Have any political ads changed your mind?

[Darth Wong]

I've given some thought to it from time to time- my idea is to privatize education. Allow any company that wants to start a school a lisence- at the end of the year test the students in reading, writing, math, and science.

So if the school in question is a joke, you just wasted a year of the entire student body's life on an experiment. Congratulations. Yes, this works much better than state-approved standards set before the fact

If the average isn't passing- then the liscense is revoked. In addition, make it easier for anyone with a relevent degree, say in engineering or physics for example, to get a teacher's liscense. Competition and the "breaking" of the teacher's union will drasticly reduce waste and the overall costs of education.

Are you seriously this stupid? What the fuck makes you think that an engineer is going to want to teach if you "break" the union and knock down wages in order to drastically reduce costs? As for your claim that competition will magically solve these problems, that is hardly a historically reliable model. In the case of privatized health care for example, bureaucratic overhead is MASSIVELY larger BECAUSE of competition (the paperwork required for providers to deal with hundreds of different insurers, each of whom have different plans, benefit packages, and policies is simply unreal).

For those who are still too poor to afford education, and for poor orphans, there could be an option to claim an "impoverished" status- the child in question is sent to boarding school of your choice, until you claim "non-impoverished" status, which is paid for by tax deductable contributions (which would go above and beyond the "deductable limit" and be counted double in terms of the deduction- in other words it will still be deducted even if your paying the alternative mimimum tax and if you donated $100 then the deduction you recieved would be worth $200).

Oh for fuck's sake, another idiot who think that he can replace a public system with a private one and then rely on charitable donations to pay for the poor people

Its just a rough idea at this point, but its better then the current system.[/quote]

[aerius]

Problem is, what stops the schools from charging whatever they damn well please? Given that practically every kid will have to go to school, they are assured of a steady line of captive customers if you will, and they can charge them as much as they want to maximize their profits, kinda like the gasoline companies. Oops, guess what, we've just had a "shortage" of teachers so we'll raise the prices $1000 a year, and we don't feel like hiring any more teachers cause we don't want to pay their fucking salaries. Private industry is greedy, cunning, and underhanded, they're going to do what best for them, ie. raking in the green, not what's best for your kid.

[Joe]

Private industry is greedy, cunning, and underhanded, they're going to do what best for them, ie. raking in the green, not what's best for your kid.

Whoa, now I don't think all education should be privatised at all, but you know that teachers sure as hell aren't any better. If the goals set by teachers' unions are representative of what the average teacher has on his or her mind the #1 priority of educators is certainly not educating children.

[kojikun]

aerius: the same thing that prevents corporations from charging whatever they want: the economic benefit of getting more customers at a lower price, increasing overall profits. also, make note of the fact that through government funded education it costs significantly more than the average privately schooled child.

ideally, i'd give options. anyone who sends their kid to a private school can tax exempt it and junk. same with health insurance, etc. paying for it yourself would get you tax credits. it gives people options.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Why not? Leaving aside that idiotic "slavery" red-herring,

Its not a red-herring if the the main argument; namely that taxation for public education, when you have no children, is a form of slavery. Since one of the definations of slavery is being compeled to work, while recieving none of the benefits from that work, it's a valid arguement.

this is a classic example of your debating style in this thread; you simply state your conclusion as a fact, and then use that "fact" to support your conclusion. Classic circular reasoning. WHY does society not have the right to compel individuals to pay for services which are available for all and for which there is a societal benefit?

My argument would be that to do so is a form of slavery where instead having one master you have millions in the form of society.

To state it in another form, individuals have "natural" rights. Those rights, such as property, are a consequence of humanities and realities characteristics. For example ownership of property is the recognition of the labor a person puts into making/working nature to support/"uplift" his existence. When people come together and form a soceity they retain those rights.

If you want a more detailed explaination see "Rights of Man" by Thomas Paine.

What school of ethics do you subscribe to? I would very much like to know what ethical scheme you follow, or whether you have one at all besides self-interest.

I'm no expert on "schools" of ethics, but if I had to say.... then it would be some mixture of natural rights, Aristotlian personal excellance, "do unto others", and objectivisim.

When he says "allowing everyone to get an education", he means "everyone who can pay for it". Interestingly enough, this is the same kind of system found in most third-world nations, where the elites have education and the poor people don't.

Red Herring, The United States (and Canada for that matter) is not the third world. Most people could afford private education if the costs were lower and taxes were reduced.

