• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Taxation Slavery?

Is Taxation Slavery?

  • Yes

    Votes: 12 16.7%

  • No

    Votes: 53 73.6%

  • Other (Explain)

    Votes: 7 9.7%
  • Total voters
    72
Your Star said:
Your over exaggerating the effectiveness of those charities. Before welfare programs it was quite literally do or die.
Click to expand...

He that asserts must prove, so show me your proof.
 
megaprogman said:
No because it does not address the real question. Yes there have been examples of philanthropy throughout time, what I want to see is that if it is enough to take care of everyone in need.
Click to expand...

The link I posted shows that it did take of everyone in need. This is from the link:

St. Andrew’s Society is founded in Charleston, SC, "to assist all people in distress, or whatsoever Nation or Profession.

Jean Louis makes gift for founding Charity Hospital, New Orleans.

Philadelphia Bettering House, sometimes called "Pauper Palace," opened.

St. George Society was created as a charity to help impoverished colonists in New York City, who had need of sustenance and perhaps the cost of a fare for a passage home. It was quickly followed in 1772 by a branch in Philadelphia and another in Charleston in 1773. Other branches followed in other American states and in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and elsewhere. The society exists today as the St. George’s Society of New York and is considered the oldest charity in the United States.

Parliamentary Act, which ran until 1775, closes Boston Port, creating the greatest relief problem in colonial period. Other towns and colonies send money, grain and livestock to aid Boston residents and businesses.

This is just a small sampling from a book written about private charities in the United States.
 
The_Patriot said:
The link I posted shows that it did take of everyone in need. This is from the link:

St. Andrew’s Society is founded in Charleston, SC, "to assist all people in distress, or whatsoever Nation or Profession.
Click to expand...

Thats just a mission statement. Can you show where they actually achieved it?

The_Patriot said:
Jean Louis makes gift for founding Charity Hospital, New Orleans.
Click to expand...

Did it help everyone or at least serve the same scope that the government otherwise does today?

The_Patriot said:
Philadelphia Bettering House, sometimes called "Pauper Palace," opened.

St. George Society was created as a charity to help impoverished colonists in New York City, who had need of sustenance and perhaps the cost of a fare for a passage home. It was quickly followed in 1772 by a branch in Philadelphia and another in Charleston in 1773. Other branches followed in other American states and in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and elsewhere. The society exists today as the St. George’s Society of New York and is considered the oldest charity in the United States.

Parliamentary Act, which ran until 1775, closes Boston Port, creating the greatest relief problem in colonial period. Other towns and colonies send money, grain and livestock to aid Boston residents and businesses.

This is just a small sampling from a book written about private charities in the United States.
Click to expand...

Yes, those are examples of charity institutions helping out the poor which is great, but again, there is no evidence that people who needed it did not go unhelped. I saw no statistics showing stuff like # needing help, # getting help, etc.
 
Your Star said:
Private charities can't reduce the poverty rate as much as the government can.

Welfare increases poverty
Click to expand...

The poverty rate in the United States is unchanged since the New Deal and the Great Society programs were implemented. This, however, is an aside since it doesn't prove your assertation of 'Your over exaggerating the effectiveness of those charities. Before welfare programs it was quite literally do or die.' Show me the proof that before the government got involved that it was 'do or die'.

Here's the statistics from the National Poverty Center.

In the late 1950s, the poverty rate for all Americans was 22.4 percent, or 39.5 million individuals. These numbers declined steadily throughout the 1960s, reaching a low of 11.1 percent, or 22.9 million individuals, in 1973. Over the next decade, the poverty rate fluctuated between 11.1 and 12.6 percent, but it began to rise steadily again in 1980. By 1983, the number of poor individuals had risen to 35.3 million individuals, or 15.2 percent.
Click to expand...
 
megaprogman said:
Thats just a mission statement. Can you show where they actually achieved it?

Did it help everyone or at least serve the same scope that the government otherwise does today?

Yes, those are examples of charity institutions helping out the poor which is great, but again, there is no evidence that people who needed it did not go unhelped. I saw no statistics showing stuff like # needing help, # getting help, etc.
Click to expand...

If you want the statistics then buy the book. I can only present to you what they have available for free.
 
The_Patriot said:
The poverty rate in the United States is unchanged since the New Deal and the Great Society programs were implemented. This, however, is an aside since it doesn't prove your assertation of 'Your over exaggerating the effectiveness of those charities. Before welfare programs it was quite literally do or die.' Show me the proof that before the government got involved that it was 'do or die'.

Here's the statistics from the National Poverty Center.
Click to expand...

