Buddy? Funny... The 16th came after the civil war, it was not originally enacted by the framers. Just because congress passes something, doesn't mean it is "right" or "just" or "required." This is part of the corruption that government heads towards over time. That is my point.

I am not even sure what you are saying here. Are you implying you are an authority over history? That you can not be challenged because of your knowledge of history? You have lost some of my respect for you, making such a remark.

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.

Laughable. Because you spent a year living next to a law student that makes me wrong. Thanks for informing me.

My point is, it didn't have to say blacks have this or women have that. It clearly was in violation to begin with to make the assumption that women or blacks were not qualified. The reason being is because whites assumed their status. It was only later that the addition comes in because it is to redefine who has what status. It was unnecessary and all that needed to be acknowledge was that they already had such status to begin with.

The argument wasn't over whether the law is "right" or "just" but whether was there a law at all.

You stated:



So, the point is you're wrong.

It doesn't matter when an Amendment is enacted - much less whether or not the Amednment is right, or justified, or required. What does matter is whether or not the Amendment is passed. When an Amendment is passed, it overrules all previous Constitutional content. That's how law works.

Again, you can talk all day about your beliefs, that's fine, but when you say the government has no right to levy income tax you are, from a legal perspective, incorrect. So I get that point, and to some degree I agree, but saying the government has no right to levy a tax based on the Constitution when the Constitution, per Amendments, says otherwise makes the initial claim incorrect.

And all of this is beside the point. You said that the government does not have the right to do something, based on Constitutional arguments, even though the reverse is true.

Again, have whatever beliefs you like, I'm actually sympathetic. It just so happens that the law disagrees with our shared idealism.

Am I?

"The California income tax system is based on the Federal income tax. As you can see by reading your tax booklet, you must pay the state according to what you paid to the IRS. Yet, there is no IRS agent who can point to the law in the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) and say, "There, that makes you and me liable for an income tax." I've been practicing law in California for more than 25 years. I've read a lot of California law and the Revenue and Taxation Code. I've not found the one that makes a person liable for an income tax. I defy anyone, including Dan Lungren, State Attorney General, to come forward with the code section that makes any ordinary citizen liable for a state or federal income tax."

source: There Is No Law That Makes You Liable For An Income Tax

Yeah because you have been taught that congress should have the right and ability to enact anything it wants or sees fit to. I object to that belief.

He has said no such thing. He's just pointing out that ideals and laws are distinct.

As far as, "ideals and laws are distinct", what does that even mean?

Perhaps it might do you some good to take something more than an introductory look at philosophy before spouting such terms in this forum. The people here are far more eductaed than you give them credit for.

As this is an internet forum, we are using the adaptive colloquialisms common to the english language. If you want to break this down into a war of symantics then I will have to point out that you are also incorrect in your description of the words in use. A description implies application while a definition implies comprehension. Since we are not speaking greek here, your point on Plato is moot. Not all things translate precisely and so this is a baseless argument. Now, if you would like to be a productive member here, I would suggest getting a better grasp of the content which you throw into peoples faces.

Language is a tool used to express ideas. Being able to use big words is like being able to use a screwdriver. Just because you know how to use them does not mean that you are accomplishing anything useful. If you have no ideas to express, you're simply turning a stripped screw in circles until your hands get tired... Also known as verbal masturbation.

We now return to our regularly scheduled thread WITHOUT useless distractions.

One promotes a convention of names of those that can be defined through definition, and those that cannot by description

It means that regardless what your views on a law are (you may find it "unfair", "unjust", whatever), it's still a law. To say a law isn't a law simply because you don't agree with it, doesn't make any sense. In this case, however, we could say your ideals don't 'align' with laws with which you must abide. However you want to say it, ideals are seperate from law.

You said there is no law that forces one to pay income taxes. The 16th amendment, which as far as I can tell is law, explicately states that the government may exercise the right to collect taxes. Thus, you're wrong.

The source of the taxing power is not the Sixteenth Amendment; it is Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution.

It could well be argued that the tax involved here (an income tax) is an "excise tax" based upon the receipt of money by the taxpayer.

