Receiving government money (even in salary) comes from behind the point of a gun

RebuttalR1) PRO has stated that this debate is about a "literal gun" and so this debate gets carried into absurdist territory. Why is it a gun and, say, not a tazer? Or a billy club with handcuffs? Or a mean rottweiler? Or a punch in the face? Or a grenade, RPG, tank, or nuke? This seems to be semantical, but I clearly gave my opponent the chance to make his resolution clearer and more relevant to a topic of significance. PRO has sacrificed this chance to make a rather absurd assertion. Regardless of whether or not you buy this particular rebuttal, I will continue addressing PRO's arguments. R2) PRO then goes into an example with a schoolteacher. Let me give you an example of an IBM employee (madlibs):Let's say you are a computer technician at IBM. You get a paycheck. Now, the question is "where did that money come from. " It comes from the Fed, every dollar is printed at the Federal Reserve. What happens if you burn this money? That is when they get out the guns and if you resist, they will use them. Yes, they will shoot you with real guns if you resist enough in order to burn that dollar bill. Do you see now how ridiculously absurd this scenario is? All my opponent is saying is that if you break the law, the government will come get you (burning money is illegal - . http://www.nbcnews.com...). If you don't break the law, then no meanies with guns will come to shoot you. If you lawfully receive government money, and if you lawfully pay your taxes, no guns, nukes, RPGs or tanks will get involved to scare you, because you're simply a nice guy who pays his taxes. Good for you. Therefore, as long as you and others are not breaking the law, "Receiving government money (even in salary) DOES NOT comes from behind the point of a gun. " The resolution is negated. R3) PRO: "They don't "ask" for property taxes, income taxes and a host of other taxes. They tell you in so many polite words through mail-in notices the following unmistakable message: "Pay the amount that we demand or we get out the guns. ""This is again absurd. If you break the law, yes, you will become subject to enforcement. However, you didn't need to buy property to pay property taxes. There are also many ways to earn tax-exempt income (municipal bonds . http://www.investopedia.com...), and to buy things without paying sales tax (i. e. you can buy something out of state and have it shipped to you). No one forced you to get into a situation where you would have to pay taxes, if you are so paranoid about "bad men with guns" coming after you. R4) PRO: "If it involves pointing a gun at someone, it is immoral. "a) Refer to R1 - it may not necessarily be a gun, and this alone would negate the resolution. b) What if I pointed a gun at someone threatening my family? How is this immoral? Basically, there is such a thing as justifiable violence. R5) PRO: "It is quite funny that the average person who gladly takes that government check that has been taken from someone else would never take their own gun and point it at their neighbor and say "give me" because I want it. "There are plenty of things the average person takes for granted that the government provides. As I've stated earlier, one of these things is a unified currency to ease transactions, i. e. the dollar. The dollar is part of our governing apparatus; most people would agree that we are better off having a unified currency than a barter society. Also, having the government print this currency would allow for the government to take out counterfeiters, something I do not expect my neighbor to know how to do. Conclusion PRO is presenting the archetypal libertarian position that "government = coercion" and "coercion is bad". I will repeat again: "The libertarian bent against government becomes absurd at a certain point, and I will contend that PRO's resolution crosses this line. Government is pervasive. The dollar IS a part of government. Therefore, pay in any form involving dollars, either from your employer, from Uncle Sam, or from your cousin's sister's nephew's lemonade stand, involves government action and thus coercion under a libertarian view of morality. This view of morality is absolutely absurd. "Relevant to this debate, PRO's libertarian moral position is at its core untenable. It's not that "coercion is bad", it's that "breaking the law is bad", and PRO seems to have zero respect for the law, and thus finds there are many problems in his life. If you and others don't break the law, then "Receiving government money (even in salary) DOES NOT comes from behind the point of a gun. "The resolution is negated.