• 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
The_Patriot said:
However, I never made that assertation now did I?
Click to expand...

You made the assertion that private charities could take care of people just as well as government welfare programs. I said they couldn't. I provided information, and statistics, and you "pointed me in the right direction", and made up excuses about how you couldn't come up with statistics.
 
megaprogman said:
OMG, you seriously think there weren't people trying to get help?
Click to expand...

I never said that now did I? I said that the article never specifies that the women featured in the article went to charity and were turned away.
 
The_Patriot said:
However, I never made that assertation now did I?
Click to expand...

As I recall, you did make an assertion

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...

Than you offered invalid proof

The_Patriot said:
Will this suffice?
Click to expand...

I pointed out that your proof was invalid and you responded with

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...

So in the end you cannot back up your statement.
 
The_Patriot said:
I never said that now did I? I said that the article never specifies that the women featured in the article went to charity and were turned away.
Click to expand...

You just contradicted yourself in that very statement!
 
Your Star said:
You made the assertion that private charities could take care of people just as well as government welfare programs. I said they couldn't. I provided information, and statistics, and you "pointed me in the right direction", and made up excuses about how you couldn't come up with statistics.
Click to expand...

As I said, statistics is a relatively new phenomeana and the records are private. That is not an excuse, but the cold, hard facts. Private organizations are not required to hold studies on statistics of who they helped 100 years ago or longer. They also do not have to open their records to anyone. The government, on the other hand, is required by the Constitution of the United States to do so. I give you Article IV Section I Clause I.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
 
megaprogman said:
As I recall, you did make an assertion



Than you offered invalid proof



I pointed out that your proof was invalid and you responded with



So in the end you cannot back up your statement.
Click to expand...

In the end you cannot back up your own statements. I pointed you to where you can buy the book and so far you have refused to do so. I guess you really weren't interested in an honest discussion afterall.
 
The_Patriot said:
As I said, statistics is a relatively new phenomeana and the records are private. That is not an excuse, but the cold, hard facts. Private organizations are not required to hold studies on statistics of who they helped 100 years ago or longer. They also do not have to open their records to anyone. The government, on the other hand, is required by the Constitution of the United States to do so. I give you Article IV Section I Clause I.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Click to expand...

So don't make an assertion you can't back up. It's like saying violent video games cause violence. You can say it all you want, but it doesn't make it true, and there is no evidence to back it up.
 
Your Star said:
So don't make an assertion you can't back up. It's like saying violent video games cause violence. You can say it all you want, but it doesn't make it true, and there is no evidence to back it up.
Click to expand...

Except, I did provide a source of how well private charities were. You failed to buy the book that shows it. That is not my fault, but yours.
 
The_Patriot said:
In the end you cannot back up your own statements. I pointed you to where you can buy the book and so far you have refused to do so. I guess you really weren't interested in an honest discussion afterall.
Click to expand...

:lol:

I pointed out the flaw in your argument and this means I cannot back up my statements. Again, the onus is on you. If you wish to continue using this as proof, it is your responsibility to use the proof in the book, not mine, as I am not the one using the information. My suggestion is that if you continue to wish to cite this as proof of your argument, please purchase the book, scan in the relevent information and post it here. I will be happy to wait a few weeks for delivery and any time you might need to raise funds if that is necessary.

Until that time, you can not offer proof.

However, if you wish to continue to insist on information that might possibly exist, feel free as it is amusing.
 
megaprogman said:
:lol:

I pointed out the flaw in your argument and this means I cannot back up my statements. Again, the onus is on you. If you wish to continue using this as proof, it is your responsibility to use the proof in the book, not mine, as I am not the one using the information. My suggestion is that if you continue to wish to cite this as proof of your argument, please purchase the book, scan in the relevent information and post it here. I will be happy to wait a few weeks for delivery and any time you might need to raise funds if that is necessary.

Until that time, you can not offer proof.
Click to expand...

He that asserts must prove. I did provide proof, but the onus is on you to buy the book to read it. There's an old saying, you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink. Like I said before it's up to you to buy the book since you expressed interest in the subject. Also, scanning in a book is a violation of copyright and I cannot believe you're asking me to break the law. Is this standard for your 'honest discussions'?
 
