Is Taxation Slavery?

This whole disagreement triangle :mrgreen: between megaprogman, The_Patroit, and Yourstar is getting quite complex and hard to follow.

Perhaps if everyone started over, something other than an argument about how the other guy is arguing would occur?

Still, it’s entertaining.


:mrgreen:

megaprogman said:

First of all, I am on my own side of the debate. It is up to her to defend herself. Second of all, please show me how I am moving the goal posts. I have shown at least twice now that all I want is for you to prove your assertion that you claimed against LiberalAvenger's post. Once you have either proved it or rescind the statement, we will move on.

Click to expand...

In post #445 I stated, "Not true since private charities were able to do so for over a hundred years before the government got involved. The government hates competition."

In post #446 Your Star replied with, "Private charities don't have the reliability of the government. They can be there for you one month, but not the next. The government won't do that."

In post #447 you replied to my argument, "Do you have any data to support this assertion?"

In post #448 Your Star asserted, "Your over exaggerating the effectiveness of those charities. Before welfare programs it was quite literally do or die."

I responded to it in post #449#449, "Will this suffice?" with a link to the Philanthropic Society's history section.

In post #452 you replied, "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."

You moved the goal post there since that was never my argument, but Your Star's.

In post #461 you moved the goal posts again by using an invalid comparison to prove that charity was ineffective and reliable from 1700-1919 by posting up an article about prostitution during the 19th century. In post #471 you demanded I back up my position with data and I did on the argument I made originally. Afterthat, you have misattributed Your Star's argument to me. By doing so you have moved the goal post again by letting Your Star slide on not providing proof of her argument and moving it onto me.

Since Your Star and you have failed to provide any proof that charity was unreliable and ineffective, I did not need to provide proof of my own under the rules of debate. You and her both used rhetoric and opinion, so I replied in kind with opinion.

Going back through it, Liberal Avenger originally made the claim that private charities cannot keep up with the needs of the financially handicapped in post #438. He failed to provide proof to back up his assertation. Since there is no proof provided and only opinion I replied with only opinion due to the rules of debate. My apologies to Your Star for misattributing that argument to you.

The_Patriot said:

In post #445 I stated, "Not true since private charities were able to do so for over a hundred years before the government got involved. The government hates competition."

In post #446 Your Star replied with, "Private charities don't have the reliability of the government. They can be there for you one month, but not the next. The government won't do that."

In post #447 you replied to my argument, "Do you have any data to support this assertion?"

In post #448 Your Star asserted, "Your over exaggerating the effectiveness of those charities. Before welfare programs it was quite literally do or die."

I responded to it in post #449#449, "Will this suffice?" with a link to the Philanthropic Society's history section.

In post #452 you replied, "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."

You moved the goal post there since that was never my argument, but Your Star's.

In post #461 you moved the goal posts again by using an invalid comparison to prove that charity was ineffective and reliable from 1700-1919 by posting up an article about prostitution during the 19th century. In post #471 you demanded I back up my position with data and I did on the argument I made originally. Afterthat, you have misattributed Your Star's argument to me. By doing so you have moved the goal post again by letting Your Star slide on not providing proof of her argument and moving it onto me.

Click to expand...

Yourstar and I are two different people dude.

But lets look at these two quotes.

In post #445 (Is Taxation Slavery?) I stated, "Not true since private charities were able to do so for over a hundred years before the government got involved. The government hates competition."

Click to expand...

In post #452 (Is Taxation Slavery?) you replied, "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...

do you disagree that not taking care of everyone in need is a rephrasing of

LiberalAvenger said:

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

Click to expand...

. If you disagree, please tell me how they are different.

If you misunderstood, I will restrict the scope of my restatement to the realm of finances. However, both statements pretty much mean the same thing.

Also per post 461, I did admit my error here http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/76751-taxation-slavery-49.html#post1058858632

Then I posted this http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/76751-taxation-slavery-50.html#post1058858690 about the existance of poor houses (which wouldn't have been necessary if charities were taking care of the poor as an alternative proof, which you did not address, except to state that it was a state issue vs a federal one, which was outside the scope of our primary conversation about you backing up your claim.

Also, please do not play game with me and equivocate me and yourstar. She has her arguments, I have mine. This is not some sport with two opposing sides. This is a bunch of individuals, each with their own point of view.

