Taxpayers should be allowed to dictate how governments spend their money.

I would like to first start out by summarizing my opponents points My opponent advocates a governmental system where taxpayers could choose where their money goes. Specifically this would be limited to 12 ministries which my opponent has designated: Health; Defence; Arts and Culture; Law Enforcement; Social Security; Foreign Aid; Transport; Environment; Education; Agriculture; Research and Development; Energy. While in theory this idea sounds incredibly intelligent, in actuality it is in short a terrible idea. Below I will give my refutations and supporting arguments 1. While my opponents categories are perhaps broad enough to include every business related prospect, my opponent by designating categories such as the arts, law enforcement, transportation, health, environment, agriculture, and energy, has in turn contradicted his earlier point that the people should control how the money is spent. In actuality my opponent is giving the current government infinitely more powers than it has had under the current system (which I'm assuming is a parliamentary democracy). By giving ministries to these categories my opponent is advocating that the government will choose where the taxpayers money goes within these broadly defined ministries. For example let us assume that the government collects 10% of the taxpayers money to art. Who then decides where this 10% of taxpayer money goes? The government does. Under the current system who dictates where money should go in the art realm? The consumer does. As my opponent has stated he believes that a fairer governmental system devolves "the decision making process down to the people. " However his proposed governmental system does exactly the opposite under the guise of doing so. Let me give an example of why this system is not only fair, but will result in chaos: Bob is retired and receives social security payments, so consequentially he does not pay taxes. Joe is a working man and does not currently receive the benefits of social security, since he works Joe pays taxes. Under my opponents system Joe decides to give none of his taxpayer money to social security because he does not see the benefit of it. Concurrently Bob will receive less in his social security check. Apply this example to all people under my opponents system, and we have chaos. My opponent could conclude that in the future Joe himself will be receiving lower social security payments seeing as how the current government has already saved Bob's generations taxpayer dollars and divided them equally. However we must consider two points: 1. Joe could simply put his taxpayer money elsewhere (in law enforcement since he's a police officer) and get paid a higher salary. Joe can then use that higher pay to save for retirement and still enjoy the full benefits of social security. 2. A person paying higher taxes and devoting his taxes to social security will see the same benefit as Joe who pays much less in taxes but does not pay anything to social security. So in this sense I ask my opponent how this policy allows the people to choose? Next let us review spending money for Defense. This country is currently in a war. Most of the country opposes the war. The people give no tax money to the defense ministry because they do not support the war. As a result the soldiers disband (because they are not being paid enough to risk their lives) Much of the defense staff at home disbands because they equally aren't being paid enough. Meanwhile this countries neighboring countries decide to invade. I could provide numerous other examples at the chaotic effects this governmental type would have and how it is in fact much less fair than the current system, but I have run out of space.