[lentulusgracchus]

Where did I say that people were property of the state?

It's implicit in your remarks. Either you work for the State and are its commandable resource, or it works for you, and it is your commandable resource.

So who is the master, you or the State? If it isn't you, it's the State.

Like they say, if you're sitting in a poker game and you can't tell by looking who the sucker is -- it's you.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Where did I say that people were property of the state?

It's implicit in your remarks. Either you work for the State and are its commandable resource, or it works for you, and it is your commandable resource.

You are straining at a gnat and swallowing an F-16.  You deny (or at least ignore) that "sovereign" and "supreme" are synonyms, yet accuse me of saying that the people are slaves.

Interesting.  I state that we are a republic, not a democracy and that the constitution is the supreme law of the land.  That all of our rights are codified by this sovereign law.  And you better hope it is supreme, otherwise states can exercise unrighteous dominion over you.

So who is the master, you or the State? If it isn't you, it's the State.

If the people are the masters, then we are a democracy.  The fact of the matter, is that that little 5,000 word scrap of paper splits rights and powers amongst the federal government, state governments and the people in a representative form of government known as a "republic."  There is no "master/slave" relationship here (at least in theory).  Rather there is a framework designed to ensure societal success with as little interference as possible.  If it were a "master/slave" model, we would have a welfare and nanny state giving to us crumbs while taking from us the fruit of our labors (we are getting there...)

Like they say, if you're sitting in a poker game and you can't tell by looking who the sucker is -- it's you.

Being reasonably good at math, I eschew games of chance played for money.