I'm simply saying that everything, including individual and states' rights is a balance. The goal is to maximize all rights. I just don't think that it's necessarily achieved by shrinking the federal government down to a husk.

Fixed.

I'm not picking on you Scoop. I actually agree with you on most of what you have said. But I have an issue with the absolute primacy of "rights." Rights are a very important part of quality of life, but it's not the whole deal.

As an example, I'll gladly pay my taxes to improve the road system. That doesn't help my "rights" at all, but it sure makes it easier to get around. Good roads are good for society and really have very little to do with "rights."

You are the one confused about the definition of slavery.

slav·er·y [sley-vuh-ree, sleyv-ree]
–noun 1. the condition of a slave; bondage.
2. the keeping of slaves as a practice or institution.
3. a state of subjection like that of a slave: He was kept in slavery by drugs.
4. severe toil; drudgery.

And, before I have to argue about the definition of subjection:

sub·jec·tion [suhb-jek-shuhn]
–noun 1. the act of subjecting.
2. the state or fact of being subjected.

And it's root, subject.

sub·ject [n., adj. suhb-jikt; v. suhb-jekt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. that which forms a basic matter of thought, discussion, investigation, etc.: a subject of conversation.
2. a branch of knowledge as a course of study: He studied four subjects in his first year at college.
3. a motive, cause, or ground: a subject for complaint.
4. the theme of a sermon, book, story, etc.
5. the principal melodic motif or phrase in a musical composition, esp. in a fugue.
6. an object, scene, incident, etc., chosen by an artist for representation, or as represented in art.
7. a person who is under the dominion or rule of a sovereign.
8. a person who owes allegiance to a government and lives under its protection: four subjects of Sweden.
9. Grammar. (in English and many other languages) a syntactic unit that functions as one of the two main constituents of a simple sentence, the other being the predicate, and that consists of a noun, noun phrase, or noun substitute which often refers to the one performing the action or being in the state expressed by the predicate, as He in He gave notice.
10. a person or thing that undergoes or may undergo some action: As a dissenter, he found himself the subject of the group's animosity.
11. a person or thing under the control or influence of another.
12. a person as an object of medical, surgical, or psychological treatment or experiment.
13. a cadaver used for dissection.
14. Logic. that term of a proposition concerning which the predicate is affirmed or denied.
15. Philosophy. a. that which thinks, feels, perceives, intends, etc., as contrasted with the objects of thought, feeling, etc.
b. the self or ego.

16. Metaphysics. that in which qualities or attributes inhere; substance.

–adjective 17. being under domination, control, or influence (often fol. by to).
18. being under dominion, rule, or authority, as of a sovereign, state, or some governing power; owing allegiance or obedience (often fol. by to).
19. open or exposed (usually fol. by to): subject to ridicule.
20. being dependent or conditional upon something (usually fol. by to): His consent is subject to your approval.
21. being under the necessity of undergoing something (usually fol. by to): All beings are subject to death.
22. liable; prone (usually fol. by to): subject to headaches.

–verb (used with object) 23. to bring under domination, control, or influence (usually fol. by to).
24. to bring under dominion, rule, or authority, as of a conqueror or a governing power (usually fol. by to).
25. to cause to undergo the action of something specified; expose (usually fol. by to): to subject metal to intense heat.
26. to make liable or vulnerable; lay open; expose (usually fol. by to): to subject oneself to ridicule.
27. Obsolete. to place beneath something; make subjacent.

And, in the U.S., roads are paid for by a voluntary tax on gasoline. If I don't want roads, I don't have to buy gas. I have no issue with voluntary taxation, but that's not comparable to the individual income tax we are subject to.

Yep, I was oversimplifying. Seems to be a contagious around here. Thanks for clarifying.

Thanks for the definition. The problem is that we are the government, you know "of the people, for the people", and all that? Are we enslaving ourselves? Sounds kinky. If we've created a government the majority doesn't like we should change it, not treat it as a foreign body to expel.

