C David Guittard (PRO)I propose that taxation is NOT theft because, in America anyway, we have a representative form of government. Sometimes our elected officials do not do as they would wish but we have the power to confront them.
Return To Top | Posted:
Jrkeil8: fsdgsJrkeil8: Let’s start off with the representative form of government I agree America has. Who does this government represent? In today’s world, it seems to represent less what the people want and more what lobbyists and special interests want. Your voice in today’s government is drowned out by fundraising parties and expensive dinners. It is here I point out the first flaw in your argument Americas government no longer represents the will of the people and their desire to be free. You are correct in saying the first income tax was not in 1913 that’s just the one we have now. Also, using an idea Jrkeil8: sorry first time using this site.Jrkeil8: i have a typed out response but I cant post it all?Return To Top
Jrkeil8 (CON)Let’s start off with the representative form of government I agree America has. Who does this government represent? In today’s world, it seems to represent less what the people want and more what lobbyists and special interests want. Your voice in today’s government is drowned out by fundraising parties and expensive dinners. It is here I point out the first flaw in your argument Americas government no longer represents the will of the people and their desire to be free.
You are correct in saying the first income tax was not in 1913 that’s just the one we have now. Also, using an idea brought forth by the Central bank loving Hamilton is not an argument in support of taxation but rather more reason to oppose it. It is also noteworthy that this tax caused a rebellion and if not for the authoritarian actions of Washington would have been rejected by the people. This tax like many was regressive and targeted one group of people. This is not a free market approach to governance it is choosing to make it harder for a specific industry to sell their product.
Your assumption that certain people wouldn’t contribute to roads voluntarily is just that an assumption. I would assume the opposite that if everyone could keep all their money it would be easy to raise the money for the projects they find important. Most people argue for taxes based on roads so it follows logically that most people would donate to fund them. There is no data to suggest your assumption as fact and if that data were collected I’d wager a guess it’s a very low percentage of people who would not contribute. That could easily be outweighed by successful contributors who donate more than the average individual. I support private roads but I also support the idea of voluntary funding and think roads, police, fire and even utilities could be funded through voluntary interaction. As far as rural roads go most people who live in rural communities have heavy equipment and the work ethic to handle their roads. I know because I lived on these roads their upkeep is very minimal and would not be difficult to manage for the community. Many rural homeowners have ¼ mile plus driveways that they maintain. Its not a stretch to think they could work together and handle their roads through voluntary work and donation.
Sales tax is the most voluntary of taxes I will agree but they can also be the most regressive. It may be true most states do not charge a sales tax on food but in my state Colorado most cities have at least a 2% sales tax on food, my city has theirs set at 3% and are trying to raise it. But this is not the main point. The main point is whether a 3rd party has the authority to tell you that just because you want to buy a product or service in their jurisdiction you must pay over what the vendor is charging. This is a completely immoral concept there is no reason for a 3rd party to be involved with a transaction unless there was a breach of contract. Even if it is voted on by the public a majority is oppressing a minority against their will, increasing the minorities cost of living. This initiation of force is unethical and immoral. Another point of technicality taxation would be better described as extortion or blackmail as you do have a choice it just happens to be between two very bad options.
You have a right to vote because you are human, you have a right to read whatever you want because you are human, you have the right to life, liberty and property because you are human not because a government tells you that its ok. Words on paper are just that words and they can change with the winds but what is right and moral will never change. Force is immoral whether executed by a minority or majority, simply put force is force.
Taxation is theft/extortion for the simple reason that you cannot give a right to government that you yourself do not possess. You cannot take from someone their property without permission and so government which was created by individuals cannot take property without permission. It is that simple.
Return To Top | Posted:
Return To Top
C David Guittard (PRO)I'd like to thank my opponent for bringing up good points:
Who is really heard in politics?-
The government has become more transparent and accessible to all Americans. Today's lobbyist groups are mostly made up of constituents. The A powerful lobbying group is MADD. Corporate interests don't play into this but politicians are hurting their careers if they ignore these groups.
"This is not a free market approach to governance it is choosing to make it harder for a specific industry to sell their product."
