Questions for the left.

I will respond to my opponent in the order in which they appear on his R2. 1. Since my opponent hadn't clarified in his R1 I was left to assume that he meant that he was advocating a flat tax rate. Some more clarification is necessary here. What exactly is the point you are trying to make? It sounds like now you are advocating a progressive tax like the one we have right now. 2. My opponent seems to concede this point. 3. My opponent erroneously generalizes that 'Leftists are generally failures" though he provides no evidence for this. This is just one of the many unsubstantiated claims. The fact is such evidence could not exist because the claim is utterly false. There is nothing to suggest that leftists are 'generally failures'. 4. As my opponent points out, some states have relief programs and others do not. This has nothing to do with the left. My opponent has provided no connection. 5. I was unaware of a vote or poll asking liberals if they were 'owed something'. Please provide examples or evidence. 6. Wrong. The Rhetoric of the founding generation was freedom, but one finds ample evidence that it was anything but the foundation. Property rights were required in almost all regions in order to vote, this left a substantial portion of the population excluded from a voice in the government. Very few women were eligible to vote, and that was soon removed as well. Worse than suffrage is the fact that at the very same time that men were demanding freedom they held fellow human beings in bondage. For these reasons, one could hardly say that the American past was about freedom. 7. I wonder if my opponent can point to a specific essay or essays that show that this was not their intention. I would love to argue the Federalist Papers, but my opponent should cite specific examples rather than issuing broad claims. 8. It could be argued with equal validity that the rich become richer through exploitation of the middle class and the 'poor'. This is evident in these same cases my opponent derides, such as Enron and countless others. Regulations are necessary. The market should not be trusted to correct and police itself. In a pure free market, like my opponent advocates, the practices of Enron would be perfectly legal. The poor do not remain poor simply and entirely because of a lack of hard work ethic. In fact, many work hard in very low paying jobs in an attempt to provide for their family. The problem in many cases is a lack of opportunity. The rich set up obstacles for lower classes to climb the social latter. Not everyone can obtain the business loan or credit required to move up that latter, it is generally reserved for those who already have money. It is also not true that the wealthy always work hard to get where they are. Most of them are born with wealth. In reality, hard work is usually reserved for the lower classes. They work hard at a wage labor position, while their wealthier employer earns the majority of the fruits of the laborer. I would hardly call it 'my socialism'. A balance between free market and socialism should be found. Too much of either is dangerous. <"socialism assumes that everyone will work"> This is not the case at all. Those advocating socialism freely admit that there will be people unable to work. This is why they advocate a public welfare system. In that way the community as a whole provides a tiny portion to provide the basic necessities to these people who cannot work. 9. I'm not sure what my opponent is talking about here. I asked him to provide evidence for 'economic illiteracy' and he responded with "The truth always comes out." I ask him again to prove his claims. That is the idea of debate, to back up your claims with evidence, not empty statements. 10. Another unsubstantiated claim. My opponent's world view should not be assumed to be the worldview of everybody. Not everyone shares his pessimism. Response to his conclusion: It is not my job to provide your evidence for you. Please provide the requisite evidence for your claim. Going by this same premise I could say 'An Alien landed in the Baltic and has taken over all of the governments of the region, google it.' This does not make it true, and in such a case it would be my responsibility to provide the evidence. Note: If my opponent wishes to condense the argument into fewer points that is fine with me. Conclusion: My opponent has ignored my requests for evidence and examples. His claims lack substance and therefore should be disregarded. I will once again request that my opponent provide examples, clarification, and evidence to support his claims so that we may have a meaningful debate based on substance.