The_Patriot said:

In post #445 I stated, "Not true since private charities were able to do so for over a hundred years before the government got involved. The government hates competition."

In post #446 Your Star replied with, "Private charities don't have the reliability of the government. They can be there for you one month, but not the next. The government won't do that."

In post #447 you replied to my argument, "Do you have any data to support this assertion?"

In post #448 Your Star asserted, "Your over exaggerating the effectiveness of those charities. Before welfare programs it was quite literally do or die."

I responded to it in post #449#449, "Will this suffice?" with a link to the Philanthropic Society's history section.

In post #452 you replied, "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."

You moved the goal post there since that was never my argument, but Your Star's.

In post #461 you moved the goal posts again by using an invalid comparison to prove that charity was ineffective and reliable from 1700-1919 by posting up an article about prostitution during the 19th century. In post #471 you demanded I back up my position with data and I did on the argument I made originally. Afterthat, you have misattributed Your Star's argument to me. By doing so you have moved the goal post again by letting Your Star slide on not providing proof of her argument and moving it onto me.

Since Your Star and you have failed to provide any proof that charity was unreliable and ineffective, I did not need to provide proof of my own under the rules of debate. You and her both used rhetoric and opinion, so I replied in kind with opinion.

Click to expand...

You seem to be taking things out of context.

Your “statement” of:

The_Patriot said:

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

Click to expand...

Was actually a response to LiberalAvenger’s response to a previous post, namely:

LiberalAvenger said:

That sounds good on paper. Unfortunately, private charities cannot keep up with the needs of the f financially handicapped.

Click to expand...

In that context, it’s obvious why megaprogman would think you were claiming the opposite, and further, claiming that history showed this… Thus, why he expected you to prove such.

^^^ Um, I never said that charities didn't exist, or helped.. I stated that you can't rely on charities, as you can the government. Because charities don't have a permanent source of income, the way the government has. If they don't get donations, they can't do anything for you, hence my comment they can be for you one month and not the next. Are you saying that a single charity has as good of income as the US government? I've been waiting for you to provide this info, yet you haven't.

megaprogman said:

Yourstar and I are two different people dude.

But lets look at these two quotes.

do you disagree that not taking care of everyone in need is a rephrasing of . If you disagree, please tell me how they are different.

If you misunderstood, I will restrict the scope of my restatement to the realm of finances. However, both statements pretty much mean the same thing.

Also per post 461, I did admit my error here http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/76751-taxation-slavery-49.html#post1058858632

Then I posted this http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/76751-taxation-slavery-50.html#post1058858690 about the existance of poor houses (which wouldn't have been necessary if charities were taking care of the poor as an alternative proof, which you did not address, except to state that it was a state issue vs a federal one, which was outside the scope of our primary conversation about you backing up your claim.

Also, please do not play game with me and equivocate me and yourstar. She has her arguments, I have mine. This is not some sport with two opposing sides. This is a bunch of individuals, each with their own point of view.

Click to expand...

I never did equivocate that you are one and the same. However, it still doesn't change the fact that your side of the argument needed to provide proof when Liberal Avenger failed to do so and you picked up his argument.

None of the links are working for me which is strange, so can you please tell me the post number?

The_Patriot said:

I never did equivocate that you are one and the same. However, it still doesn't change the fact that your side of the argument needed to provide proof when Liberal Avenger failed to do so and you picked up his argument.

None of the links are working for me which is strange, so can you please tell me the post number?

Click to expand...

top post 487
bottom post 496

There is no my side of the argument. There is only my argument. I have no control over what other people post. Whether or not Yourstar or LA back up what they claim is not my concern since my conversation is with you.

Please stop using this red herring, you are better than this.

Your Star said:

^^^ Um, I never said that charities didn't exist, or helped.. I stated that you can't rely on charities, as you can the government. Because charities don't have a permanent source of income, the way the government has. If they don't get donations, they can't do anything for you, hence my comment they can be for you one month and not the next. Are you saying that a single charity has as good of income as the US government? I've been waiting for you to provide this info, yet you haven't.

Click to expand...

Here you go and now produce your proof. Also, I never said a single charity as I've always used the plural. That means that I am talking about all of them. Please, don't move the goal posts and misconstrue my argument.

According to Giving USA, American giving reach a record high in 2007, with donations totaling $314-billion. Giving has since dropped by 2% to $308 billion in 2008.2

Click to expand...

