• 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
Thats more of a complaint on how the programs are run, than the program themselves.

No it's a complaint about the ineffiency of state bureaucracy. Not only is state theft and redistribution an ineffecient means to aid the poor but it is a violation of the right of self ownership and the non-aggression principle. Charities on the other hand are more efficient and do not violate the rights of the individual.
 
Yes and those were all run by the state governments not the federal government, which is what my original objection was about. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Thats great, but you also claimed that

Not true since private charities were able to do so for over a hundred years before the government got involved. The government hates competition.

That is the statement I am concerned about. I don't care what you think about the 10th amendment.
 
Thats great, but you also claimed that



That is the statement I am concerned about. I don't care what you think about the 10th amendment.

I provided proof that private charities were able to do so for over a hundred years before the government got involved. My statement was in regards to the federal government not the states since I used the singular and not the plural of government.
 
Last edited:
I provided proof that private charities were able to do so for over a hundred years before the government got involved. My statement was in regards to the federal government not the states since I used the singular and not the plural of government.

Show me the proof then and please do not go "buy the book!"
 
Show me the proof then and please do not go "buy the book!"

I already did and it wasn't good enough for you. I showed that private charities were able to assist people without the federal government being involved.
 
No it's a complaint about the ineffiency of state bureaucracy. Not only is state theft and redistribution an ineffecient means to aid the poor but it is a violation of the right of self ownership and the non-aggression principle. Charities on the other hand are more efficient and do not violate the rights of the individual.

I'm all for making those programs more efficient, but I'm definitely not for getting rid of those programs. Also charities can not provide for everyone like the government can.

Also your self ownership comes after taxes. :2razz:
 
I already did and it wasn't good enough for you. I showed that private charities were able to assist people without the federal government being involved.

When did you do this?
 
You never countered with the federal government being able to help the poor so yes it is proof.

That was a different assertion. Besides, I think yourstar was the one making that argument.

However, you cannot prove an assertion with the lack of proof in an unrelated assertion.
 
That was a different assertion. Besides, I think yourstar was the one making that argument.

In post #447 you said, "Do you have any data to support this assertion?" in response to my assertation that private charities were able to provide help to the poor for over a hundred years before the government got involved. I provided the link to the Philanthropic Society page that showed the history of private charities in the US. You decided to change the debate point after that.
 
Last edited:
That was a different assertion. Besides, I think yourstar was the one making that argument.

However, you cannot prove an assertion with the lack of proof in an unrelated assertion.

And I provided proof for my assertion. The poverty rate went down when the government provided welfare programs.
 
In post #447 you said, "Do you have any data to support this assertion?" in response to my assertation that private charities were able to provide help to the poor for over a hundred years before the government got involved. I provided the link to the Philanthropic Society page that showed the history of private charities in the US.

That link did not provide any proof.
 
And I provided proof for my assertion. The poverty rate went down when the government provided welfare programs.

You have yet to provide proof of what the poverty rate was before the government got involved. You didn't provide proof of what poverty was like when the government got involved, since I did by linking the National Poverty Center's statistics.
 
The link does provide proof with a list of charities and the date they were founded.

All it shows is that some charities were founded. It contains no information on what impact the charities had.
 
All it shows is that some charities were founded. It contains no information on what impact the charities had.

Hence you moved the goal posts in an attempt to win.
 
That in no way states their effectiveness.

I never made the claim that it was effective. You're the one that asserted that it wasn't effective and you have yet to provide any proof to back that up. I have been waiting patiently for you to provide such proof.
 
Hence you moved the goal posts in an attempt to win.

No I did not. What I have wanted to know the whole time was what proof you had for this.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/76751-taxation-slavery-45.html#post1058858476

In which LA states
Unfortunately, private charities can not keep up with the needs of the f financially handicapped.

And you state

Not true since private charities were able to do so for over a hundred years before the government got involved. The government hates competition.

I want to see where private charities were keeping up with the needs of the financially handicapped, not when some charities were founded. And heck, I was only asking for the 1800s or another century before the new deal, not even hundreds of years.

I was letting you off easy.
 
Last edited:
No I did not. What I have wanted to know the whole time was what proof you had for this.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/76751-taxation-slavery-45.html#post1058858476

In which LA states

And you state

I want to see where private charities were keeping up with the needs of the financially handicapped, not when some charities were founded.

And I did provide proof since those charities are still in existence and I provided the historical financial data on the amount of disposable income people had to help the poor. If the charities weren't keeping up with the needs of the poor they wouldn't be in existence today. Current statistics show that charities do help the poor more than the government does by the sheer amount of contributions every year. Yet, government still hasn't made a dent in the removal of the poor and poverty in the US.
 
Last edited:
And I did provide proof since those charities are still in existence and I provided the historical financial data on the amount of disposable income people had to help the poor. If the charities weren't keeping up with the needs of the poor they wouldn't be in existence today.

Where is this financial data? I honestly might have missed it. Also, can this financial data show what impact it had on the poor or only that a certain amount of money was donated?
 
Either way, I have some work to get done in the next couple of hours, so I will look forward to an answer when I get back. Have fun with your research.
 
I never made the claim that it was effective. You're the one that asserted that it wasn't effective and you have yet to provide any proof to back that up. I have been waiting patiently for you to provide such proof.

I stated that they were not effective at providing for all the poor, you claimed that that I was wrong, therefore you were stating that charities were effective at providing for all the poor. And I did provide proof, though I doubt you even clicked the link I provided.
 
Back
Top Bottom