Social Welfare Is Immoral

Well, the last response from Pro almost sounded like he was surrendering. Nevertheless, the burden of clash hold that I should respond to what was said, and extend the arguments from R3; so I shall. Pro says the Con R3 was absurd, but does not tell us why, so we don't have to consider it. Pro also says if Con had, "actually thought through [his] arguments" we would have had a debate abous social contract theory. This is absurd and a little odd for Pro to claim, here's why: I did in fact think through the claims Pro made in R2 and R3. It turned out that several of the claims Pro made were false and or fallacious. It even turned out that Pro was contradicting his claim that all taxes are theft when he defined theft as "taking by force" and then called tariffs and fees "taxes. The fact is that tariffs and fees are the cost of getting the product or service on offer from the government, and there is no pressure or duress on anybody to pay these costs or buy these products/services. So tariffs and fees don't satisfy Pro's definition of theft. This means either, 1) tariffs and fees are not actually taxes, or 2) that not all taxes are theft, since someone has to decide for themselves to pay these costs in order to get the product, like a passport or an over-sized hauling permit. More importantly, Pro unequivocally accepted the framework I laid out in R1; that the resolution is a question of fact, and for Pro to win the truth statement, "social welfare is immoral" must be true in all cases to win. Since Con shows that there are revenue streams government can and does use to fund benefit programs that don't satisfy the Pro definition of theft, the examples provided by Con are not immoral per Pro's measure of immoral; theft and force. We didn't get into social contract theory because Pro had constructed an illogical case on a sweeping generalization. Pro then made the mistake of wholly embracing a win condition that required his weeping generalization to be true in all cases. Generally speaking, mass generalizations are hard to defend, because there are exceptions. Con presented several of those exceptions to show the resolution is not true in all cases. Once that happens, we don't really need to go any farther, the debate is over; only nuance is left. Pro complains that Con was just trying to, "win the game" and I take that to mean he was frustrated by getting bogged down in the logical inconsistencies of his own case. But once again, Con only has the burden to show that the generalization made by the resolution is not true in all cases. Breaking down the Pro's analysis and directly refuting questionable claims and structural fallacies does the job here, and is the burden on Con. But in the interest of being thorough, it bears mentioning that the best arguments casting income taxes as theft also contend that the government should fund itself though tariffs and fees that folks pay voluntarily. In that scenario the only question remaining is what government should then do with the funds it collects. In this debate its benefits for citizens. Pro could have argued this is a foolish way to spend money, but did not. He could have argued that it's not the role of government to provide for citizens, but he did not. Pro is actually the one dodging his burdens, not me. Now I'd like to address Pro's propensity for shifting. Shifting on his notion of "tax" put Pro at odds with his own core claim, "taxation is theft" in R3 when he tried to call fees taxes and by extension theft. Con showed why tariffs and fees are not theft, and how that shifting definition of tax and theft cost Pro the match. But Pro also tries to move the entire goal post in R4, consider this paragraph from Pro's R4: "What matters is that the government is a violent institution based on the initiation of force against peaceful individuals. People have never signed a contract to be forced to comply to laws. The government itself is an immoral institution, therefore, government provided social welfare is immoral. That's what this debate is really about. " Up until now the debate was about whether taxation is theft, not if government is inherently violent. That was the premise offered to tell us welfare is immoral. The entire work of Pro's R2 and R3 are trying to sell the notion of taxes as theft, and that anything funded by immoral means is also immoral. Now Pro says it's about government being an immoral institution. Last I heard this was about how government funds itself, not the inherent nature of government. Pro began by rejecting the notion that government can tax citizen income to fund government expenditures. Now Pro just rejects government itself. First Pro was concerned with the means (taxes as opposed to fees) that achieves the ends (welfare benefits). Now Pro is concerned with the agent itself rather than what methods (taxes or fees) the agent (government) uses. See the difference. .? While we are on the topic of government itself though, Pro’s statement, “People have never signed a contract to be forced to comply to laws. ” is also misleading. Perhaps there isn’t anyone going door to door with actual, “social contracts,” but thousands of people have literally signed documentation and taken oaths before witnesses to this very effect. Anyone that joins the military, serves in public office, or public administration or is a contractor, bought a trucking permit, gotten a passport or driver’s license, bought or sold broadcast ads, has a food handling permit or taught public school have all; all of them, signed documents and made promises to comply with the laws of the country More importantly they did so voluntarily. That Pro would be so occupied with the notion of a literal social contract is absurd. Moreover, nothing in our legal system is etched in stone. We can change laws, recall congressmen and governors, sign petitions, conscientiously object, protest, vote or abstain, post on Facebook and write OpEd for the Washington post. This is America, there’s many avenues for change and a high degree of personal freedom under our status quo. To quote Dustin Hoffman in, Stranger than Fiction, “Invent something, or just finish reading Crime and Punishment. Hell, Harold, you could just eat nothing but pancakes if you wanted. ” Very quickly, right before Pro tells us he “will yield the last round. ” Pro tells us, “Tariffs are just another way of taxing people because they violate Free Trade and are therefore not voluntary. ” Again, this is false, and suggests that Pro has not been listening when we showed that one has to make the choice to pay a tariff or a fee. That is the very essence of voluntary. The merchant can always take the product to a different market, or even seek a break on the tariff. Once again, Pro does not remain consistent with his own definition of theft and taxes that he said were one and the same. Pro told us the problem with taxation is duress; taxes are compulsory. But even now, when the error was literally printed in bold in the Con R3, Pro doubles down on the notion. It kind of blows my mind. So let’s be clear here. Let’s go with logic. Let’s go with consistency and a better understanding how inherency works in a debate. Let’s go Con!