If those charities were as effective as the US government, then the poverty rate would go down. You have no proof that those charities took care of everyone, instead of just a lucky few. The gov. can take care of everyone.
 
Your Star said:
So you have no statistics then?
Click to expand...

I can only point you in the right direction to learn about it on your own. However, these charities are still in operation today, so you can call them to ask for yourself.
 
Last edited:
The_Patriot said:
If you want the statistics then buy the book. I can only present to you what they have available for free.
Click to expand...

Well, I will look at it in this way.

Women's History Then & Now - Prostitution

Research on prostitution was developing during the nineteenth century, and Dr. William Sanger was one of the foremost researchers on prostitution during this period; his work is still highly esteemed due to its accuracy and depth. Sanger examined the identity of the average prostitute and sought to understand why she had turned to that lifestyle. He found that the majority of prostitutes were in their late teens or early twenties; they were usually illiterate, poor and from broken families (Bullough 243). Victorian Servant Economic poverty, societal disgrace, and lack of education were also causes of girls turning towards prostitution; they had a limited number of options available to them. Sanger asked several prostitutes why they had turned to this way of life and they gave a number of different reasons. For instance, some women had either been expelled from their homes or deserted by their parents and found prostitution the only way to support themselves. Other girls were forced into prostitution in order for their families to survive. Similarly, girls who had worked in domestics or servants were forced into prostitution because they had been seduced by their masters and then abandoned. On the other hand, a number of women would turn to prostitution simply as an escape from typical professions. Many of the girls expected to remain prostitutes only until something better became available. Immigrant women who had arrived to the country without money or were brought into the country forcibly had only prostitution open to them (Bullough 243). The conditions for women in the Victorian period caused many young teenagers and women to turn towards prostitution as a means of survival.
Click to expand...

The only conclusion I can make is if those philanthropists had been helping everyone, than no one would have needed to turn to things like prostitution to survive. I guess those statistics weren't so necessary after all. However, until this kind of stuff is eradicated, than charity will never be enough.
 
Last edited:
Your Star said:
If those charities were as effective as the US government, then the poverty rate would go down. You have no proof that those charities took care of everyone, instead of just a lucky few. The gov. can take care of everyone.
Click to expand...

So you have no proof to back up your assertation. If the government can take care of everyone then why do we still have a poverty rate in the 10-20% range? The government has standards that people must meet in order to be eligible for assistance and even then they do not have to provide it. Private charities have always helped those that they could provided they had the money available. Due to them being private they can have whatever standards they wish.
 
The_Patriot said:
He that asserts must prove, so show me your proof.
Click to expand...


The_Patriot said:
I can only point you in the right direction to learn about it on your own. However, these charities are still in operation today, so you can call them to ask for yourself.
Click to expand...

So the statement above doesn't apply to you? :roll:
 
megaprogman said:
Well, I will look at it in this way.

Women's History Then & Now - Prostitution

The only conclusion I can make is if those philanthroposts had been helping everyone, than noone would have needed to turn to things like prostitution to survive. I guess those statistics weren't so necessary after all.
Click to expand...

You also have to account that in that timeframe women were not allowed to work outside of the home. It was against the law in many states and against societal norms. However, this does not prove that private charities didn't help them. Invalid comparison logical fallacy, so please try again.
 
The_Patriot said:
Not true since private charities were able to do so for over a hundred years before the government got involved.
Click to expand...

The problem with charities, however, is that, because they rely on volunteers, they may not have the full expertise necessesary to efficiently pursue their charitable works. Also, charities are capable of their own abuses, such as Magdalene laundries.

Magdalene asylum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
The_Patriot said:
You also have to account that in that timeframe women were not allowed to work outside of the home. It was against the law in many states and against societal norms. However, this does not prove that private charities didn't help them. Invalid comparison logical fallacy, so please try again.
Click to expand...

Ok, so they could not work. This means they could not earn a legitimate income. This means they would have to turn to charity for support or some form of illegitimate income. The fact that they turned to an illegitimate income means they were not able to rely on charity. The article states that only a few women turned to prostitution because they liked it and considered it to be a good lifestyle. That alone does prove that charity did not help them because they did not have what they needed for survival.

Please do not confuse arguments you disagree with with logical fallacies. I am trying to have an honest conversation with you here.
 
Last edited:
Your Star said:
So the statement above doesn't apply to you? :roll:
Click to expand...

For one thing, statistics is a rather new phenomeana and only have been an area of study for less than a hundred years. Secondly, these charities have almost 200 years of data that only they have access to. I pointed you in the right direction to find out for yourself. I did prove that private charities were reliable and always there way before the government got involved. I may no claims about how many people they helped. That is something that you demanded, but under the rules of debate that is up to you to independently research. I'm under no obligation to provide it since it was never my argument to begin with. Also, no one can remove poverty since humans by nature are lazy and would have things handed to them. As evidenced by the National Poverty Center's statistics and data, poverty has remained unchanged.

