Taxation is theft

I'm not sure where you are detecting outrage? Attack the debater instead of attacking the argument is usually the last bastion of a man (or woman) with no argument. There definitely exists a high level of disdain for immoral actions in my view. But you still haven't addressed the topic. You say taxes are justified because of what they pay for. That is a semi reasonable position assuming the funds are spent appropriately etc. However you have not made a single argument against the action of coercive taxation being theft. You can say my claims are eggagerated as much as you want. But you have provided no logical basis against my arguments. Clearly you think the actions of the government regarding their methods of securing revenue as justified. But again you have provided no logic or reason to counter the claim that coercive taxation is any different than theft. You just keep saying it's necessary. You know when people started clamoring for slavery to be illegal in this country, the nay sayers responded by saying "but then who will pick the cotton". Turns out with Eli whitneys invention of the cotton gin that's how it got done, by a free enterprising entrepreneur. This is essentially no different. I say we should not allow anyone to take the property of another against their will, and you respond by sayin. "But who will pay for x, y, and z". We can delve into the minutia of what the government spends money on and how the free market can provide those same things more efficiently in another debate, but this topic is about whether the action of obtaining someone else's private property against their will and through the threat and action of violence is what the government does when they "tax" people. I think it was Confucious who said "the beginning of wisdom is calling things by their proper name". Re packaging a particular action using a different word doesn't change the action. If I call a rape victim "an unwilling sexual participant" that doesn't change the fact the person was a victim of rape, I just gave it a more benign sounding name. In this country the "defense" department used to be called the war department. They still take offensive military action all over the world, but by changing the name to defense rather than war, it gives it a nicer feeling and makes one think that whatever they do is automatically defensive. Sending some of our best and bravest young men and women to invade Iraq because of the actions of a handful of people from Saudi Arabia and Syria and Jordan, makes absolutely no sense and is by no means defense. But I'm trying not to get pulled off the topic. I'd love to have a more comprehensive discussion with you about all the facets of government. But again I reiterate the topic at hand is essentially what is the definition of theft, what action is required in order for it to be seen as theft. If one person or group deprives another person or group of their private property by the use of violence, coercion, stealth, etc....that is theft. One can give all sorts of propaganda terms to the action and group to soften the blow or portray it in a positive light. But theft is always wrong, regardless of the group who does it or what they do with the stolen property. I have no issues helping others, I volunteer time at habitat for humanity and donate to the local food bank once a month, and I make just under 30k a year. So it's not about helping others or how I may potentially benefit. So again I ask you, if I steal your money and use it to buy you a my little pony DVD, then according to you it isn't theft because you gained something from it? I guess I'm not sure how else to get you to see that most basic of principles, that theft is always and forever wrong no matter how the stolen funds are used. If you would prefer we could debate about how the government uses money in a subsequent debate. Billions wasted in redundancy, administrative waste, millions of dollars in vacations for presidents, subsidizing big business, etc. But the topic at hand is taxation theft and I ask that you address that topic. The only response I feel that I've received from you so far is that it is an eggagerated claim and the theft is justified, neither of which you have provided any logical basis for. We can sit here and make claims back and forth all day but unless we can use logic and reason to support our claims then we are pissing into the wind. So again I ask you to come back to the topic and explain to me how it is not theft if one person or group deprives another person or group of their private property using violence, threats, etc?? It's been fun, I always enjoy a good debate. Unlike most people I prefer to have discussions with people that oppose my views. For the simple fact that I may be provided with evidence or logical reasoning that makes me see that my original position was flawed. Because to me it's all about getting to the truth and if that requires me to admit that I was wrong then so be it. But most people are so deathly afraid of admitting they were wrong that they can't bring themselves to do it let alone even consider the possibility. So I'm completely open to being convinced that any of my positions are not correct, provided that someone can use logic and reason and evidence to show me that, not appealing to emotion or using misleading terms and definitions. That isn't a slight against you just saying in general. Well if nothing else I hope this debate at least allowed you to consider a question you may never have even thought of. Take care and I hope to debate with you again. Feel free to pick a topic and send me a challenge.