So if the school in question is a joke, you just wasted a year of the entire student body's life on an experiment. Congratulations. Yes, this works much better than state-approved standards set before the fact

I did not mean to imply that there would not be qualifers BEFORE the liscense is issued as well; we wouldn't, for example, want schools that teach Creationism as scientific fact. In addition, there would obviously be cases where the schools failed. However, these schools would be CULLED, a MUCH better sitituation then the current one where public schools waste 12 years of a student's life and do so generation after generation.

Are you seriously this stupid? What the fuck makes you think that an engineer is going to want to teach if you "break" the union and knock down wages in order to drastically reduce costs?

Engineers are just an example, and there are various motivations. Maybe they're sick of their current job, maybe they want to retire while still working, maybe they just want to teach. Regardless, the point of the matter is you want to be able to have a situation where those who know the content are allowed to teach if they so desire. There WILL be people who decide to do so if given the opportunity, certainly enough to "break" the teacher's union.

As for your claim that competition will magically solve these problems, that is hardly a historically reliable model. In the case of privatized health care for example, bureaucratic overhead is MASSIVELY larger BECAUSE of competition (the paperwork required for providers to deal with hundreds of different insurers, each of whom have different plans, benefit packages, and policies is simply unreal).

And what reason do we have to think that the two are analogous? I think that the situation is more comporable to the "privitization" of the mail done by UPS/Fed Ex, where you pay a certain amount for a certain service.

Oh for fuck's sake, another idiot who think that he can replace a public system with a private one and then rely on charitable donations to pay for the poor people

Here's an idea- how about you state whats specifcally wrong with my plan instead of spewing insults and baselessly dismissing it.

[Darth Wong]

Its not a red-herring if the the main argument; namely that taxation for public education, when you have no children, is a form of slavery.

Yet again, you try to prove your argument by simply stating it as a fact.

Since one of the definations of slavery is being compeled to work, while recieving none of the benefits from that work, it's a valid arguement.

Wrong. Saying that something fits PART of the definition of slavery does not mean it is slavery, any more than a state which fits PART of the definition of a free market is therefore a free market.

this is a classic example of your debating style in this thread; you simply state your conclusion as a fact, and then use that "fact" to support your conclusion. Classic circular reasoning. WHY does society not have the right to compel individuals to pay for services which are available for all and for which there is a societal benefit?

My argument would be that to do so is a form of slavery where instead having one master you have millions in the form of society.

There you go again, simply stating that it's true because it's true. That's not an argument; it's a waste of breath.

To state it in another form, individuals have "natural" rights.

Prove it.

Those rights, such as property, are a consequence of humanities and realities characteristics.

Prove it.

For example ownership of property is the recognition of the labor a person puts into making/working nature to support/"uplift" his existence.

Prove it.

When people come together and form a soceity they retain those rights.

Prove it.

If you want a more detailed explaination see "Rights of Man" by Thomas Paine.

Appeal to Authority.

You obviously don't get this, so I will explain it for you: you can't prove these various axioms by simply STATING them. You are stating these things as absolute principles and truths, without a shred of evidence other than "they just are".

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:
Its not a red-herring if the the main argument; namely that taxation for public education, when you have no children, is a form of slavery.

Yet again, you try to prove your argument by simply stating it as a fact.

What the hell? That sentance is clearly an answer to your accusation of the statement being a red herring. What the hell makes you think that I'm stating my argument as fact instead of simply stating my argument and stating that its not a red herring?

Wrong. Saying that something fits PART of the definition of slavery does not mean it is slavery, any more than a state which fits PART of the definition of a free market is therefore a free market.

Bullshit, the defination I stated is perfectly valid and what I said matches it.

Even if we accept you defination of slavery, which no doubt has as its essential characteristics chains, whipping, and selecting what your labor is, instead of merely taking the fruit of it, the fact remains that what I said is valid- your being compelled to work while recieving none of the benefits of that work. What you call it is irrelevant.

There you go again, simply stating that it's true because it's true. That's not an argument; it's a waste of breath.

What the hell are you smoking? My argument is quite clearly that compeling individuals to pay for services from which they recieve no benefit is a form of slavery; underlying this arugment is the idea "Slavery is wrong". You disputed that this case was slavery, however I don't see HOW you can say that I'm simply stating that my case as true because its true.

Prove it. (repeatidly).....You obviously don't get this, so I will explain it for you: you can't prove these various axioms by simply STATING them. You are stating these things as absolute principles and truths, without a shred of evidence other than "they just are".