Now prior to 1916, people in the United States had far more disposable income due to the fact there weren't that many taxes placed on them and the government didn't limit their choices regarding charitible giving. Combine this with the fact that there was a fixed currency that didn't devalue over time, inflation, that the average American's spending power was greater than it is today. All of this is the fault of the government by implementing laws that interfere with charitible giving, fiat currency that has lost its purchasing power, and the taking of most of the disposable income of many Americans through taxation.
 
The_Patriot said:
So you have no proof to back up your assertation. If the government can take care of everyone then why do we still have a poverty rate in the 10-20% range? The government has standards that people must meet in order to be eligible for assistance and even then they do not have to provide it. Private charities have always helped those that they could provided they had the money available. Due to them being private they can have whatever standards they wish.
Click to expand...

You know that is not always a good thing right.
Anyway private charities will never be able to take care of people the way the government can. There are standards for government welfare so they can take care of the truly impoverished, and give them a crutch while they are down, so they can get back on there feet. This is shown with the numbers I gave you about the poverty rate going down when welfare programs were implemented.
 
megaprogman said:
Ok, so they could not work. This means they could not earn a legitimate income. This means they would have to turn to charity for support or some form of illegitimate income. The fact that they turned to an illegitimate income means they were not able to rely on charity. The article states that only a few women turned to prostitution because they liked it and considered it to be a good lifestyle. That alone does prove that charity did not help them because they did not have what they needed for survival.

Please do not confuse arguments you disagree with with logical fallacies. I am trying to have an honest conversation with you here.
Click to expand...

The logical fallacy comes in when the article doesn't prove that these women went to a charity to get help and were turned away. In fact, it never even touches upon the subject, which is why it's an invalid comparison logical fallacy.
 
The_Patriot said:
For one thing, statistics is a rather new phenomeana and only have been an area of study for less than a hundred years. Secondly, these charities have almost 200 years of data that only they have access to. I pointed you in the right direction to find out for yourself. I did prove that private charities were reliable and always there way before the government got involved. I may no claims about how many people they helped. That is something that you demanded, but under the rules of debate that is up to you to independently research. I'm under no obligation to provide it since it was never my argument to begin with. Also, no one can remove poverty since humans by nature are lazy and would have things handed to them. As evidenced by the National Poverty Center's statistics and data, poverty has remained unchanged.

Now prior to 1916, people in the United States had far more disposable income due to the fact there weren't that many taxes placed on them and the government didn't limit their choices regarding charitible giving. Combine this with the fact that there was a fixed currency that didn't devalue over time, inflation, that the average American's spending power was greater than it is today. All of this is the fault of the government by implementing laws that interfere with charitible giving, fiat currency that has lost its purchasing power, and the taking of most of the disposable income of many Americans through taxation.
Click to expand...

The fundamental point of debate is that you can back up your statements, not point someone "in the right direction" and tell them to find it for themselves. The person that makes the assertion has to be the one to cite it, its kind of like a college paper.
 
Your Star said:
You know that is not always a good thing right.
Anyway private charities will never be able to take care of people the way the government can. There are standards for government welfare so they can take care of the truly impoverished, and give them a crutch while they are down, so they can get back on there feet. This is shown with the numbers I gave you about the poverty rate going down when welfare programs were implemented.
Click to expand...

Yet, the government's own statistics prove that it can't help everyone the way private charities can. Poverty rates have remained unchanged and the statistics bear this out. It's a well known fact that Social Security, Medicare, and other government programs can turn you away because the government has never promised to fulfill those services after you pay in.
 
Last edited:
megaprogman said:
The fundamental point of debate is that you can back up your statements, not point someone "in the right direction" and tell them to find it for themselves. The person that makes the assertion has to be the one to cite it, its kind of like a college paper.
Click to expand...

However, I never made that assertation now did I?
 
megaprogman said:
The fundamental point of debate is that you can back up your statements, not point someone "in the right direction" and tell them to find it for themselves. The person that makes the assertion has to be the one to cite it, its kind of like a college paper.
Click to expand...

The hypocrisy is amazing.
 
The_Patriot said:
The logical fallacy comes in when the article doesn't prove that these women went to a charity to get help and were turned away. In fact, it never even touches upon the subject, which is why it's an invalid comparison logical fallacy.
Click to expand...

OMG, you seriously think there weren't people trying to get help?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom