So it has been said, so it shall be done!

<3 you.

I'll tell you, after Aretha Franklin's "Respect" finishes.

Seriously. It's under Foo Fighters in Pandora.

Boo, I have to listen to it now!

way different than Aretha Franklin atleast

It's pretty catchy. I accidentally left it running.

You'll see every time you look around
Another lie has taken your crown
When old truths burn, the tables turn
When the tables turn, the old truths burn

lol idk ill give this sleep thing a try again

I can't believe we haven't been through this, yet! (It's not hyperbole.)

If 100% confiscation of your property is slavery, at what percentage are you not a slave?

Or, are you of the mind that you work for the government, instead of yourself? If this is the case, then wouldn't you agree that you have no say in the matter? Being forced to do something against your will by others, is this not slavery?

If one law isn't enforced one time you say we are no longer under rule of law. Like the rest of your arguments it is just silly.

Let's say in AnarchyLand there are two companies.

Company A and Company Z.

Company A is a large company that Company Z likes doing business with. Company A will only let Company Z do business with them (A) if Company Z agrees to a set of rules. Company Z voluntarily agrees to that set of rules and can conduct business with Company A.

You decide one day that you would like to work for Company Z. In order to do this, you must agree not only to abide by the rules Company Z has, but due to their prior agreement with Company A you must also agree that, to work for Company Z, you too will abide by the rules Company A has set up with Company Z, even though you personally had no hand in crafting those rules, and no way of influencing those rules.

Now, when you voluntarily agree to work for Company Z, why are you now in fact a slave to Company A?

You really think that's what I'm saying? Do you know what the word "systematic" means?

You're leaving out that this is a voluntary transaction between the two parties. Though, the comparison of government to a compulsory corporation or company is fitting. It's a company, with a monopoly on force. (I'll ignore the invalid contracts aspect, for now.)

What's up, MissileDog? Another gimmick? How've you been?

*EDIT*I didn't answer your question! Sorry!

No, you aren't a slave, because it's all done voluntarily. (The "social contract" isn't a contract. **** Hobbes.)

So who forced Steve Jobs, et al., to create Apple? Or did they voluntarily agree to create a company and voluntarily agree to do so under the rules the government sets?

No one, of course. Success can still be obtained in spite of government.

Now, Apple spends millions lobbying, just like Microsoft and Google, for legislation that stifles competition. Of course, it's done in the name of "safety" and "security." When you take into account the scale -- it's not just tech companies that are doing this -- maybe you'll understand my reasoning.

Good, you're being honest. I like that.

So no one forced them to start a business. They freely chose to do that. And I'd say they did a pretty good job of it, enriching not only their own lives, but also the lives of millions around the world with the products they've made.

Now, were you to decide you wanted to work for them, knowing full well that working for them here in the United States you would be required to fill out tax forms and pay income taxes, and they offered you a highly paid job, would you accept that highly paid job?

If so, who forced you to accept that job?

This is what I think you are saying because it is what you have said in the past. What do you mean by systematic this time?

Trying to remember a quote

or

The wonders of capitalism, eh? Maybe now you're starting to get it.

You actually bring up a good point, most people would accept the job, which would help further the system. I wouldn't based on principle. You can make a lot more money working for yourself, and you also set the terms and conditions. Personally, I wouldn't accept the job, because I would worry about accidentally incriminating myself, or how my tax dollars might be used to abuse others. Plus, there's no telling what might be in whatever contracts or waivers they put in front of you.

As nice as this example is, corporations still don't go around trampling people's rights with impunity. Basically, it comes down to this:

You shouldn't be able to delegate powers that you don't have to someone else. (For example, since you can't pull someone in their car over and demand their money -- for anything, let alone traveling too fast or not wearing a seatbelt -- you can't delegate that power to someone else.)

Though, this is almost exactly what occurs when voting. (Not to mention that voting is based on popularity, rather than merit. But, I digress.)

Okay then. You were not forced to take a job. Thus, you are not a slave.

Had you accepted the job, you would have done so freely and voluntarily because, as we have seen, you decided to reject the job offer which you were also free to do. Thus, had you accepted the job, you would not have in any way been a slave.

Thus taxation is not slavery. Similarly, by any definition of the word, taxation is also not theft. Someone cannot steal something from you that you voluntarily give to them. This is proofed by the fact that the government will not take taxes from you for a job you decided not to work.

QED

Now, I don't want you to get the wrong idea here. All I have done is proven conclusively that taxation is neither theft nor slavery. That is all.

I ignored your many digressions and tangents because they were irrelevant to that point. If you would like to argue that governments are corrupt or that corporations are bad or whatever else, I think many if not most here would agree with you.

But that has nothing to do with your now completely refuted claim that taxation is slavery. And so as to save both of our time, I ignored all of that other stuff. Feel free to continue ranting against government corruption. But I'm glad we will never have to see that silly "taxation is slavery" argument from you ever again. I've saved you the time of making the silly argument and looking a fool, and I've saved everyone else the time of reading that silly argument and wasting time pointing out that it makes you look foolish.

You are welcome.

The same thing it means in the dictionary. I'll elaborate for clarity.

The abuses I'm talking about are inherent in the system; they aren't isolated incidents. You say I throw all the rice out if one grain is bad, but all of these grains are bad.

For example, police brutality and corruption happens all the time. I don't cite these as incidents as why government is bad, even though I agree that no one is fit to rule over another. Rather, I blame the system that allows police to put themselves in those positions of power in the first place.

Did this help, or just muddy the waters more?

I just don't want another "just following orders" massacre to happen.

"All the time" is subjective unless you mean to say every interaction with police results in police brutality and corruption. Which is obviously not true. Since no level of brutality or corruption is acceptable to you, you say we aren't under rule of law. One grain of rice.

Your scope is very narrow. Let's assume I attempt to stand on principles and start my own business.

I'm trying to work for myself. I don't want for my money to go towards killing people overseas or locking people up at home, so I don't pay taxes. One day cops/regulators, show up, demanding licenses, identification, and other forms of paperwork.

Is harassment from opting out of taxation reasonable? This intimidation -- with very real penalties, should I choose to disobey or not have the right paperwork -- isn't a form of slavery? (You can do what you want, as long as they allow it. You essentially become the property of whatever government you live under.)

It's still open for debate. I don't mind playing the fool, as long as you guys learn something.

Is "daily" a better word? I apologize for being loose with my words in an attempt to answer your response more quickly. (Damned if you do, damned if you don't.)

"Unless you mean to say <strawman>." That's not what I'm saying, though I think it certainly raises the potential for an incident.

You should go back and re-read my last response to you. (I'm close to assuming you're being intentionally dense, again.)

You realize why police would do this? They have been providing protection for your home business and you haven't been paying for it.

You see, there is a reason companies choose to do business in the United States. Not being a business owner it's something you've never had to think about before.

There are a lot of reasons to create a business in this country. It is a very stable country, first of all, with infrastructure, security, strong protections for property and court system to enforce those protections. Also, a relatively non-corrupt government (if you disagree, then it is safe to assume you don't know anything about any other country on the planet).

Apple recognized that these many benefits were worth paying for and decided freely and voluntarily to create a company in America. You decided you wanted the benefits the country has to offer, but you wanted to get them without paying for them.

Now I'm sure you would protest if I came into your house and tried to start a business in your closet without getting your permission to use the wifi, water, driveway, etc. Similarly, the US govt doesn't like it when you come into their territory and try to use up all their resources without their permission.

You have every right to choose to create a business in this country or any other, or in any anarchist area in the world, but if you choose to form a business here, you are voluntarily agreeing the rules of the land. This has already been demonstrated.