Taxation is both theft and immoral

The Law By my opponent’s own admission, he is using “government decree” and “law” interchangeably – this paints a picture far different than reality, wherein the Law carries a much deeper meaning. I have shown why his conception of law fails, thus debasing his case. . Natural Law My opponent has claimed that I have provided no justification to accept Natural Law; however, this is blatantly not true. I have shown that Natural Law exists insofar as it is impossible to reject it, specifically, that Natural Law precludes the rightful use of force, via indisputable a priori reasoning. The idea that “justness does not matter” is absurd when my opponent is making claims about the legitimacy of certain laws. If law X, decreeing that taxation is not theft, is not legitimately a law, none would recognise anything drawn from it. My opponent must be saying that the legitimacy of unjust laws go unquestioned, a conclusion that, as much as he would like to avoid its explicit formulation, is a moral carte blanche. The underlying question: Why should the Great Principality of Q’sar even get so far as to be considered a legitimate lawmaker? If a decree contradicts Natural Law, how may it be just? If a law is unjust, why should it be recognised? If a law is not to be recognised, is it law? Morality As this argument requires subtlety, I will go line-by-line. “Agent X's desire to do some action is the not same as X's ability to do that action. Removing X's ability to do something does not necessitate the removal of X's desire to do that thing.” Is it not a contradixion to want a goal while advocating that all paths to achieving that goal be closed? “Furthermore, subjectivism contends that morality does not exist objectively, such that actors X and Z could have fundementally different moral systems. Just because action Y may be offensive or undesirable to both parties does not mean Y is wrong simply because it is wrong in both systems.” This misses the point. In acting at all, each agent is asserting their moral system as the one which should be followed. Thus, both X and Z must be asserting their moral systems, and their simultaneous assertions lead to contradixions and inconsistencies in each’s systems. The only way to eliminate contradixion is to adhere to the metaethical principle of non-aggression. “Additionally, man moral beliefs indicate that an action is "ok" to do to someone else, but that it is not ok for it to be done to that agent. Ie, person X might believe "it is ok for me to shoot Bob, but it is not ok for Bob to shoot me". This is a logically valid belief without contradiction, as subjectivism does not require agents to judge the validity of action Y from a universal standpoint, but merely their own.” I addressed this in my first round: Axiom: All essential things being equal but the agent, moral judgments retain their validity. Extension: "X should do Y" is equivalent to "X' should do Y" if X and X' are essentially indistinguishable. My opponent must give a good reason to treat two moral agents, who are essentially the same in all relevant qualities, differently. General Arguments (The Opponent's) Consent; The Utility of Government Coercion; “Extra Arguments” I have upheld my metaethical framework, and thus my opponent has dropped these points; weigh this against him if it is decided that Objectivism holds. This debate has now been reduced to the moral component – the winner will be decided on moral grounds. Conclusion I have shown: That there exists objective Natural Law; That all “laws” in contradixion with Natural Law are not laws in the proper sense; That Natural Law precludes the initiation of force; That taxation is the initiation of force; That taxation is thereby unlawful theft and immoral. Q. E. D.