Taxation is not theft

Earlier I introduced 3 different theories of ownership and explained how they work. The purpose of this was to establish a foundation for our debate. In order to determine who rightfully owns something we must first determine what constitutes rightful ownership. Only then can we apply our concept to an individual or entity. Con and I have both accepted that the ownership theory which pertains to the resolution is moral ownership. I have given an account for what constitutes such ownership, Con has contributed nothing except to show that my concept is invalid. First, let us understand that establishing an objective moral ownership theory requires establishing objective moral truths. This was never my burden or intention in this debate. Second, Cons rebuttals only leave us with the conclusion that ownership of anything is impossible, so even if his arguments are accepted he has only succeeded in affirming my case. Moral Ownership - Land In the previous round I argued that moral ownership does not extend to land. This is true according to the interpretation of moral ownership I have previously argued, but as I have implied there is no one true interpretation. Mine was based on the concepts of creation and acquisition. Con argues against creation as a valid starting point for ownership simply because I did not properly justify it. However any moral theory can be infinitely questioned. If I state that murder is wrong, no reasonable person will claim that my statement is invalid simply because I did not justify it. When a person creates something they obviously have a moral claim to that which they created, but Con does not accept this because he argues that a creation comes from land. So if creation is not a valid starting point to establish ownership then what is? Con has given us no answer. To extend ownership to land, allow me to introduce another starting point: agreement. For example if two people who do not get along are stranded on a deserted island together then they may agree that each of them stay on “their” side of the island. If one of them now builds a shelter based on this agreement and the other takes over that land, then under this conception it could be considered theft. However, this interpretation would still not support Cons case because agreement was not a factor when theUSclaimed its territory. The constitution clearly states the government’s intent, if the citizens disagreed with it then we are still back to square one; no justification for either side to claim that land. At this point I will simply end this argument here. I could certainly continue making my case for whyUSsovereignty is justified, but that is an entirely different debate. What we are debating is whether taxation is theft. That can only be determined by establishing who owns pre-tax dollars. Cons argument that theUSgovernment is morally unjustified does not affirm his case. If the government is morally unjustified then so is its monetary system. And if its system is unjustified, then how can Con claim that he has a moral right to own a part of it? This right here is the dilemma for Con. If Cons justification for why he shouldn’t have to pay taxes is that he has not agreed to the system, then under what concept does he justify his participation in the system? For example how does he justify accepting an arrangement to work in exchange for US printed money, if he doesn’t accept the validity of US printed money? Con can claim that he has no other choice (disregarding the choice to relocate) but even then, this argument still fails. Con does have another choice, he can not work. He can find a spot somewhere in the woods to sleep and rub sticks together to stay warm. He can hunt for food and create clothing out of the skin of the animals he hunts. He may not like these choices, but they are choices. However, he doesn’t want to do any of that. He’d rather get his food from a grocery store which was founded by someone only because they wanted to earn US dollars. He’d rather get his clothing from Old Navy,Marshalls, Sears, etc… stores which were founded only because someone wanted to earn US dollars. He’d rather take advantage of all the benefits which are a direct result of our monetary system, but seems to believe that he has no moral obligation to follow the rules of that very system. Such bizarre moral standards would only lead us to further conclude that there is no moral justification of owning anything. Cons arguments do not support his case. Unjustified Conditions Con here begins with an analogy of a lottery winner to demonstrates the governments moral illegitimacy. I have already explained why Cons argument still does not support his overall argument, so even though I disagree with his conclusion I have no reason to spend time refuting it. Con then argues that a government is not fulfilling the best interests of its people because it does not grant everyone a choice to partake in its system. He argues that the government should only tax those who wish to receive their services. There is no feasible way for a government to operate in such fashion nor has any society in history flourished under such conditions. A military defending against an external attack can not limit their efforts to only protect taxpayers. If the police see someone being mugged, they can not look for some taxpayer ID card to determine if they should intervene. If wildfires are spreading in California, firefighters can not pull up geographical maps to show where the taxpayers are and only put out the fires in those areas. Everyone benefits from government services. If paying for them is a choice then no one would pay and all government services will cease. This idea may please Con, but if so then I would remind him that there are plenty of places in the world with no strong functioning government. Con is free to live in any of them, but would he want to do that? Of course not. Lastly, Cons grocery store analogy is invalid. The citizens of the city did not accept being confined to only one grocery store as a condition when they bought their property and moved into the city. The condition was inserted after the fact, which is the exact opposite of taxation. Social Contract Con once again claims that a social contract does not exist in reality. If that is the case then neither does moral ownership. Therefore Cons argument leads us to again conclude that no one owns anything, in which case theft can never occur. Conclusion Throughout this debate I have repeatedly argued that theft can not occur if a person does not own the property in question to begin with. I have presented different theories of ownership under which a person can own something and why none of these theories lead us to believe that a citizen has any legitimate claim to pre-tax dollars in their possession. Con has argued against my theories under some belief that refuting them somehow affirms a citizen’s rightful ownership of those dollars. For this to have worked, Con would have needed to provide a theory that validates a citizen’s claim to that money, that is, a theory which explains why someone should be morally exempt from following the rules of a system they willfully participated in. But he did not. His only attempt was to invalidate the system itself, which only invalidates his participation in it. Con will no doubt still hold onto the belief that he is being coerced into participating by having any other reasonable option forcefully taken away from him, an argument which seems to stem from an apparent belief in his own self entitlement to live here. Disagreeing with the government’s origins does not entitle one to the land it claims. And without a valid personal claim to this land one can not dispute that there living here is purely voluntary. Therefore, their participation is not coerced.