The_Patriot said:
Except, I did provide a source of how well private charities were. You failed to buy the book that shows it. That is not my fault, but yours.
Click to expand...
:lamo

If your assertion was true you would have more sources than some book that you make to make a person on food stamps buy. :lamo

Hey why don't you buy the book, since you know you were the one who chose that source to back up your claims. Or maybe that was your plan, find a source where the statistics were hidden under a price tag, and when we provided statistics that disproved your assertion, all you would say is "buy the book". :roll:
 
The_Patriot said:
He that asserts must prove.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct and I will continue to await proof.

The_Patriot said:
I did provide proof
Click to expand...

Where is it? Insisting I buy a book is not providing proof. Another way to look at this is to look at the word provide, if you wish to provide proof, than provide it. Part of providing is to take the responsibility in providing it. Please follow through with your responsibility.

The_Patriot said:
, but the onus is on you to buy the book to read it.
Click to expand...

The onus on me is to read what you provide. As you said in the last quote, you are the one providing.

The_Patriot said:
There's an old saying, you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink.
Click to expand...

I am still waiting for the water in the form of book that you must provide.

The_Patriot said:
Like I said before it's up to you to buy the book since you expressed interest in the subject. Also, scanning in a book is a violation of copyright and I cannot believe you're asking me to break the law.
Click to expand...

Fair use is a part of copyright as long as you don't copy the whole thing or a significant part of it, you are not breaking the law.

The_Patriot said:
Is this standard for your 'honest discussions'?
Click to expand...

Yes, it is.
 
Last edited:
Your Star said:
:lamo

If your assertion was true you would have more sources than some book that you make to make a person on food stamps buy. :lamo

Hey why don't you buy the book, since you know you were the one who chose that source to back up your claims. Or maybe that was your plan, find a source where the statistics were hidden under a price tag, and when we provided statistics that disproved your assertion, all you would say is "buy the book". :roll:
Click to expand...

There are plenty of other sources, but in a capitalist society one must purchase the books. If you want to learn then you must buy books on the subjects that you are interested in.
 
megaprogman said:
You are absolutely correct and I will continue to await proof.
Click to expand...

Then you have to provide proof that charitable organizations did not provide the same amount of services as the government. You have yet to provide anything of the sort.

megaprogman said:
Where is it. Insisting I buy a book is not providing proof. Another way to look at this is to look at the word provide, if you wish to provide proof, than provide it. Part of providing is to take the responsibility in providing it. Please follow through with your responsibility.
Click to expand...

Actually, it is, but the onus is on you to buy it. It's called taking responsibility for your own learning.

megaprogman said:
The onus on me is to read what you provide. As you said in the last quote, you are the one providing.
Click to expand...

I did provide and you're the one resisting.

megaprogman said:
I am still waiting for the water in the form of book that you must provide.
Click to expand...

No, I do not have to provide you with a copy of a the book. I can show you where to get the book and that it exists. It is up to you to purchase it.

megaprogman said:
Fair use is a part of copyright as long as you don't copy the whole thing or a significant part of it, you are not breaking the law.
Click to expand...

Fair Use only encompasses a few paragraphs and for a subject as detailed as this it would be a violation of Fair Use. Thus, it is breaking the law.

megaprogman said:
Yes, it is.
Click to expand...

So asking someone to perform a criminal and civil act is standard for you?
 
The_Patriot said:
There are plenty of other sources, but in a capitalist society one must purchase the books. If you want to learn then you must buy books on the subjects that you are interested in.
Click to expand...

You have got to be kidding me. Your excuse for not providing proof is that it's a capitalistic society, and that you must buy books to get info. First off lets ignore the fact that public libraries exist, but I'm assuming that you'll accept this excuse everytime someone argues against you, and doesn't provide facts. Hey if you don't know the facts buy the book, thats not my fault!
 
Your Star said:
You have got to be kidding me. Your excuse for not providing proof is that it's a capitalistic society, and that you must buy books to get info. First off lets ignore the fact that public libraries exist, but I'm assuming that you'll accept this excuse everytime someone argues against you, and doesn't provide facts. Hey if you don't know the facts buy the book, thats not my fault!
Click to expand...