Link Keep in mind that taxes and inflation went up so people had less money to spend due to the recession. There was also changes in the law regarding how much a person could donate to a charity and get a deduction. The federal government spent 415.21 billion dollars in 2007 and 485.96 billion dollars in 2008. Link

The_Patriot said:

Here you go and now produce your proof. Also, I never said a single charity as I've always used the plural. That means that I am talking about all of them. Please, don't move the goal posts and misconstrue my argument.

Link Keep in mind that taxes and inflation went up so people had less money to spend due to the recession. There was also changes in the law regarding how much a person could donate to a charity and get a deduction. The federal government spent 415.21 billion dollars in 2007 and 485.96 billion dollars in 2008.

Click to expand...

I will let yourstar field that one since it is her argument.

megaprogman said:

top post 487
bottom post 496

There is no my side of the argument. There is only my argument. I have no control over what other people post. Whether or not Yourstar or LA back up what they claim is not my concern since my conversation is with you.

Please stop using this red herring, you are better than this.

Click to expand...

When I said government, I was referring to the federal government as evidenced by the usage of the Constitution of the United States and the limits on the federal government in this thread. I made no mention of state governments. You're the first one that did and I conceded the point by referencing the Tenth Amendment while clarifying what government I was talking about.

The_Patriot said:

When I said government, I was referring to the federal government as evidenced by the usage of the Constitution of the United States and the limits on the federal government. I made no mention of state governments. You're the first one that did and I conceded the point by referencing the Tenth Amendment while clarifying what government I was talking about.

Click to expand...

Fair enough, can you prove your assertion that private charities can keep up with the needs of the financially handicapped?

Per this post http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/76751-taxation-slavery-45.html#post1058858476 (post 3 445)

megaprogman said:

Fair enough, can you prove your assertion that private charities can keep up with the needs of the financially handicapped?

Per this post http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/76751-taxation-slavery-45.html#post1058858476 (post 3 445)

Click to expand...

I never made that assertation but Your Star and Liberal Avenger did. They provided no proof, so under the rules of debate I need none. You should be asking them to back up their statements and not me.

The_Patriot said:

I never made that assertation but Your Star and Liberal Avenger did. They provided no proof, so under the rules of debate I need none. You should be asking them to back up their statements and not me.

Click to expand...

LiberalAvenger said:

That sounds good on paper. Unfortunately, private charities can not keep up with the needs of the f financially handicapped.

Click to expand...

The_Patriot said:

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

Click to expand...

Your words, not mine. Also please point out these rules that show that you do not need to prove your assertions? Are they in a book that I have to buy? :lol:

The_Patriot said:

Here you go and now produce your proof. Also, I never said a single charity as I've always used the plural. That means that I am talking about all of them. Please, don't move the goal posts and misconstrue my argument.

Link Keep in mind that taxes and inflation went up so people had less money to spend due to the recession. There was also changes in the law regarding how much a person could donate to a charity and get a deduction. The federal government spent 415.21 billion dollars in 2007 and 485.96 billion dollars in 2008. Link

Click to expand...

The fact is that charities are never as reliable as the US government. My argument was never that charities don't do good, or they can't take care of people. My argument is that charities can't of all of the impoverished, like the US government can. Until charities get taxes from every citizen, every year they will never be as reliable as the US government. If they were, charities would of gotten people out of the great depression, not the government. But that didn't happen, the government did.

Your Star said:

The fact is that charities are never as reliable as the US government. My argument was never that charities don't do good, or they can't take care of people. My argument is that charities can't of all of the impoverished, like the US government can. Until charities get taxes from every citizen, every year they will never be as reliable as the US government. If they were, charities would of gotten people out of the great depression, not the government. But that didn't happen, the government did.

Click to expand...

Actually, I'm 99% sure it was a combo of the government and charities which did so.

And arguements over that still occur.

I've heard people claim the government programs actually extended the depression...

Which could be true, I suppose.

Your Star said:

The fact is that charities are never as reliable as the US government. My argument was never that charities don't do good, or they can't take care of people. My argument is that charities can't of all of the impoverished, like the US government can. Until charities get taxes from every citizen, every year they will never be as reliable as the US government. If they were, charities would of gotten people out of the great depression, not the government. But that didn't happen, the government did.

Click to expand...

