Americans are reminded incessantly these days that slavery was a terrible thing. In today's politically correct society, some blacks are challenging reparations for slavery because their remote ancestors were slaves. Slavery is routinely used to bash the South, although the slave trade began in the North, and slavery was once used in every state in the Union. Today's historians assure people of America that the War for Southern Independence was fought first and foremost if not exclusively over slavery, and that by winning that war, the North put an end to the peculiar institution once and for all. However, in today's modern society, if people are legally bound to hand a certain percentage of their income (the fruits of their labors) over to federal, state and local governments, then from the legal standpoint they only have some percentage ownership of their person and labor which could be considered a form of slavery. In other words, credit and income tax can be labeled as a modern day form of slavery. The pivotal point is whether or not ownership is ceded through voluntary contract. Do people have any recollection of any deals they signed with the IRS promising them payment of part of their income? If not, then if thirty percent of their income is paid in income taxes, then they have only seventy percent ownership of Labor. People are slaves from January through April, which is a very conservative estimate of today.

Therefore, credit and taxes are a form of slavery doe to the fact that Americans owe a certain percentage of their income to the government.

Unfortunately, Congress, the IRS and their Internal Revenue Code (IRC) lay direct claim to those ten hours or some stated percentage) without our consent. In other words, in a free and just society, a society in which there is no slavery of any form: Therefore, people labor involuntarily for at least four months out of every year for the government which they are slaves for that period of time. The government, having forced people to work for free, without compensation, has violated the 13th Amendment. In other words, people are slaves because of credit and taxes.

A forcible direct tax on the labor of a human being is in violation of this right as stated in the 13th Amendment. If people work forty hours a week, and another entity forcibly conscripts twenty-five percent of their compensation, then it can be argued that people have been forced into involuntary servitude, which can be considered to be slavery, for ten of those forty hours, an they were free for the other thirty. If individuals could freely choose to work just the thirty hours and decline to work the ten hours, then their wills would not be violated and the 13th Amendment would be honored (taxes). However, that is not the case and that means due to credit along with taxes, people are in slavery.

If one wants to stand on the U.S. Constitution as one's foundation, then the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution can be used as an ironclad argument against a forcible direct tax on the labor of a human being. The 13th Amendment says: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly

convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." The 13th Amendment makes it very clear that we cannot legally or constitutionally is forced into involuntary servitude.

Human beings are not forced to work for free, in whole or in part. They are not slaves to anything or anyone. Anyone who attempts to force people to work for free, without compensation, has violated our rights under the 13th Amendment. This, of course, is not the state of affairs in the United States of America at the turn of the millennium, in which: that is a violation of the 13th Amendment (taxes). Therefore, it is...

For an Amendment to be changed, in any way, there must be an Amendment that emphatically declares this action. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that alters the efficacy of the 13th Amendment in even the slightest way. The 16th merely allowed the government to enter the "National Social Benefits" business where it finances the system with the mandatory contributions of voluntary participants. While all Americans certainly understand the concept of mandatory contributions, they fail to understand the concept of voluntary participation, largely due to a very effective marketing campaign on the part of our central government for several generations now since the Great Depression. The 16th gave the government the power to legally enter a contractual relationship with its citizens wherein the citizen contributes a portion of his labor in exchange for social benefits. In order for both Amendments to peacefully coexist, the contractual relationships in the system created by the 16th cannot be forced upon the citizens. For it to do so would be to contradict the 13th completely (taxes). In other words, regardless of the 13th Amendment, people still feel like slaves to the government and their credit.
By having credit, people feel like slaves due to the fact they owe on the interest that it requires. If people do not pay the credit company on time, there are late charges that will be on the account. And, for those people who cannot the credit off, they will gain bad credit, which takes many years to recover from (credit ). Unfortunately, by having credit, it is hard for a person obtain anything because most companies such as car dealership and apartment complexes have to check a person's credit history so that they can continue services them. Therefore, people are in slavery due to the fact of credit and what they owe for it.

However, there are arguments that can state people are not slaves because of having credit and taxes. A person relationship with the system technically begins with the assignment of a Social Security Number (Personal Tax ID Number). This government-issued number, however, does not contractually obligate them to anything. The government cannot conscript its citizens simply by assigning a number to them. Assigning the number is perfectly fine. Therefore, it can be argued that people are not slaves to the government or to credit even though it does seem like it.

If there is an infestation of cockroaches near the employee break-room, the corporation doesn't create an SSA-W2 employee exterminator job. They hire a contract exterminator to kill the bugs. When the bug-man arrives they don't hand him a W4 and ask him to declare his allowances, they lead him straight to the big-fat-ugly roaches and implore him to vanquish the vermin immediately. When the bug-man finishes the job he hands them an invoice for his services. And, the company sends him a check to pay the invoice. Nowhere on that check will you find a federal, state, county or city withholding deduction or a social security deduction or a medical or dental deduction or a garnishment or an "I'll-be-needing-an-accountant-to-figure-all-this-out" deduction or a "Tuesday-Save-The-Turnips-Tax" deduction. On the contrary, the bug-man receives full remuneration for his service. This simple arrangement is completely legal and the IRC has zero contractual claims to any part of this check (assuming the bug-man has made no contract under the IRC). And anyone or anything that attempts to forcibly conscript any part of that check is violating the bug-man's rights under the 13th Amendment. In that case, people are in slavery by the government but it does not feel that way.

The bug-man declines to file a return since he has…