>The problem here is, you likely have an axe to grind, and
>won't be listening to reason. But I'll try a bit again
>anyway.

The problem here is, you have already dismissed everyone who might disagree with your world view as having an axe to grind, but I'll try a bit anyway.

Regarding your job, and more specifically your income, the problem is that an income tax presupposes that the government has a right to the fruits of your labor. It is not that taxes are new, or even that income taxes are new, but rather that they represent a form of slavery. If I brought over a poor person from a third world country and told them the price (for bringing them here) was that they would pay me 20% of everything they make for their lives, I would be arrested and likely jailed for enslaving another person. Just because our government isn't a private person doesn't give them any more right to enslave people than anyone else. Lest my argument be derailed because I mentioned slavery, go back to my first point, it is the crux of my point.

>- My point was that the concept of ownership (not requiring
>ongoing revenue) no longer exists. Its a foreign concept, so
>foreign it didn't even occur to you what I was referring to.
>
>- I'm refering to ownership in the absolute sense. Meaning
>that your controlling rights don't decay and degrade if you
>fail to pay a tax. In the sense that your ownership rights are
>undeniable, constant over time, and there exists no legal
>means to leverage them from you. If you can lose ownership
>without explicit consent, it isn't absolute ownership.
>
>
>When did this concept of ownership that you speak of actually
>exist? It's not like taxes are a new concept.

I own lots of things that I don't have to continue to pay to own. In fact, being a non-landowner I am not aware of ongoing payments (to government) of anything I own. Again the problem here is it presupposes the government has a greater property right to your property than you. How is rent different from a property tax? Eminent Domain laws have also changed such that if the state determines more tax money can be made by repurposing your property they can seize it against your will.

>- What you consider 'too high' over 'too short' a period of
>time is both relative to your financial position and
>non-absolute (meaning it can change at any time if the laws
>are rewritten). People have undeniably sold their houses due
>to tax increases. If that tax were not there, they would not
>have been forced to.
>
>Absolutely. It's happened many times. And sure, it's
>relative. But take a peek into what states and local
>governments can and cannot do. It's more limited than you
>think in the tax area.

It's only limited by what they think they can get away with.

>- And there was Roman peace for a thousand years, but
>regardless of the fact that it hasn't happened within the last
>40 years, it can happen at any time. Historically speaking,
>Vietnam wasn't very long ago. The fact that such ability
>exists denotes that you, in fact, do not have absolute right
>to life.
>
>Historically speaking, neither world war was that long ago.
>Historically speaking, King George being our sovereign wasn't
>that long ago. But that doesn't mean I'm waiting to hear from
>the British Monarchy about our next move in Iraq. While you
>certainly pay attention to history, you deal with the facts as
>they are at the present.

Again, it isn't about whether or not their is a draft on now, but that in registering for selective service (which every male is required to do at 18) the government is again presupposing they have the right to use your life as they see fit, whether you agree or not. They fact that it is reserved for only when they "really" need it is not the point. If the nation truly did need more soldiers, believe me, there would be no shortage of volunteers. Of course when you are involved in "police actions" half a world away that would have had little to no effect on your own people had you not gotten involved... well volunteers may be harder to come by.

>-Granted, its not quite Orson Well's depiction of Big
>>Brother, complete with video camera's and elimination of
>>thought, but its certainly not the "land of the free, home
>of
>>liberty" that we've been told it is.
>
>The above statement is why I thought it was a troll. You
>might want to google Orson Well's. And maybe George Orwell
>for that matter.

I've read 1984, and while overt control in the way depicted is certainly far from reality (at least in the US) the covert control is creeping in and just as real. The new hate crime legislation makes hate (especially racism) a thought crime. The action you take is less important in this instance than your reason for taking it. That is all kinds of wrong. Don't even get me started on the wire tapping/patriot act abuses...

>Anyway, while there's a grain of truth in pretty much
>everything you say, I think you're making it out to be far,
>far worse than things truly are. There's room for
>improvement, and I don't care for the road we've been heading
>down for the past few years, but this seems a slight
>overreaction. Vote.
>

I don't think it is an overreaction, in fact I think everyone should be much angrier about these things than they are. Much like the frog in the pot that is slowly being brought to boil, we may not notice until it is too late.

I will however agree with one thing... Yes, Vote. This time there is someone actually worth voting for. Vote Ron Paul.