Income Taxation Is Not Theft

I have really enjoyed this stimulating and provocative interaction. To potential voters I ask discretion when evaluating this debate, considering the highly biased nature of the topic. In this last round, let me try to draw together some of the threads of this debate to see if we can come to any conclusions. Closing Statements C1: We have no legal property rights to our pretax income My first contention that I said I would defend has gone unrefuted. Here my opponent confuses moral property rights (which I deal with in my second contention) with legal property rights. I argued that legal property rights do not precede the law but follow from the law and that ‘theft’ relies on the legal system that defines it. Instead of arguing against these propositions, my opponent decides to focus on mostly straw mans. “Since their only argument that taxes are immoral is incorrect, as it requires the logical impossibility that ideas come before law, they fail to assert that income tax is not theft. ” and “My opponent […] tried to argue that property rights themselves were theft”. These are propositions I have never put forth in this debate. But this can also be one of the examples of my opponents grammatical errors, which distort his intended meaning. Furthermore, by asserting that the Declaration of Independence (DoI) is inherently opposed to taxation my opponent assumes that he has the right interpretation of DoI which make his point moot. The government begs to differ: “The signers of the Declaration of Independence set out to establish a new form of government for the "protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". To this end, the framers of our constitution enumerated the proper fiscal functions of government as "to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States". Taxes are simply the preferred method for paying for these governmental functions. ” [17] Moreover, the DoI is a secondary authority, which legal position is much less certain than that of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has not considered it a part of the organic law of the country. [18] As I have proved earlier, the constitution fully acknowledges the government’s power to enforce taxation. C2: We have no moral property rights to our pretax income Firstly, I argued that the government creates and distributes the US fiat currency and by extension owns it. In Round 3 my opponent concedes that the government indeed creates and distributes the currency, however he still disputes my argument by making up his own definition of ‘creation’, backed up by a fallacious analogy. The USD is without inherent worth. The value of the fiat currency depends on the government by declaring it legal tender and is deriving from taxation. Thus, in his analogy Nikon would be parallel to the U. S. Department of the Treasury, not the FED. My opponent further commits another straw man fallacy by claiming I confused the U. S. notes with the Federal Reserve Note, however I did not. As I have argued earlier, the FED is merely a link in the distribution chain. They are not able to set the conditions, nor change them. Thereafter, his objections are simply irrelevant. After the government creates the currency, they are legally and morally entitled to it. They then distribute the currency under some conditions, which entails income taxation. Everybody participating in de monetary system, including the FED, must accept these conditions, because unless this burden is met, the property is immorally acquired. Therefore one has no moral entitlement to his pretax income. As I have shown taxation to be morally justified, the government is justified in protecting this right. Thus income taxation is not theft. Additionally, my opponent again creates a straw man. “The government can set terms and conditions on persons it has not contracted with. ” I never made such a claim. By willfully participating in the system, you entered a social contract, which I have explained further in my bicycle analogies. My opponent then puts forth a self-defeating argument. He states that if he benefits from a service, taxation is justified. However as I argued, one benefits from the system as a whole, directly or indirectly, thus my opponent implicitly concedes taxation is justified. My opponent’s objections to my casino analogy are thus invalid, and have no impact on my argument whatsoever. His taxi analogy is invalid because the taxi driver’s condition was set after you consented, which is the opposite in the case of taxation. The source I referred to as being a ‘conspiracy theory’ is full of factual errors, contradicting my ‘. gov’ sources and is essentially nothing more than an advertisement, which totally undermines its reliability. [19] Secondly, I argued that the distribution of the market is morally arbitrary and therefore has no moral significance. My opponent completely dropped this argument. Thus he concedes that there are no moral property rights antecedent to pretax income. C3: Taxation is not without consent On slavery, notice he commits the argumentum ad passiones fallacy by appealing to emotion trough semantic trickery, rather than valid logic. My opponent insists to equate taxation with slavery by simply restating his assertions from Round 2, which I refuted in Round 3. I have argued that one’s participation in the system is completely voluntary. My opponent claims that his participation is coerced, because he cannot avoid taxes by leaving the US, however this is simply untrue. Throughout the whole debate I have repeatedly argued that one can emigrate anytime he wants, thus one is not coerced to participate. Furthermore, one is not forced to work; he is offered the choice to live his life à la ‘Into the Wild’. Nobody would stop him if he chose to do so. I argued, nobody has a natural entitlement to the advantages of this society. I will not spend any more time on it. My opponent sure likes extreme examples, but he forgets his examples also have to apply to real life scenarios. As to democracy, I argued that ultimately, the legitimacy is based on democratic decision-making. My opponent again knocks down a straw man by claiming I said every decision must benefit each individual. I never argued such a proposition. Instead, what I argued was that the government works in peoples best interests, determined through elections. Every citizen has an equal say in this process of determining which interest are most prevalent. My opponent argues that if the majority decides something he does not like it is therefore immoral, however he failed to meet the burden that I outlined in Round 3. Instead, my opponent simply insists it is ‘nonsense’. I submit this does not count as valid argumentation. Conclusion To recapitulate, I think I have successfully defended the proposition that there are no good reasons to think income taxation is theft, because we have no property rights to our pretax income, legally nor morally. My opponent was not able to refute my arguments. Furthermore, to successfully negate the resolution he had to show that one is indeed entitled to his pretax income. But my opponent did not establish any sound foundation to affirm this. He never actually offered us a clear argument why he thinks he is entitled to his pretax income. Lastly I argued that taxation is not without consent, because by willful participation in the system, one has to agree to its conditions, because one is not entitled to the benefits of the system. If one claims not to consent, one cannot justify his participation in the system. I conclude that income taxation is not theft. I urge a vote for Pro. Affirmed Sources [17] . http://www.treasury.gov...[18] . http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...[19] . http://pragcap.com...