I really have no desire to write an essay on why my ethical system is valid from its most basic premises for a "relaxation" board (or any other one for that matter). However, I will do my best to do so.... provided you agree to do the same. I'd MUCH rather avoid that much work though.... so instead why don't we just reduce my argument to a syllogism?

Using a syllogism I can show why my argument is valid and correct (as well as showing that my argument is not simply its true because its true), though I am stating ahead of time that I'm no "logician" and its been quite some time since I've done one..... (In other words I'll attempt to correct any errors that are pointed out).

-Being forced to work for no benefit is wrong
-Public education forces you to work for no benefit
---------------------------------------------
Public education is wrong because if forces you to work for no benefit



-Slavery is wrong (I don't think I need to "prove" this one)
-Being forced to work for no benefit is a form of slavery
--------------------------------------------------------
Being forced to work for no benefit is wrong



-The distinguishing characteristic of slavery is being forced to work for no benefit
-Freemen are not forced to work
-Freemen benefit from their work if they choose to do so
------------------------------------------------------------
Being forced to work for no benefit is a form of slavery

Quote:
If you want a more detailed explaination see "Rights of Man" by Thomas Paine.

Appeal to Authority.

Bullshit- I that you should read "Rights of Man" if you wanted a more detailed explaination. I did not say that my argument was right simply because "Rights of Man"/Thomans Paine said so.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

In addition, I would like to state that I did notice that you completely ignored the last half of my previous post.....

[Darth Wong]

What the hell? That sentance is clearly an answer to your accusation of the statement being a red herring. What the hell makes you think that I'm stating my argument as fact instead of simply stating my argument and stating that its not a red herring?

Because if taxes to pay for public education are not slavery, then any mention of slavery is indeed a red herring. And in order to prove that it was not a red herring, you simply restated your belief that it's connected.

Wrong. Saying that something fits PART of the definition of slavery does not mean it is slavery, any more than a state which fits PART of the definition of a free market is therefore a free market.

Bullshit, the defination I stated is perfectly valid and what I said matches it.

I see you are resorting to outright lies now. From Merriam-Webster:

Slavery:
1 : DRUDGERY, TOIL
2 : submission to a dominating influence
3 a : the state of a person who is a chattel of another b : the practice of slaveholding

Nope, in fact it's worse than I thought; your definition does not appear at all. The only relevant type of slavery is #3, and an obligation to pay taxes does not constitute turning people into chattel.

Even if we accept you defination of slavery, which no doubt has as its essential characteristics chains, whipping, and selecting what your labor is, instead of merely taking the fruit of it, the fact remains that what I said is valid- your being compelled to work while recieving none of the benefits of that work. What you call it is irrelevant.

Hmm, lemme see ... first you make up a definition of slavery which has nothing to do with the dictionary definition, then you declare that taxes mean that you "work while receiving none of the benefits of that work" (note that this would only be true if the tax rate were 100%), and then you declare that any definition but yours is irrelevant. I'm sure you believe you're doing a really good job proving your point, too

What the hell are you smoking? My argument is quite clearly that compeling individuals to pay for services from which they recieve no benefit is a form of slavery;

Wrong. You cannot declare that any individual in America receives no benefit from public education without being massively ignorant of how modern economies work.

underlying this arugment is the idea "Slavery is wrong". You disputed that this case was slavery, however I don't see HOW you can say that I'm simply stating that my case as true because its true.

Because dressed-up circular logic is still circular logic. You invented a custom-made definition of slavery in order to prove that taxation is slavery. Not to mention distorting taxation to pretend that the tax rate is always 100%, and ignoring the fact that public education DOES produce a public shared good. You benefit from merely LIVING in a country which has a uniformly well-educated workforce.

I really have no desire to write an essay on why my ethical system is valid from its most basic premises for a "relaxation" board (or any other one for that matter). However, I will do my best to do so.... provided you agree to do the same. I'd MUCH rather avoid that much work though.... so instead why don't we just reduce my argument to a syllogism?

Using a syllogism I can show why my argument is valid and correct (as well as showing that my argument is not simply its true because its true), though I am stating ahead of time that I'm no "logician" and its been quite some time since I've done one..... (In other words I'll attempt to correct any errors that are pointed out).

-Being forced to work for no benefit is wrong
-Public education forces you to work for no benefit
---------------------------------------------
Public education is wrong because if forces you to work for no benefit

Such a lovely display of bullshit. Taxation is not "being forced to work for no benefit", since the taxation rate is not 100%. Moreover, the idea that an individual who does not use public school does not benefit from it betrays deep ignorance of the reason why public education is imperative in an industrialized society.

