Taxation is not theft

In round 2 I laid out my case to affirm the resolution which mainly focused on the theory of moral ownership. Con did not contest the obvious fact that in order for theft to occur the individual being deprived must own the property in question, and has also agreed that moral ownership is the theory which pertains to the resolution. Yet Con made no arguments to affirm that the citizens being taxed have any rightful claim to the money that they posses before taxation, he only argues that the government does not have a right to set the conditions from which a citizen is being taxed. Therefore, my only challenge in this round is to show that the government does have a moral right to set those conditions in the first place. Moral Ownership Does Not Account for Land Earlier I demonstrated the concept of moral ownership and explained that its founding basis is acquisition. Acquisition however does not apply to land. Land can only be claimed as territory in which those who claim it proceed to control the use of it. If someone else then comes along and claims the land as their territory it can not be considered theft because no one ever had a right to it in the first place. Con seems to think that my case relies on the government’s rightful claim to the land which it declares as its territory, just the opposite. The fact that no one has a right to this land is an important aspect of my case. Just as the government has no rightful claim to land, neither does Con or any individual who does not wish to pay taxes. Setting Conditions is Justified Being that ownership of land does not fall under moral ownership, it is irrelevant to the discussion. Thus, we must find a different basis to determine the government’s moral rights to set conditions on the territory it claims. First, recognize that the government is in fact a real entity. Con claims that it is illegitimate because it was created by a small minority of the population. This argument is also irrelevant. Cons disagreement with how an entity was formed does not negate that the entity exists. As far as setting conditions, we must also recognize that any entity is morally justified in protecting the best interests of its people. This does not mean that every action must benefit every individual. To be morally justified it must only be orientated towards protecting the peoples best interests. These interests would be those that are most commonly shared. And to determine which interests are most commonly shared we have elections, where every member of society has equal say. This system is built on morality, therefore Con has no legitimate claim that conditions set under these principles are immoral. Considering that it is in fact moral for the government to set these conditions, one can not claim that it is immoral to enforce them. By Cons logic the governments taking of money (which he has yet to show belongs to him) is not moral because he has not agreed to it. Con apparently presumes that one can accept the benefits of an arrangement without the conditions. This would be no different then someone accepting a job as a waiter without agreeing to serve food. Citizens are taxed based on their participation in the system. Taxes are a part of the system. Agreeing to participate is agreeing to its conditions. Social Contract Although I never made the argument of a social contract Con refutes this by arguing that such a thing has no existence in reality. If not existing in reality is accepted as a rebuttal then I win this debate because no one could ever have a moral ownership of anything since it doesn’t exist in reality either. Social contacts are simply a moral account for agreements made between an individual and their society. The agreement is not necessarily that of a conscious decision, but rather the decision one ought to make. I am not sure how Con can explain that he has no moral obligation to follow the governments conditions, for it is these conditions which our desirable way of life was built on. A way of life he chooses to take advantage of by living here. Conclusion My case is fundamentally built on the concept that those who pay taxes choose to accept that obligation. That choice begins with the decision to live in a country built on taxation, and consequently a decision to take part in the system which taxation is a condition. Con has not contested any of this but rather he argues over the rights a government has to set those conditions, which I have addressed. Con has yet to fulfill his main burden, which is to show that citizens have a moral right to the money which is taken as a result of taxation. His argument at best demonstrates that no one has a moral right to such money, an argument that even if accepted still affirms the resolution.