I always find it very unsettling when I am reading Roman and Greek writers to think that their whole society was based on slavery. No matter how badly we get treated at work in any modern Western society we still have rights. Slaves had no rights - they could be killed, sexually abused, whipped or whatever. Probably the only protection they had was if they were highly skilled they were too valuable to waste. Kind of like owning a car - it was yours to do with as you pleased, but you might not want to ruin something you paid for.
I find it difficult to understand the mindset of people who could write reams about democracy, ethics and right behaviour then go and beat their slave.

thirteen page article, I have not had time to read it yet but
I would say that compassion is the first perception that leads to ethical impluse or moral behavior. After identifying with the sufferer on an emotional level one would use reason, science and the other faculties in an effort to relieve the suffering. If one does not feel the empathy or compassion, then one will not make the effort.

I think empathy and compassion are innate impulses or perceptions in most people (sociopaths excepted). They are not the result of rational analysis and certainly not the result of scientific investigation. One can be trained or socialized to ignore or disregard the empathetic impulse.

There's no need for all of these qualifications - 'keeping humans in bondage' is enough to deserve moral disapproval.

but the bottom line is that the only real, true, and pure freedom to be had is that in your own mind.

I just don't get libertarian types who complain so much about the taxes, yet go on living here. Is it hypocrisy?

You are right, of course. I simply had no idea that philosophy was about being colon adaptive. However, I do know that it has been known for a long time that there are words that can be defined and words that cannot, and for physical reasons. One promotes a convention of names of those that can be defined through definition, and those that cannot by description. I also know that most people, like yourself, really do not know the difference--and why that difference is determined biologically. One of us has take the time to learn, while the other is still . . . If you care to learn why, you might ask like a civil human being, or go about in your colon adaptive way.

You can search the internet and find that modern man still does not know the foundation of common grammar. You can find at least a dozen current "theories" however, I can, with the right mode of discourse, demonstrate that Plato, not Aristotle, new the answer and used it as a foundation for his dialogs. It is based on a two element metaphyics being explored by some early Greeks, but failed to come down to us in history. j.c.

I think criminals should be forced to work in prision, or, at least, not feed if they dont, at least the enough to pay their own staying.

The argument wasn't over whether the law is "right" or "just" but whether was there a law at all.

You stated:



So, the point is you're wrong.

Slavery seems to me the position of being in a situation without hope. One can be a slave in the traditional sense one can also be a slave to an addiction, or an obligation. If in your mind there is no hope to avoid the onerous, degrading, or demeaning you have become a slave as all viable/percievable options to avoid it have been removed.

The presumption is that law is just, and it is false

I think you hit law on the head...The question of justice never comes up in consideration of the law... justices do not decide justice, but law...The presumption is that law is just, and it is false... As Abalard said: Jus is the Genus and lex a species of it... Sort of tells you that if the law is not just, it is not law...

Well, "just" and "unjust" are out of the realm of legality insofar as laws functioning, as well, laws. Peoples' evaluations of said laws (usually ethical, such as "just" or "unjust") come after the fact by most of us citizens. That said, many laws have been made with ethical ideals in mind, but this does not mean they may not be found by others as unjust or unreasonable. Still, the law is the law, and the judgment comes after.

I only point this out because it seems as though some here think that their evaluation of a law makes it invalid.

I know he didn't say it, I am saying, congress being allowed to enact any law it sees fit is a commonly taught misconception.

It could well be argued that the tax involved here (an income tax) is an "excise tax" based upon the receipt of money by the taxpayer. It certainly is not a tax on property and it certainly is not a capitation tax; therefore, it need not be apportioned.

Congress IS allowed to do so. The checks and balances on legislative prerogative are 1) presidential veto or 2) Supreme Court review.

Can the Court throw out a constitutional amendment, by the way? I don't know the answer to this one...

Be that as it may, if you're SOOOOOO in the right, then why on earth has the court let such a practice stand? Oh yeah, activist judges, right?

Nice exigesis. Yet on the other hand I'm sure you read the 2nd amendment as saying "American nonmilitary ownership of semi-automatic handguns will not be infringed" rather than providing for an armed militia.