Great. Thanks for that. In what way are you "subjected" to anything in this country? The only thing you've mentioned is the involuntary tax. That's just weird if you think that equates to slavery. In what way is your freedom limited? You're claiming that you are a slave because you aren't allowed to keep 100% of your pay? And you're saying that's the same as someone who is allowed to own nothing at all; who eats when Master lets him; who gets beaten if he doesn't work fast enough; who marries if and when Master lets him and to whom Master says.

I agree. I said it had little to do with rights one way or the other. And I agree that it is not much like an income tax.

I am not the government. Are you the government? If so, I've got a long list of complaints for you. I see this used as a fallback arguement all of the time. Saying it over and over doesn't make it true.

For the People, By the People, is true when you have a representative republic, as our Constitution demands, but the U.S. devolved into an oligarchy long ago. It's government by the top 5%, for the top 5%.

While it's true that we elect representitives to work in government, at least until that too becomes to inconvenient, that in no way makes "the people" the government. It's a fallacy. If the people control their government by majority rule, why are U.S. troops still in Iraq? The fact is, the U.S. government hasn't represented the people in my lifetime or yours.

As to whether we should change it and how, I recommend returning the United States Federal Government to it's Constitutional bounds, and I do what I can to make that happen.

Working 30%+ of my time for the Government, under threat of force, without any form of compensation, is a form of slavery. You could call it indentured servitude, if you prefer. Income tax does not provide any government services. It is handed almost directly to the Federal Reserve to pay the interest on the Unconstitutional national debt. If it wasn't a graduated tax or it actually provided something, anything, that would be different.

There i agree, i have said it before: probably a lot of this libertarianism and praise of 'pure capitalism' is caused indirectly by frustration about how badly US govt represents the people.
The United States Is A Democracy
And i had my ideas on it single purpose party (Havent re-read it.)

Can't disagree here. We've definitely devolved from where we should be government-wise. Oligarchy is a good description. I thought I was hearing a call for virtually no federal government. That's where I would disagree, and say we need to take our government back, rather than get rid of it. Yes, we don't have direct representation, and they don't obey the majority's every wish, nor should they. That doesn't mean the state governments are that much better, and that there should be little or no federal.

Oligarchy is also why I'm suspicious of unfettered/unregulated free markets. Money seems to beget more money, and eventually ultimate power. There's too much leverage and rule bending once established as wealthy and powerful.

I see that I'm probably misinterpreting your stance a bit. Yes, budgets should be balanced and spending should be cautious. Paying a large portion of 30% of income to pay interest on a debt is unforgivable. I don't mind paying the right amount of taxes for the right amount of services. I'm not sure where that lies, but it's somewhere between "you're on your own baby!" and "let's protect everybody from everything". I find a flat-ish tax appealing, if there's a general consensus on a fair distribution, probably somewhat lower for lower income and higher at the top, but dirt simple for everybody. Even Steve Forbes had some curve, I think.

If you accept that the U.S. has become an oligarchy, doesn't it follow that any government "regulation" is in service to this oligarchy?

They use regulation to push out small operators and entrepreneurs. Then they sweep in and capture the market for themselves, the result being a controlled cartel where there should be open competition. That is why I oppose most government regulation.

Those at the top do not want free markets. They want captive consumers who must buy only their goods and services.

I'm glad you see where I'm coming from on taxes. People usually don't disagree with me nearly as much if I can clearly explain what I'm getting at. I don't believe there should be no taxes. I believe most taxes should be voluntary use taxes, all that reasonably can be.

I believe that our current income tax system is a club wielded against the poor and middle class. It prevents us from accumulating capital, which prevents us from improving our lives. It keeps us on the treadmill. Always running but never getting anywhere.

I can solidly agree that the government is corrupt. I also agree that the government taxation system is oppressive to the poor and middle class.

When I speak about allowing the government to regulate some things, I mean that theoretically. I don't like the way the present government runs much of anything.

If there is deceipt or force it is not capitalism. It's a very easy line to draw - if someone isn't free to choose, its not free trade. When one party misrepresents the terms of a trade, they have inhibited the other party's freedom to choose. Likewise with force - if you are being extorted you have no real choice. Nothing arbitrary about it.