Resolved: The United States Should Implement a Progressive Consumption Tax

You do not need a written contract for consent to exist. You don’t sign a contract with Wal Mart every time you go into the store, but it is still stealing if you do not pay for the item. You do not sign a contract to be “forced” to pay for the product, but you are still binded and it is not considered theft. Merely because you do not sign on the dotted line does not mean that there is no consent. By the same logic, being born to our parents is also immoral. We do not consent to being born to our parents, our social class, or at the time we did. Yet we are at their mercy until we turn 18 for a variety of items, whether we like it or not. But we do not think it is immoral (unless the parent is abusive) because they provide for their children. The same goes for the government. They may or may not be chosen — though we *do* consent to our government through elections — but it is considered just because they provide for us. Which is what a government does. The gunmen analogy is flawed. With the government, you consent via voting and other activities. Further, the analogy fails to show that the ‘gunmen’ should give back, like a government does. So a better analogy would be you are a member of the club. There is a mandatory event you consented to — you may have even assisted in constructing it. You go there and consume the food and pay at the end. And there are services — lap dances, for example — given to you. I see nothing inherently wrong with this. If you consent through elections and are given goods and services it would be logical to pay. And, remember, no taxes = no government. And without a government other voluntary transactions would not occur. Worse infringements of liberty would occur without a government. Bossy has yet to justify anarchism despite the necessity of him to do so, and me asking of him multiple times. If no taxes *worsens* the ability for individuals to be free, having a tax > having no taxes. Bossy argues that the government is an evil in and of itself. This isn’t true, but even assuming it was, the one which hurts you less is preferable to the one which harms you more. If the infection was worse than the snake venom, we would choose to treat it first or more vigorously. == Fiat Money == 1. If this was true, *any* monetary system would be immoral or unjust. The gold standard ties the worth of a dollar to a specified amount of gold. This is, in and of itself, manipulation of currency as you are changing its value. And if you wished to change the monetary supply — which would be required for economic growth (and poverty alleviation) — you would need to mine more gold, and change the gold market, which changes the worth of a dollar. So this argument means we must abolish all currency, which doesn’t make sense. The value of a dollar changing due to a central bank is no different, morally, from an oil company producing more, which affects the price. But is Bossy going to argue that this is immoral? In fact, Forbes Magazine argues that the free market would choose fiat money over commodity based currencies [1. http://www.forbes.com...]. The reason is because as the world is moving towards electronic dealings, checks, and credit cards favors fiat money. Fiat money is a convenient currency with stable inflation. A gold standard, for example, is impractical but may have a lower inflation rate. So, as Forbes writes, “a free market in currency would likely result in a consortium of large banks controlling the money supply. This consortium would have a strong incentive to maximize real economic output, since doing so would maximize the profitability of its money-supply franchise in the long run. And so if, as many economists believe, the output-maximizing inflation rate is around 2 percent, that’s likely the inflation rate private issuers of currency would target.” So a fiat money system may actually be what the market would move towards. It may actually make voluntary transactions easier because of the economic benefits it provides. 2. This is a cop out. He is arguing because we give gold value because it is shiny makes it superior because we support a dollar because a government is behind it. Seriously? That is an arbitrary distinction. Plus, the market gives money value in and of itself because it is *more* efficient to use than gold or other commodities (say, a barter and trade system). If gold somehow has value because it looks shiny, money can have value because it is useful. If anything, the efficiency of money makes it worth *more* than gold. 3. Fiat currency was forced on the populace? Ok… so was a gold standard [1]. And, as noted, the market may actually opt for fiat currency, meaning it would not be ‘forced’ in the modern era. Plus, a lot of things were forced. We forced the south to abandon Jim Crow laws and slavery — something they wouldn’t have abolished without conflict. In fact, it took a war. Just because something is ‘forced’ does not make it bad. == Social Contracts == 1. Bossy makes a good point — conventional societal interpretations. But wasn’t it him who argued that pragmatism is focused on the present? So that rebuttal is invalidated by his old reasoning. Plus, if the owner owns that property, there is no reason under Bossy’s logic that it should not be considered immoral. He was merely protecting his resources from someone who was taking them away. 2. You sign a contract by using the government’s resources. By merely living in a country which provides stability — which is essential for the market to work — you are using the government and are consenting to using their services. And you do not consent to being born to your parents, either, but if you aggressively ignore their instruction you would be punished. You don’t have to actively consent for there to be consent. 3. Bossy seems to argue that democracy is not consent. Again, this means there would be no state. Bossy has not justified anarchism and this alone invalidates his point — and it is last round so he cannot do so. And the battle analogy (Bossy loves analogies, doesn’t he). And the source says voting actually is consent if it is fully voluntary. A battle, or at least when you are in battle, you have no choice (though, unless you were enslaved, you probably chose to enter the military). Voting actually is voluntary. If you fail to vote, then have fun being alone. No one forces you to vote. But the option for consent exists; if you deny it, it is your fault, and you consent to any government which arises due to your inaction. == Common Good == 1. I really think that this argument is sickening. If 200 million people were to starve to death in the name of ‘individual rights’ bossy would support it because of his ‘moral framework’. I do not know how any thinking person could support that position. 35% of americans, or over 100 million americans, use welfare services [2. http://www.cnsnews.com...]. If 100 million americans are harmed if we get rid of taxes, I don’t see how any thinking person would abolish taxes. == Consensuality == The slave story is absurd. So absurd only a libertarian could make it up. They actively excluded someone from voting. In the US, it is illegal to bar anyone from voting (except criminals, who have already broken the social contract). Also, in the US, you can leave and avoid paying US taxes. You could go to Switzerland where taxes are super low, or move to one of those nutty private countries. Regardless, the slave analogy works because those people are forced to live there and people are forced to *not* vote. In the US, this does not happen. Plus, assume 1000 of those people would have starved (like would happen in the US… but on a colossal scale) had that one gotten his way. Which would be preferable? Bossy also says a PCT is bad because it makes people’s lives more difficult… Guess what zero taxation does? This refutes his entire ‘moral’ case. Millions of people living in poverty and starving because we abolish taxation outweighs pretty much everything. Although Bossy makes a distinction between absolutely and a current system, I think it is a valid point that a PCT improves the system within realistic boundaries. Brushing it off isn’t a good tactic.