-Slavery is wrong (I don't think I need to "prove" this one)
-Being forced to work for no benefit is a form of slavery
--------------------------------------------------------
Being forced to work for no benefit is wrong

Again, this is only relevant if the taxation rate is 100%.

-The distinguishing characteristic of slavery is being forced to work for no benefit
-Freemen are not forced to work
-Freemen benefit from their work if they choose to do so
------------------------------------------------------------
Being forced to work for no benefit is a form of slavery

See above. I like the way all of your arguments are basically repetitive.

Quote:
If you want a more detailed explaination see "Rights of Man" by Thomas Paine.

Appeal to Authority.

Bullshit- I that you should read "Rights of Man" if you wanted a more detailed explaination.

Since you did not actually prove or support or provide even a vague justification for your claims, this was your only "proof".

I did not say that my argument was right simply because "Rights of Man"/Thomans Paine said so.

Indeed, it now appears that you're just saying your argument is right because YOU say so.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Edit: That should read: "Public education forces you to work for no benefit (if you have no children".

[Darth Wong]

Edit: That should read: "Public education forces you to work for no benefit (if you have no children".

Also horribly ignorant. Do you honestly not understand why the public benefit from a well-trained workforce is not divisible in a modern industrialized nation? Are you honestly that ignorant of how this works?

[Howedar]

Not at all, public education forces you (if you have no children) to pay back the money spent by the state on your own education.

[kojikun]

Not at all, public education forces you (if you have no children) to pay back the money spent by the state on your own education.

Ofcourse, people would say that you had no choice, but that is irrelevant really.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

I see you are resorting to outright lies now. From Merriam-Webster:

Slavery:
1 : DRUDGERY, TOIL
2 : submission to a dominating influence
3 a : the state of a person who is a chattel of another b : the practice of slaveholding

Nope, in fact it's worse than I thought; your definition does not appear at all.

More bullshit, I never claimed that the defination was the dictionary defination. I merely stated that the defination was valid, and it is if you look at the distinguishing characteristic of a slave, and that what I said matches it.

The dictionary defination is also flawed and vauge. For an example just look at defination three, there have been many other forms of slavery other then chattel slavery throughout histroy, yet according to Merrian-Websters those people weren't slaves because they weren't chattel.

and an obligation to pay taxes does not constitute turning people into chattel.

I see you decided to completely ignore the part about "no benefit".
Paying taxes, in and of itself, is not slavery. It all depends to where the money goes. If it went to national defense or the police then it obviously wouldn't be slavery. If a portion of your tax money went directly to some Senator's pocket then by any sane defination the time you spent earning that money would be time spent as his slave.

Wrong. You cannot declare that any individual in America receives no benefit from public education without being massively ignorant of how modern economies work.

Bullshit, its EDUCATION that provides the benefit- its irrelevenant to whether its private or public- provided everyone gets one.

Such a lovely display of bullshit. Taxation is not "being forced to work for no benefit", since the taxation rate is not 100%.

See above

Moreover, the idea that an individual who does not use public school does not benefit from it betrays deep ignorance of the reason why public education is imperative in an industrialized society.

See above

[Darth Wong]

More bullshit, I never claimed that the defination was the dictionary defination. I merely stated that the defination was valid, and it is if you look at the distinguishing characteristic of a slave, and that what I said matches it.

Wrong. The distinguishing characteristic of a slave is that he is considered property. By your definition, alimony and child-support are slavery too.

The dictionary defination is also flawed and vauge. For an example just look at defination three, there have been many other forms of slavery other then chattel slavery throughout histroy, yet according to Merrian-Websters those people weren't slaves because they weren't chattel.

Such as?

and an obligation to pay taxes does not constitute turning people into chattel.

I see you decided to completely ignore the part about "no benefit".

Since "no benefit" would entail 100% tax rate and no public good from a well-educated workforce, I don't see how it's relevant.

Paying taxes, in and of itself, is not slavery. It all depends to where the money goes. If it went to national defense or the police then it obviously wouldn't be slavery. If a portion of your tax money went directly to some Senator's pocket then by any sane defination the time you spent earning that money would be time spent as his slave.

No, it would be poor value for money, unless that's ALL the government does, which is just as absurd as implying a 100% tax rate. If every incidence of poor value for money is slavery, your definition is ridculously overbroad and therefore useless.

Wrong. You cannot declare that any individual in America receives no benefit from public education without being massively ignorant of how modern economies work.

