Taxes are Extortion and Theft

"Your body needs food to survive does it not? If you don't eat then you'll die. Is your body extorting money for food from you?" No, because this is simply a natural need. Your body cannot "intimidate" you. Hunger pains are just a sign of it. "Now if we look at the definition you provided for extortion we see that it is the securing of money through means of violence and intimidation. Jail time in response to not paying taxes does not count as violence or intimidation. It is merely the effect of a cause and effect that exists. Cause: you don't pay taxes. Effect: jail. This is a truth and does not count as intimidation. You aren't intimidated into paying taxes but rather suffer a predetermined effect if you don't. This can fall in line with the food example. Cause: you don't eat. Effect: you starve. Your body doesn't intimidate the food out of you but rather you eat to avoid an unwanted effect. Same with taxes. The government doesn't intimidate you but rather you pay to avoid an unwanted effect." Really? Being arrested (forcibly taken hold of, handcuffed) and imprisoned (confined in a cage against my will) is not violence? [1] Yes, this could be seen as cause and effect, but that has nothing to do with whether or not it is violence. A protection racket could just as easily say "Pay us money or we something will happen to your store." Cause: You don't pay. Effect: Store burns down. By your standard, this is neither violence nor intimidation, but just the predetermined effect of refusal to pay the protection money. You also pay to avoid an unwanted effect. "You can opt out. You can move. Jump ship. Renounce your citizenship and move somewhere like Sudan or Somalia where there are little or no taxes. It might not be as easy as checking a box saying "No Thanks" for taxes but you can still opt out." The debate question is not whether you can go somewhere else to avoid taxes. Rather, whether they are extortion and theft by definition. "Lastly, the definition of theft doesn't truly fit the definition of taxes either. This is because when the government takes money in taxes, they have every intention of using it for the country. While you don't get the same money back you get it back in the form of services (national defense, police, medicine, welfare etc). Depriving you of your money for the sole purpose of lining the pockets of the president for example would be theft because you would never see that money given a back to you. However, the government takes taxes with the intention of using it to give back to the payer and therefore does not fit the definition of permanent deprivation of your property." Ok, let's consider Robin Hood. Robin Hood robs from the rich to give to the poor. Now in this example you're rich to start out with, but end up poor due to Robin Hood continually stealing from you. At this point you become poor, so Robin Hood gives some of it back. Does that make this any less theft? As you admit, the money is not given back. You get it back in other ways, sometimes, but that is others' money too. So it's not possible to know at that point whose original money has gone where, as it gets mixed together. You are thus at least partly permanently deprived of it. It is still theft where part of the money is given back to you. I feel I've demonstrated that taxes meet the definitions of extortion and theft, while rebutting the counter-arguments my opponent presents. Please vote Pro. [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... 2.