Taxation should be abolished:

1A) Taxation is necessary to protect rightsWithout at least minimal taxation, it would be impossible for the government to protect the rights and liberties of the citizens. For example, one way in which the government protects rights and liberties is through funding the military. A military is necessary in order to protect against potential nations who will threaten us, and possibly take us over, and said country may be one which doesn't recognize the rights that we do, and thus they may take away these rights. Without taxes, there is no way for the government to fund the military, thus no real way for them to make sure foreign nations can't take us over and take away our rights.1B) Potential argument against this:"A military is not necessary because the people themselves can form a militia to protect their liberties"If history has proven anything, it's that every country who has relied on voluntary militias to protect themselves, failed in the long run and was taken over by another country. I know of no country which was able to survive for an extended amount of time in history without a formal military. A couple of examples of countries which didn't have formal militaries, but instead relied on militias, would be Revolutionary Catalonia and the Free Territory of Ukraine. Both were anarchist societies, so neither would have had a government-funded military, or would have had a very poor one. Both were quickly taken over by countries which did have formal militaries. You can read a little about both countries in my first two sources, and you'll see neither had a formal military.2A) Taxation funds programs the people desireNow, it would be a completely different debate over whether the federal government or local governments should be providing social programs such as social security, welfare, public education etc. I would personally believe these things should be up to local governments. Nonetheless, if the people decide that they want the government to provide these social programs, taxation is necessary in order to pay for these things, whether the taxation be on the local level or a national level. There is no other way for the government to collect revenue except through taxation, unless you had state ownership of the means of production(state capitalism). However, I am pretty sure pro wouldn't be arguing in favor of state capitalism, since I know they are in favor of laissez-faire economics, based on debates with them in the past, so we can probably dismiss state capitalism as an alternate way instead of taxes for the government to collect revenue. 2B) Potential argument against this:"It is no business of the government to provide these social programs in the first place"If democracy is something we value, then the majority opinion should be represented in the government. If the people consent to the government providing these social programs, then I see no reason why it's not the government's business. Again, I would argue that it is better for these things to be decided on the local level. The benefit of local government providing these things, is that it's easier to move from one city to another, so if a city is doing something you don't like, just move to a neighboring city that doesn't have that policy. Whereas, if it's the federal government who is providing these programs that you disagree with, you don't have much choice since it's tougher to move out of country than from one city to the next. Additionaly more people will have their opinion represented in government if local governments were empowered and the federal government was weakened. The reason this works out this way is because cities rarely have the demographics that the entire nation does, so cities are more likely to have a vast majority of the people in them be right-wing or left-wing. The nation does not have a clear majority of either, so when right-wing policies or left-wing policies are implemented on the federal level, there are more people who are misrepresented by that than who would be on the local level. This is getting a little off-topic, but nonetheless, I don't see why if majority of people in a city wants that city to offer social programs, why it shouldn't and why it's not its business to do so.3) General potential arguments:"Taxation is theft, as it steals from people without their consent"The problem with this argument is that everyone is represented in a democracy. Additionally, if we go back to the idea that cities should be the ones who tax for all of the programs the federal government provides, then it would be easier to move to another city and live somewhere where such taxation doesn't occur. I can see problems with the federal government taxing the people, but if cities are doing so, I don't think that is a problem. "Taxation isn't necessary because the government could raise funds from people voluntarily to pay for the military and other programs" I doubt that they would raise enough funds. Charities typically can't raise enough funds to get rid of poverty, I doubt the government would be able to do it for a necessary military or other programs. I know of no country that has attempted this, there is likely a good reason why countries don't do this and instead rely on taxation. If pro were to argue for this point, I think it would be fair to ask them to provide an example of a nation being able to provide a good enough military with raising funds voluntarily from the people. Sources:[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...