Bullshit, its EDUCATION that provides the benefit- its irrelevenant to whether its private or public- provided everyone gets one.

Ah yes, I forgot your moronic belief that people will just charitably donate out of their own pockets in order to make sure poor people can afford to go to private schools

Must be nice to float half-assed theories by using Peter Pan solutions to fix the holes in them. All you've done here is concede that it's important for EVERYONE to get an education, and you have no credible means for assuring that anything but a publicly funded system will accomplish this goal. You have not defended your bullshit assertion that you derive zero benefit from public education if you aren't currently in school.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Wrong. The distinguishing characteristic of a slave is that he is considered property.

And what does that "property" do? Oh, thats right, "it" is compeled to work while recieving no benefit from that work.

By your definition, alimony and child-support are slavery too.

Those are responsibilities a person takes upon themself when they decide to have children. However, I will admit that the defination needs to be clarified and made a bit more specific.

Such as?

Two examples are State Slavery and Debt Slavery.

Since "no benefit" would entail 100% tax rate and no public good from a well-educated workforce, I don't see how it's relevant.

The benefits of a well educated workforce are present in both private and public education systems. It is therefore idiotic to claim that a person, who has no children, is benefiting from paying into public education, since it benefits "soceity" in general, when they would recieve the very same benefit from a private education system that would cost them nothing.

No, it would be poor value for money, unless that's ALL the government does, which is just as absurd as implying a 100% tax rate.

Money is a medium of exchange that allows you to store "labor" for later use. Taxation is the threat/use of force to compel you to turn your money over to the state. When the government takes that money and inefficiently spends it on such things as unnecessary military programs it's poor value for your money. When it takes that money and simply gives it to another person then its reducing you to the status of "slave" for the period of time you worked to "store labor" in the quantity of money it took.

Ah yes, I forgot your moronic belief that people will just charitably donate out of their own pockets in order to make sure poor people can afford to go to private schools

You mean the proposal that you baselessly dismissed earlier? The one where there is actually a selfish REASON for them to make a donation?

[Coyote]

Blackberry, I doubt any of us here feel like "slaves" for paying taxes. We get a lot of benefits from our tax dollars-- taxes, when pooled together, help our society to afford things in greater scale than we could afford ourselves.

I've never had to call the police or the fire department, but I am glad they are there and would not do away with them, and while education and military spending is inefficient the answer is to fix those systems, not replace them with corporate entities that have a profit-seeking margin as their motivations.

The thing about insurance agencies providing health benefits is that these are companies that are seeking profit-- their bottom line is the #1 priority. And competition has not helped keep these costs down since the system is privatized already.

I admire the Libertarian concepts of self-reliance and responsibility, but there is a limit constrained by common sense.

[Chardok]

I credit this with my decision to vote FOR Kerry!

[Marksist]

Chardok- That cartoon is hilarious! What website is that from?

The whole idea of the privatization of Education is a good idea. But, what do you do about the lower class and people in poverty BlkbrryTheGreat? A few people have brought this up already, and you have side stepped this very, very important issue, with only a few half-hearted responses to it that "charitable organizations" would pay for it. I just want to see in your master plan for the privitization of Education, a plan so that low income families can still have their kids educated. I would even go with it, as the public education system is fucked up in so many ways, except that it does educate all children in this country.

I grew up in a very poor family, and in your system I probably couldn't have paid for private school (well unless some magical, benevolent, charitable organization came to mine and millions of other poor children's sides to foot the bill) and would today just be an unintelligent brick right now, not working on my Education degree, and probably flipping your burgers (but, I guess since I was born into a poor family, thats where I belong in the libertarian system).

So, please, all I really want to know; is your plan to give an education to the millions of poor people in the country. And I highly doubt charitable organizations will foot the bill for everyone? Or do you not want everyone to have an education (it sounds like you do, but I'm not sure).

[Marksist]

Chardok- Nevermind, I see the address on the side of the cartoon there. (I just woke up)

[aerius]

aerius: the same thing that prevents corporations from charging whatever they want: the economic benefit of getting more customers at a lower price, increasing overall profits.

Not really, as mentioned before they have a captive consumer base like the gasoline & electricity companies, everyone needs their products or services so they're not limited by normal freemarket forces. They can the prices at say, $10,000 a year and jack it up a few hundred every year without any fear of losing customers. People need education, and they will cough up the money unless the price goes up to the price of a car, at which point you end up with the educated elite and the great unwashed masses.

also, make note of the fact that through government funded education it costs significantly more than the average privately schooled child.