I did provide facts that charities did a good job of providing relief. You have yet to provide any proof to the contrary. Asking me to spoonfeed you information that is contained in a copyrighted book is illegal and I do not break the law. I guess it's alright for you to sit there and throw out stuff all day long without providing any backing to your statements, but not for me. Talk about being a hypocrit.
 
The_Patriot said:
Then you have to provide proof that charitable organizations did not provide the same amount of services as the government. You have yet to provide anything of the sort.
Click to expand...

You are right, in retrospect, your objection that it does not show that prostitutes looked for charitable assistance is valid. I will continue to look for information as is my responsibility.

The_Patriot said:
Actually, it is, but the onus is on you to buy it. It's called taking responsibility for your own learning.
Click to expand...

Oh well, you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink ;). Again, you are wrong, it is the one who asserts that must provide citation.

The_Patriot said:
I did provide and you're the one resisting.
Click to expand...

If you did provide, than you shouldn't have had to insist that I buy a book. All it shows is your failure to live up to your responsibility.

The_Patriot said:
No, I do not have to provide you with a copy of a the book. I can show you where to get the book and that it exists. It is up to you to purchase it.
Click to expand...

And that would be called not providing proof, which you agree is a standard per your last post that I quoted.

The_Patriot said:
Fair Use only encompasses a few paragraphs and for a subject as detailed as this it would be a violation of Fair Use. Thus, it is breaking the law.
Click to expand...

All you need to do is show a table or quote a few paragraphs.

The_Patriot said:
So asking someone to perform a criminal and civil act is standard for you?
Click to expand...

I didn't ask for you to commit a crime.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
If we eliminated those taxes the rich would have to make up for the short fall.
Click to expand...

Have to make up for what?

Ethics has nothing to do with it. You are talking about concepts such as love, peace, and justice. Prove your point in using it.
Click to expand...

No I am talking about the concept of the right of self ownership. You have in no way proven that the state has the right to ownership over the body of the individual.
 
The_Patriot said:
I did provide facts that charities did a good job of providing relief. You have yet to provide any proof to the contrary. Asking me to spoonfeed you information that is contained in a copyrighted book is illegal and I do not break the law. I guess it's alright for you to sit there and throw out stuff all day long without providing any backing to your statements, but not for me. Talk about being a hypocrit.
Click to expand...

You providing nothing close to facts, you provided a sales pitch why we should buy a book.
 
Your Star said:
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.
Click to expand...

The state spends 2/3's of every dollar collected in overhead costs, that isn't reliable that's highly inefficient.
 
megaprogman said:
You are right, in retrospect, your objection that it does not show that prostitutes looked for charitable assistance is valid. I will continue to look for information as is my responsibility.
Click to expand...

HISTORY

# Outdoor Relief provided through an Overseer of the Poor: When people fell upon hard times and members of their family, friends or members of their church congregations could not provide enough assistance to tide them over, they made application to an elected local official called the Overseer of the Poor. Within a budget of tax money, he might provide them with food, fuel, clothing, or even permission to get medical treatment to be paid out of tax funds.
Click to expand...

Even in the 19th century, the government had to take over where charities failed to provide.
 
Agent Ferris said:
The state spends 2/3's of every dollar collected in overhead costs, that isn't reliable that's highly inefficient.
Click to expand...

Thats more of a complaint on how the programs are run, than the program themselves.
 
Your Star said:
Private charities can't reduce the poverty rate as much as the government can.

Welfare increases poverty
Click to expand...

A) Your article makes an unsubstantiated claim regarding the 1920's without providing the statistics to back it up.

B) Your statistics actually show a decrease in poverty levels during the Reagan era's second term which was during a period of tax and welfare cuts.
 
megaprogman said:
HISTORY



Even in the 19th century, the government had to take over where charities failed to provide.
Click to expand...

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.
 
samsmart said:
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
Click to expand...

Charities provide 2/3's of every dollar collected to those they collected it for spending the other 1/3 on overhead costs, the state on the other hand provides 1/3 of every dollar collected to those in need and 2/3's on overhead cost. Private charities are far more efficient than state bureaucracies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom