Taxation is theft

To conclude, con has never addressed the claims brought forth. Con has failed to refute the notion that government action is violent in nature or that the relationship of citizens or subjects of the state are voluntary in any empirical way. Con states that it is possible live without government services in modern society but provides no evidence of how that would work. Con in round 3 changes wording to insist that in cases of theft the victim does not gain anything yet con never mentioned victims before. Since the relationship of a citizen or subject to a state is compulsory and not voluntary and since the citizen produces and the state forcefully takes a portion of that production it is indeed analogous to slavery. If someone taking 100% of your production is slavery, then at what percentage is it not slavery? Con further asked how services would be paid for without taxation yet I addressed this in my remarks in round 3. The goal of any society that desires common goods or services is to provide the service. There is nothing inherent about protection services, roads, education, water/sewer or other service that the state provides that would prohibit them from instead being provided by a free market. I would refer con to the works of Auberon Herbert, Stefan Molyneux, William Lloyd Garrison and others to get a sense of how a society could organize without forceful taxation. Many philosophies exist regarding this topic. The four points con makes at the end of a short 'rebuttal' lack substance and depth: 1) "You are wrong" This is of no value and is simply an attack without any attempt to expand on why I could be wrong. There is no counter argument to any of my previous deeper discussion. 2) "You misunderstood me" At no point did con make a clear point or empirical argument against my points. Con did not have depth in a previous point and when that was attacked added a word to be able to say that I didn't understand. 3) "You have no solution to your problems, so don't complain if you can't think of anything better" I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. The question was to demonstrate that taxation is theft it was not to propose any alternative. In response to con previously, I did propose and brief overview of an alternative market based approach and referred con to theorists who expand on the principle. 4) "You need to work on your analogies about the government. You sound like a anarchist who opposes all forms of government." Above I have previously addressed how my analogies(specifically the only one con directly addressed) are germane to the topic. The goal of the debate was to demonstrate that taxation is theft only, not to get into a broader discussion about the existence of states in any form although an argument can be made that without taxation there could be no state in the modern sense, but that was not the topic of the debate. Regardless of you personal feelings about whether or not you think taxation is theft I believe the depth and breadth of the case I have made has been far superior to that of con as con failed to make any empirical or formal argument against my claims. As such I should be awarded points and determined the winner.