Nope, Canadians spend about 60 billion taxpayer bucks/year on education, or about $2000/person/year. Once you work it out it costs about $8000 per student/year to send a kid through public school. Now I haven't checked around for best prices, but over here it generally costs about $10,000 & up a year to send a kid to private school, with the more prestigious schools costing as much as a year at an Ivy League university, which could buy you a nice new car.

[Iceberg]

aerius: the same thing that prevents corporations from charging whatever they want: the economic benefit of getting more customers at a lower price, increasing overall profits.

Not really, as mentioned before they have a captive consumer base like the gasoline & electricity companies, everyone needs their products or services so they're not limited by normal freemarket forces. They can the prices at say, $10,000 a year and jack it up a few hundred every year without any fear of losing customers. People need education, and they will cough up the money unless the price goes up to the price of a car, at which point you end up with the educated elite and the great unwashed masses.

Even prestigious public universities (like the University of William and Mary in Williamsburg, VA, or the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities in Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN) cost between a half and a quarter of what their private counterparts charge.

[Darth Wong]

Wrong. The distinguishing characteristic of a slave is that he is considered property.

And what does that "property" do? Oh, thats right, "it" is compeled to work while recieving no benefit from that work.

Answered many times before. I grow tired of pointing out that the tax rate is not 100%.

By your definition, alimony and child-support are slavery too.

Those are responsibilities a person takes upon themself when they decide to have children. However, I will admit that the defination needs to be clarified and made a bit more specific.

Naturally, since you pulled it out of your ass, the tax rate is not 100%, and you do get benefits from merely living in a society which has public education.

Such as?

Two examples are State Slavery and Debt Slavery.

Both characterized by freedom to leave being removed, hence the importance of the "chattel" definition.limited. Since ANYONE WHO DOESN'T LIKE IT CAN FUCKING LEAVE THE COUNTRY, this does not apply to any free nation's taxation system. It is NOT slavery.

The benefits of a well educated workforce are present in both private and public education systems. It is therefore idiotic to claim that a person, who has no children, is benefiting from paying into public education, since it benefits "soceity" in general, when they would recieve the very same benefit from a private education system that would cost them nothing.

Bullshit. Private education systems will not provide universal education, despite all of your bullshit claims to the contrary.

Money is a medium of exchange that allows you to store "labor" for later use. Taxation is the threat/use of force to compel you to turn your money over to the state. When the government takes that money and inefficiently spends it on such things as unnecessary military programs it's poor value for your money. When it takes that money and simply gives it to another person then its reducing you to the status of "slave" for the period of time you worked to "store labor" in the quantity of money it took.

Drivel. All you do here is repeat yourself.

Ah yes, I forgot your moronic belief that people will just charitably donate out of their own pockets in order to make sure poor people can afford to go to private schools

You mean the proposal that you baselessly dismissed earlier? The one where there is actually a selfish REASON for them to make a donation?

You're an idiot. Even with a larger deduction, they're still out money, so they still have no incentive to contribute, particularly when MOST PEOPLE WILL WANT TO SPEND THEIR OWN MONEY TO PUT THEIR OWN KIDS THROUGH SCHOOL FIRST, YOU FUCKING IDIOT. If they feel like spending more, they sure as fuck won't make charitable donations with it; they'll use it to get their own kids into an even more prestigious school. Jesus ass-fucking Christ, I can't believe you actually need this explaind for you.

[Iceberg]

Two examples are State Slavery and Debt Slavery.

Both characterized by freedom to leave being removed, hence the importance of the "chattel" definition.limited. Since ANYONE WHO DOESN'T LIKE IT CAN FUCKING LEAVE THE COUNTRY, this does not apply to any free nation's taxation system. It is NOT slavery.

It's illuminating that libertarians would rather stay in their nice comfortable Western-nation home and bitch about taxes than do something about taxes and leave said nation for another which doesn't have such taxes.

Hmm, could it be that nations that don't have taxes are disease ridden hell holes where you're either obscenely wealthy enough to buy your own police, your own military and each individual service you might possibly need, or else completely and utterly destitute? Hmm?

[Durandal]

Blkberry, make up your mind. Do you want to live in a society based on "your breeding doesn't entitle you to my bread" or not? How can you realistically expect people in such a society to make charitable donations out of the goodness of their own heart if this society doesn't want to pay taxes for public programs, much less donations which will cover the poor economic class' education costs?