I agree. Adam Smith would too, but taxes allow funding more efficiently than tariffs and quotas. These always have negative effects on trade.
The argument isn't income tax is theft but saying "all tax is theft because income tax is " would be like saying, “Suge Knight is a criminal. Suge Knight is black. It follows that all black people are criminals.” I propose that if only one type of tax isn't theft then all tax can't be theft. If only one black person isn't a criminal then all black people can't be lumped into the same category as Suge Knight.
Your assumption that certain people wouldn’t contribute to roads voluntarily is just that an assumption.
It's an assumption to say it is an assumption. It hasn't been disproven so your statement is a self-reference. You are already defining it as an assumption without disproving it.
Problem with voluntarism and masses determining value-
You stated, "if everyone could keep all their money it would be easy to raise the money for the projects they find important"
Voluntarism is cool but the problem is still us giving money to charities or others that handle the funds. There are way too many 501c3 existing that don't do anything but collect money. Sure, they're overseen but by who? Where do your funds really go? http://www.tampabay.com/americas-worst-charities/.
I'd rather have more direct control of my resources. Also, popularity of a project doesn't determine value. To say that people decide where the funds go to because they voluntarily donate it to it ignores this. I'm sure that most Germans in the 40s would support voluntarily paying for concentration camps. There was a time when most American voters would gladly chip in to keep marijuana illegal. If we all decide to pay someone to dig a hole and another to fill it up, where is the value?
"That could easily be outweighed by successful contributors who donate more than the average individual."
Guarantee of rights in America vs other countries that don't acknowledge these rights -
To say that we have these rights because we are human is primarily a 20th century, American, concept. To this day there are countries from England to North Korea where people lack rights that we are guaranteed by the Constitution.
We are guaranteed these rights by our constitution but this was an area of controversy when Comstock laws meant it was illegal to ship Playboy to local stores. People did NOT have the right to look at pornographic material. What a great time to be alive when I can decide, “I don't like pornography. I choose not to purchase it; the government isn't making that decision."
Where authority to tax comes from-
I do have the authority granted by the Constitution.
Return To Top | Posted:
Jrkeil8 (CON)Round Forfeited
Return To Top | Posted:
you still here when I click on your profile it says you got banned.Posted 2017-03-29 12:33:51
Yeah tonight i will get on and post a new one.Posted 2017-03-27 04:01:20
Absolutely. Responded to this the other day, just didn't post for some reason. Do you want to start it as this will give you opportunity to reply to this debate to start the new one?Posted 2017-03-25 04:58:27
Hey man sorry craxy busy this week with convention this weekend and the election in my concil race Aprill 11th. Can we start again moday?Posted 2017-03-24 02:21:51
Yeah, I was going to have the same problem but remembered last minute.
It would be great to have an email reminder.
Do you want to start the debate since you'd go first to reply to this debate?Posted 2017-03-20 10:11:52
damn I just missed it, anyway we can keep going? sorry just couldn't get home to post it in time.Posted 2017-03-19 14:53:51
Posted. Posted 2017-03-17 13:25:21
Cool. Will post tonight.Posted 2017-03-17 08:54:44
That was my fear too Posted 2017-03-17 04:05:49
Oh, cool. Good to know! Enjoying our debate. Didn't want to concede. Posted 2017-03-16 14:40:57
Just wait until cross examination expires and you will be able to post your responsePosted 2017-03-16 06:56:31
So*Posted 2017-03-16 06:55:59
Zo cross exam seems to be where you can ask specific single item questions. Response will come after cross examination. I ran into the same issuePosted 2017-03-16 06:55:24
Have my response typed out but can't enter it. Sent message on forum:
I'm trying to reply to my debate and pressed "start drafting next post" this goes to http://www.edeb8.com/debate/Taxation+is+NOT+theft/post from http://www.edeb8.com/debate/Taxation+is+NOT+theft/ but there is no box for me to type response into. If I got to "engage in cross-exam" It only gives me a text box for about a line of response.
