Social Welfare Is Immoral

In this round, I will rebut or disprove all relevant sentiments and arguments Con made in the previous round.In order to prevent the future creation of strawmans, the complete proposition of the debate is found in R1, "Public Social Welfare Is Immoral". Con dropped the use of the descriptor "Public" in order to make the proposition easier to attack. "Public" describes the "principle" source of funding of an institution (the "Welfare State") as being taxation (see Pro R2).EXAMPLES REBUTTEDAnything that is not "publicly" funded (through the enforcement of taxation), is "privately" funded (through voluntary contribution). Thus, once "Social Welfare" is no longer actually provided through taxation, it becomes privately funded social welfare: Charity. I stongly advocate for charitable causes in R2 and am fully convinced of its benevolent nature.Thus, anytime Con tries to create a case where somehow the tax-funded institution of the welfare state can provide a social welfare service without relying on its only principle source of funding that is taxation (which is contradictory and thus cannot be true), Con is describing a charitable cause, and thus no longer argues against the proposition of this debate. In other words, Con creates a strawman and attacks that one instead.But it gets more sophisticated. Con bases his examples aimed to disprove the proposition on "welfare [...] provided without relying on direct tax." With the distinction between "direct" and "indirect" tax funding, Con tries to conceal the fact that a cause that is funded "only indirectly" through immoral means is still immoral. "Any moral end that is achieved through the systematic violation of moral principles [...] is [...] immoral." (from Pro R2).If I rob my friends' bank account, invest the money into stocks and donate the dividends to charity, I could not claim the profits are mine and the contribution was made on moral grounds. In court, I am forced to give back all the money plus reparation, including all profits that I made with it because my friend could have earned the profits himself had his money not been stolen.Thus, examples showing welfare can be provided through "indirect taxes" are still immoral for as long as my argument of taxation being theft is not disproven. Also, welfare services being provided entirely without government funds - that includes the government officials' salaries who run the service - do per definitionem not qualify as public social welfare services and thus become irrelevant for the debate.With this knowledge, we shall examine provided examples.1. War reparationsWar reparations are paid by nations through the regular enforcement of taxation onto their own people, through the printing of currency (indirect taxation through inflation) and the creation of public debt (immediate taxation of future taxable income). Thus, services would be paid for by (foreign) taxes.2. Worker pensions funded by corporate or government bonds bought by the governmentPrivate bonds bought by the government are investments made with taxes and their payoff thus stems from tax money.Government-issued bonds are ... obviously funded through taxation. It has to be payed back with tax money because the government has no money of its own.3. Tariffs and feesTariffs: Tax on imports or exports [1]Fees: "Taxation is a means by which governments finance their expenditure by imposing charges on citizens and corporate entities." (from Pro R2)4. Loan defaultedCon is suggesting a government borrows money from, I assume, private citizens with the intention of defaulting.Well, let me just commend Con for his creativity, since this example is indeed not based on the enforcement of tax laws but instead is outright evil.Thus we see that, be it through direct or indirect taxation or plain theft, all cases provided by Con describe funding through illegitimate means, based on the moral framework provided in R2 that Con had no objections to.That is, if Con hasn't disproven the argument of taxation being theft of the grandest scale.TAXATION IS THEFTWhen it comes down to it, my proof of "taxation equals theft" was three-and-a-bit lines long, citing:"Taxation is a means by which governments finance their expenditure by imposing charges on citizens and corporate entities. To impose is to establish or bring about something as if by force. Force is violence, compulsion, or constraint exerted upon or against a person or thing.[If taxation is force, it describes theft.]"Con argues, because people conform to government laws there is no violence. That is like saying a woman not resisting being raped at gunpoint is not being aggressed against. The fundamental truth is, behind every law there is a gun. Consider this:If laws were actually voluntary, why pay taxes? Sure, one will receive multiple letters demanding payment but that can be easily ignored. First they come from the IRS, after some time from a judge. Eventually, cops will show up at your home with an arrest warrant. But they don't have guns, right? Well, they do, and if you continue to resist arrest in self-defense, guess what they'll do with it...Con argues, taxes are voluntary and names tax obligations in terms of employment as an example. Sure I can choose between jobs, but how can I work and not pay taxes if I so prefer, without the fear of government violence? The example is analogous to a mid-eighteenth century slave being allowed to choose which slaveholder he would rather like to work for. Not freedom!"Disliking the rules is not the same as being cheated." (Con R3) It is much worse, in fact, when one is threatened being thrown in jail for not following the rules. One can like or dislike the laws, but has no choice but to act in accordance with them or have one's life destroyed. It is force.TAXATION AND CURRENCYOn the other hand, Con is correct in arguing that it would be entirely hypocritical of anybody to both reject taxation and simultaneously embrace government-issued currency, or the government itself. It does not take long to understand that to reject the legitimacy of taxation means to reject the legitimacy of governments altogether, for I have layed out above, laws constitute the state and the state does not exist without enforced laws.To argue taxation is immoral, is to argue governments are immoral.Indeed, government-issued currency would be worthless without the government. Without the government, people would finally be free to create their own currencies, competing over the best combination of convenience, lowest volatility, widest acceptance, and safety. In the free marketplace of currencies people will choose whichever currencies they want to use. Today, currencies like bitcoin basically only exist because government laws are too ancient to address them.PROPERTY RIGHTSCon argues, laws provide property rights. On the outside, it seems logical. But property rights have no requirement for laws, for they are based on the Self-Ownership Axiom and the acceptance of Ownership over the effects of our actions. [2]"Self-ownership is the concept of property in one's own person, expressed as the moral or natural right of a person to have bodily integrity, and be the exclusive controller of her or his own body and life." [3]Property rights follow from owing ourselves and the effects of our actions. We own ourselves because we have exclusive control over our body. A house that I alone have build is not mine because some law somewhere said so, but because it is the fruit of my own labor. We all accept inherent property rights not because of some abstract concept that is called The State, but because we understand that we own ourselves and the fruits of our labor and don't want to be stolen from.For anybody interested in the full proof of property rights based on universal ethics, I refer to a 15-minute presentation by Stefan Molyneux. [2]Regarding the enforcement of property rights, one is well-advised to take personal measures, anyway, to ensure safety and integrity of one's own property. For example, having a gun oneself is generally better than waiting for the cops after the robbery already happened. In a stateless society, people would pay for security services voluntarily, as can be seen in private security agencies that already exist.CONCLUSIONIn this round, I have refuted all examples provided by Con trying to come up with a public social welfare program that is not inherently based on the systematic violation of basic moral principles. I have shown that Con has failed to prove why taxation is not force. Con's attempt to discredit arguments based on a lack of consistency in principles has failed, as I equally argue for the immorality of the state-enforced exclusive right to create currency, and the government altogether. Finally, I have shown that property rights can be derived entirely independent of laws and their enforcement does not require a government.Con's lack of strong arguments against the immorality of taxation and the state are finally demonstrated by committing the common logical fallacy of Appeal to Popularity [4]: The legitimacy of taxation is known and valid because it "is robustly established and recognized." (from Con R2) As a philosopher one can only say: Not an argument."We Will Win, and We Will Win, and We Will Win." –Donald J. Trump[1] Definition of Tariff: https://en.wikipedia.org...[2] A Proof of Property Rights [audio-visual]: https://youtu.be...[3] Definition of Self-Ownership Axiom: https://en.wikipedia.org...[4] Definition of Appeal to Popularity: https://en.wikipedia.org...