The Job Guarantee Is A Good Idea.

General ideas proposed by my opponent will be in bold, and quotes from them in italics. I will respond to each accordingly.Re Taxation is not force or coercionI don't see how you can argue it's not. People are forced to give money to the government through taxation. If you don't, you have the IRS go after you and you may face fines, imprisonment, etc. That's force. Coercion is defined as "The action or practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats." [7] The government threatens us to pay taxes by telling us if we don't, they will imprison us or fine us. This is coercion, and I don't see how you can argue it isn't. I would say pre-income tax in America people were not freer just because of the lack of income tax. I would argue that they may have been less free.Yes, but there were other reasons pre-income tax people were less free, such as how we had unfettered capitalism. People are naturally less free in unfettered capitalism. I'm not going to cite any sources for this next claim, only because it should be common knowledge because it's something I was taught in school and everyone should have been taught in school. Anyways, the 1800s saw terrible working conditions, wages that couldn't be lived off of, income inequality, etc. This is the natural result of unfettered capitalism. While it could be argued that it's a good thing for government to get involved, I would argue it's not, and instead we should just transfer to a new economic system which would solve these problems. Anyways, in addition to that, people were less free because voting rights weren't as extended to various groups as they are today. I don't see how forcing people to give up a portion of their income through taxation is freedom. In some ways, we are less free today than back then too, such as for men, we can be forced into the military against our will whereas before World War 1 the draft didnt' exist. We don't have as much privacy as we did prior to the Patriot act and other legislations. So, in some ways we have more freedoms, but in other ways we have less freedoms. I would also argue that tax is the price you pay for being part of society. Membership dues.But you have no choice but to be part of a society. Every useful piece of land is owned by a country and under its jurisdiction. The only place with some unclaimed land is Antarctica, and that is not easily habitable. So, you had no choice but to be part of this nation, and no choice but to pay taxes. It's coercion. Why can't the government get its necessary funds through voluntary fundraisers? I'm sure there are people out there who would be willing to donate to the government for specific projects. Both a Job Guarantee and Cooperative Individualism would be hard to fully implement in current society but I would argue that a JG would still be better than a CI. For one, CI requires a new eco-system. Managing people into groups, and ensuring enough groups to get the unemployment rate to 0, The JG can just extend existing systems.So, you're basically saying it's simpler to go the route of Job guarantee. That doesn't mean that we should do it though. It's also simpler to cheat on a test than to study for it. Does that mean we should do the simpler thing just because it is simpler? No, it's wrong. Similarly, forcing people to give up their hard-earned money for this is wrong too. One of the benefits of the JG is that it is about ensuring everyone has a job {and that includes ex-cons etc}. This does not automatically happen under an CI.You assume that the government and the people in it have good intentions. I would argue it doesn't ensure everyone has a job, as I pointed out, the government could choose to discriminate against certain people. In this entire round, you didn't provide a single argument about how we could prevent the government from hiring some people, but not others. What binds the government to hire all of the unemployed and not just some? The thing about CI, is that it is built around worker cooperatives. First, worker cooperatives literally have the interest of workers in mind, as workers own the company. As has been shown in numerous studies, which here is another which found that "average employment and wages in WCs[worker cooperatives] tend to be greater than in CFs[capitalist firms]." even during recessions [8, pg. 522] Worker cooperatives are formed with the intent of benefiting people, both in theory and in practice, they hire as many people as they can to benefit people, more than capitalist businesses, and workers still earn more in them than in capitalist businesses.One also has the issue that the co-operative model may in itself be flawed. Workers working together may not work in practice.Except, this already happens. Worker cooperatives already exist and are very successful. And technically, workers already all work together in most capitalist firms. Most companies have people working in a team of some sort. The only difference between a capitalist firm and a worker cooperative is that in the latter, the workers are joint-owners of the company and are involved in a democratic decision process for the company's issues. The permission a CI group would need to improve a local park, build infrastructure and so on could take time or be denied. Whereas the government running things can grant themselves permission.Well, if the government didn't have jurisdiction over this, then it could just get done. Government involvement usually leads to issues like this. And the government isn't exactly good at infastructure. We have a D+ rating[9] due to the government being involved. It may be a different story if companies were allowed to improve infrastructure at any given moment. This is just an example of government interference that causes issues. More government is not a good thing.Sources:[7] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...[8] http://disjointedthinking.jeffhughes.ca...[9] http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org...