Is this something I am doing wrong?Posted 2017-03-16 04:49:20
Actually, the amount of representation we actually have varies from city up to federal with us losing more and more as we go to federal. School PTA has a lot direct representation, so does state.
Posted 2017-03-15 09:13:29
yeah, this is my first time using this site too so a bit of it is stuff I am learning as I go. Will post response tomorrow. Posted 2017-03-15 09:06:59
Now i seePosted 2017-03-14 15:44:48
Im trying the explanations on how to do this are not very good. I tried to post in the cross examination but it onky let me do like 300 words or something. Posted 2017-03-14 11:01:00
Are you the same Jrkeil8 that took "con"? Please debate me in the right area.
Posted 2017-03-14 09:52:46
Let’s start off with the representative form of government I agree America has. Who does this government represent? In today’s world, it seems to represent less what the people want and more what lobbyists and special interests want. Your voice in today’s government is drowned out by fundraising parties and expensive dinners. It is here I point out the first flaw in your argument Americas government no longer represents the will of the people and their desire to be free.
You are correct in saying the first income tax was not in 1913 that’s just the one we have now. Also, using an idea brought forth by the Central bank loving Hamilton is not an argument in support of taxation but rather more reason to oppose it. It is also noteworthy that this tax caused a rebellion and if not for the authoritarian actions of Washington would have been rejected by the people. This tax like many was regressive and targeted one group of people. This is not a free market approach to governance it is choosing to make it harder for a specific industry to sell their product.
Your assumption that certain people wouldn’t contribute to roads voluntarily is just that an assumption. I would assume the opposite that if everyone could keep all their money it would be easy to raise the money for the projects they find important. Most people argue for taxes based on roads so it follows logically that most people would donate to fund them. There is no data to suggest your assumption as fact and if that data were collected I’d wager a guess it’s a very low percentage of people who would not contribute. That could easily be outweighed by successful contributors who donate more than the average individual. I support private roads but I also support the idea of voluntary funding and think roads, police, fire and even utilities could be funded through voluntary interaction. As far as rural roads go most people who live in rural communities have heavy equipment and the work ethic to handle their roads. I know because I lived on these roads their upkeep is very minimal and would not be difficult to manage for the community. Many rural homeowners have ¼ mile plus driveways that they maintain. Its not a stretch to think they could work together and handle their roads through voluntary work and donation.
Sales tax is the most voluntary of taxes I will agree but they can also be the most regressive. It may be true most states do not charge a sales tax on food but in my state Colorado most cities have at least a 2% sales tax on food, my city has theirs set at 3% and are trying to raise it. But this is not the main point. The main point is whether a 3rd party has the authority to tell you that just because you want to buy a product or service in their jurisdiction you must pay over what the vendor is charging. This is a completely immoral concept there is no reason for a 3rd party to be involved with a transaction unless there was a breach of contract. Even if it is voted on by the public a majority is oppressing a minority against their will, increasing the minorities cost of living. This initiation of force is unethical and immoral. Another point of technicality taxation would be better described as extortion or blackmail as you do have a choice it just happens to be between two very bad options.
You have a right to vote because you are human, you have a right to read whatever you want because you are human, you have the right to life, liberty and property because you are human not because a government tells you that its ok. Words on paper are just that words and they can change with the winds but what is right and moral will never change. Force is immoral whether executed by a minority or majority, simply put force is force.
Taxation is theft/extortion for the simple reason that you cannot give a right to government that you yourself do not possess. You cannot take from someone their property without permission and so government which was created by individuals cannot take property without permission. It is that simple.
Posted 2017-03-14 09:24:47
Logic here: "Taxation is not theft because we have a very minuscule say in what the government can coerce people to do and build"Posted 2017-03-14 06:58:32
Can i just say really? Roads is where we are going to go with this. Alright expect my response by morning.Posted 2017-03-13 07:04:55
Guess you can reply here. Debate takes place in other part, though.
Posted 2017-03-12 15:52:21
Do I reply in the comments section?Posted 2017-03-12 15:26:31
Taxation IS theft/extortionPosted 2017-03-11 02:48:09