I see that you're hurling opinion as fact. If you think that charities are not as reliable as the US government then prove it. I'm from Missouri so Show Me.

megaprogman said:

Your words, not mine. Also please point out these rules that show that you do not need to prove your assertions? Are they in a book that I have to buy? :lol:

Click to expand...

My reply was to Liberal Avenger who provided no proof. Therefore, I am not required to provide any proof. Go after him to prove that charities weren't effective or reliable and I did post proof that charities were just as effective in post #583. I even explained why the government hates competition and used facts to support it. I guess this is a case of where liberals do not have to use proof and facts, but their word is good enough. Not for me, so show me.

The_Patriot said:

My reply was to Liberal Avenger who provided no proof. Therefore, I am not required to provide any proof.

Click to expand...

Please point out these rules that show that you do not need to prove your assertions.

The_Patriot said:

Go after him to prove that charities weren't effective or reliable and I did post proof that charities were just as effective in post #583.

Click to expand...

Thats not proof that private charities can keep up with the needs of the financially handicapped, that is statistics on giving. There is nothing on that website you linked that showed overall impact to the communty and nothing to support that it encompasses the needs of the financially handicapped.

The_Patriot said:

I even explained why the government hates competition and used facts to support it.

Click to expand...

Whether or not government hates competition is not the part I am interested in. If you look at previous posts, you will notice which part I have made bold.

The_Patriot said:

I guess this is a case of where liberals do not have to use proof and facts, but their word is good enough. Not for me, so show me.

Click to expand...

What other people do on this forum is not my responsibility. Please stop using this red herring.

megaprogman said:

What other people do on this forum is not my responsibility. Please stop using this red herring.

Click to expand...

Then stop picking up their argument. If you want to then you provide proof, if not then stop demanding that I produce proof for an argument I did not make. It's quite simple.

The_Patriot said:

Then stop picking up their argument. If you want to then you provide proof, if not then stop demanding that I produce proof for an argument I did not make. It's quite simple.

Click to expand...

Where am I picking up their argument?

Also, I have shown multiple times that you did make that argument, using your own posts. You can keep denying it if you want, but its making you look bad.

megaprogman said:

Where am I picking up their argument?

Click to expand...

A perfect example is post #588. You step into the argument demanding proof for something I did not make an argument for originally. If you want proof go after the person that posited that charities aren't effective or as reliable as the government. Thus, you need to present the proof required before I do as a counterpoint.

The_Patriot said:

Then stop picking up their argument. If you want then you provide proof, if not then stop demanding that I produce proof for an argument I did not make. It's quite simple.

Click to expand...

I must be misunderstanding something.

As I understand things, you responded to someone's post, and megaprogman then responded to your response, demanding proof of your disagreement.

Where is the demand for proof of an arguement you didn't make?

Or are you for some reason claiming that because you were responding to someone elses post, THEY made the arguement, and you simply disagreed?

Still, why would that mean you didn't argue something?

And why would it mean you didn't have to provide proof?

The_Patriot said:

A perfect example is post #588. You step into the argument demanding proof for something I did not make an argument for originally.

Click to expand...

That would be one of the posts where I am showing you that you are making an argument that you did not make. You will notice that I am quoting you.

The_Patriot said:

If you want proof go after the person that posited that charities aren't effective or as reliable as the government. Thus, you need to present the proof required before I do as a counterpoint.

Click to expand...

Why would I ask for proof of your assertion to a person who does not believe it to be true? That makes no sense. Besides, your assertion stands on its own, if you wanted him to present proof of his assertion, you should ask him for it.

The Mark said:

I must be misunderstanding something.

As I understand things, you responded to someone's post, and megaprogman then responded to your response, demanding proof of your disagreement.

Where is the demand for proof of an arguement you didn't make?

Or are you for some reason claiming that because you were responding to someone elses post, THEY made the arguement, and you simply disagreed?

Still, why would that mean you didn't argue something?

And why would it mean you didn't have to provide proof?

Click to expand...

They made the argument that charities weren't effective or reliable and I disagreed. I demanded no proof at that time since it was a simple discussion with the person.

The_Patriot said:

They made the argument that charities weren't effective or reliable and I disagreed. I demanded no proof at that time since it was a simple discussion with the person.

Click to expand...

LiberalAvenger and I are not the same person. The correct pronoun would be he.