Income Taxation Is Not Theft

C1: We have no legal property rights to our pretax income. So often, it seems, debaters will resort to adjectives to decribe an opponent's actions, such as "happily misunderstod," which we will see many times in my opponent's rebuttal. I ask the voters to discard these assertions, as my opponent provides no specific evicence to back them up. Firstly, it is important to expose some rhetorical tricks here. My opponent titles his argument that we do not have "legal" property rights to our pretax income. Their 2nd argument focuses on two angles. 1. For something not to be rightful, it has to break a law. 2. We have no property rights to our pretax income. 1. Merriam Webster's Dictionary, one I have been continually sourcing without challenge from my opponent, defines rightful as "proper or appropriate" [1]. This has much more to do with morality than breaking a law. Therefore, my opponent must prove that taxation is not only legal, but also moral. 2. My opponent argues that we have no property rights to our income. They argue: If we have laws allowing for taxation, we have no right to pretax income. Therefore, since laws came before the right, the government owns our pretax income. This argument requires that the idea come after the law. This is not only impossible, as I pointed out above, but according the Founding documents of the United States, our rights come before the law. The Founders of the United States created a government which would exist primarily to defend the rights, including property rights, as I outlined earlier, of the people within its jurisdiction. Further, were the government to become abusive to these ends, it was the right of the people to alter or abolish it. This clearly asserts that the rights of the people are above government. If they were not, it would be government that could abolish its people. Now that it is established that the number one purpose of government, and the purpose of U. S. law, is to secure our rights, including the right to property, it is clear that the government has no right to our pretax income. Instead, it was formed to protect our right to keep that income. The idea always come before the law. That idea, in America, is that you have property rights to your pretax income. 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. If my opponent successfully argues that we have nolegal property rights to our pretax income, they still fail to prove income taxation is not theft. My opponent recognized this, and thus tried to argue that property rights themselves were theft, of which they were unsuccessful. On this point alone, CON is successful. I urge a vote in the negative. C2: We have no moral property rights to our pretax incomeM opponent again argues that the U. S. government creates, distributes, and by extension owns the currency. Contrary to thei assertion that I agreed the government "owns" the currency, I argued the opposite. My opponent claims that my own sources invalidate my claim that the Federal Reserve creates and distributes the currency. However, if one looks past the introductory paragraph, they will find that my opponent has confused U. S. notes, printed by the Department of the Treasury until 1913, and today's currency [2]"The Federal reserve pays the BEP to print the money, but just as we consider a Nikon camera "created" by the camera company, regardless of who put their hands to the raw material, the Federal reserve creates the currency. The only job of the BEP is to print the paper. Even if one might argue that the BEP does more than print the paper, it is impossible to accurately argue that the Federal reserve does not own the currency. Federal reserve notes comprise more than 99% of all currency in circulation today. The notes are distributed by the Federal Reserve [3]. The notes are called "Federal Reserve Notes," specifying ownership. Further, if any of the notes need to be returned, destroyed, and verified, they are not sent to the BEP, but the Federal Reserve, again showing ownership [4]. Conclusion: the Federal Reserve Bank, a private bank, owns the currency and therefore the U. S. Government has no right to it. Further, everything in the video described by my opponent as "conspiracy theory" (a completely subjective term, and designed to damaga an opponent's argument without providing a factual counter) is further proven by the website of the FED Board of Governors [5]. My opponent further argues that one is obliged to pay for services one does not use. Even though one does not use the services, my opponent argues, the government can set terms and conditions on persons it has not contracted with. My opponent uses the example of a poker tournament hosted by a casino. The house sets the conditions. The players must oblige. If they do not, they lose chips. I assert that A. The casino is providing a direct service to you, the opportunity to use casino chips, table, equipment and resources. B. You stand to benefit from it. and C. If you decide not to pay, the casino will only take what you have voluntarily agreed to play with. The government fits none of these conditions. A. My opponent just argued that the government can charge for a service you do will not use. B. You do not stand to benefit from services you do not use. C. If you decide not to pay income taxes, and use no services, the government will take things you did not willingly offer to gamble. My opponent's further arguments in this section related to the cohesive nature of the system are already addressed by my example of a taxi-driver in Round #2. I urge a vote in the Negative. C3: Taxation is not without consent Since I am running out of characters, my next countarguments will be shorter. My opponent's final arguments are also incorrect. 1. Slavery does not require that you cannot physically leave [6]. Slavery merely requires legal ownership, work without pay, and force. a. Legal ownership = We are legally obligated taxes in the United States, or we can be taken from our homes and thrown in a cage. We cannot leave the United State to avoid paying taxes. This is legal ownership. b. Work without pay = The government does not compensate us directly for our taxation. c. Force = We are required to work, and give our income recieved from that work, to the government. Slavery is an accurate analogy. Finally, my opponent asserts that government must work in the best interest of its people since it is democratically run. Thus, taxes s in the best interest of all and therefore consensual. The best interest of each person does not correspond to the best interest of each individual. The definition of "interest" relies on a singular person's opinion [7]. A government good for all cannot be in the best interest of each. That would be like assuming that since 51% of people agree that people should be jailed for having sex under the age of 21, it is in every person's best interest. It is nonsensical. To recap:1. My opponent has not successfully proven that theft must only be illegal. Merriam-webster's dictionary proves that theory incorrect. 2. My opponent has not successfully proven that we do not have a moral right to pretax income. The founding documents of this country, with the definition of theft, disprove that. 3. My opponent, through their misunderstanding of the American monetary system, has unsucessfully tried to claim that the government owns U. S. currency. 4. Since the government does not own U. S. currency, my opponent has failed to assert they can morally take it back. 5. Income tax fulfills the three tenets of slavery. 6. The government has no moral, or "rightful," right to our pretax income. Income tax is theft. I urge a vote in the Negative. Sources: . http://pastebin.com...;.