxes)