Taxation is both theft and immoral

I enjoyed this debate! It is a good sign for this community that it is still possible to have debates like this. Here, I'll combat the opponent's claims one last time, as well as provide closing arguments. The Road So FarThe opponent's entire case rests on two assumptions. 1. Natural Law is an inherently existant thing. 2. X and X' are essentially indistinguishable. (In the argument, X should do Y is equivalent to X' should do Y. )I'll show why the opponent's assumptions are lacking evidential and/or logical backing, then explain the implications of this. Natural LawI didn't claim that the opponent didn't have justification for Natural Law, but rather that the justification was so ill formed and dubious that it does not hold as something we can accept as true. The opponent first defines Natural Law as what "nature, or rather God, has bestowed upon every one of us. .. " This clearly ties the existence of Natural Law with the existence of an objective and divine Lawmaker, which I stated the opponent has failed to demonstrate as existent. The opponent can claim that this reasoning is "indisputable a priori reasoning", but that does not make it so. The fact remains that the opponent claimed that Natural Law exists because God does, but never made any attempt whatsoever to demonstrate that this God exists and that he chose to make the Law. Given that, we cannot assume the Natural Law to be an existent thing. Governmental DecreeI must again reiterate that (in this argument) I am not concerning myself with the "justness" of governmental decree. (Henceforth, lowercase 'law'. ) I am not claiming that these laws are morally legitimate, but instead that these laws objectively exist. It cannot be doubted that governmental law exists, as policymakers have put these laws into place. In the U. S. , the existence of the Constitution is direct evidence that governmental law exists. The term "theft" is defined with respect to the law. The definition does not explicitly say this law must be governmental, but seeing as I have shown that governmental law indisputably exists while Natural Law's existence has not been solidified, the former should be preferred. And with respect to governmental law, something is only definitionally theft if it is an act of property transferrence that occurs in a manner not prescribed by that law. In determining whether an act is "theft", we are looking at definitions. Not morality, not "justness" and not "moral legitimacy". Just definitions. And in terms of definitions, I have demonstrated taxation to not be theft, as taxation is in accordance with governmental law. MoralityThe opponent's defense of his syllogism clarifies his exact mistep, which is apparent in the axiom "All essential things being equal but the agent, moral judgements retain their validity. " This axiom is used to attempt to prove that objectivism is true, but fundementally assumes that objectivism is already true in its construction. After all, if we are discounting the moral judgements of individual agents, through what system do we judge whether their actions are "valid"? Furthermore, it's critical to point out that in "subjective morality", no action is considered valid in an objective sense. Actions are only valid or invalid in the minds of these "moral agents". As such, moral judgements cannot "retain their validity", as they have no validity in the first place. Finally, we should understand that there are no two moral agents X and X' that are "essentially indistinguishable". Our subjective morality is based solely on our own opinions on right and wrong, which stem from the mind. Each person that lives, has ever lived or will ever live has a distinctly different mind than anyone else. This means that the opinions that define their subjective morality will always be different, meaning we cannot consider any two different moral agents to be "essentially indistinguishable". Given this, we know that A) the opponent's fundemental axiom utilizes circular logic, attempting to justify objectivism while fundementally utilizing objectivism in its formation, and B) that even if the axiom is valid, it cannot be applied, since there do not and cannot exist two moral agents X and X' that are different, but essentially indistinguishable. What's more, it cannot be said that someone utilizing a subjective morality believes that it is "one which should be followed" by others. Rather, it is simply the unobjective and fundementally unproveable system of "morals" which they have chosen to abide by. Additional ArgumentsConsent; Coercion; Extra ArgumentsIf it is decided that the opponent's logical proof of objectivism is valid, then this argument does weight against me. However, I believe I have effectively demonstrated that the opponent has failed to adequately prove the claim of objectivism. (A reminder to the voters, the opponent accepted the full burden of proof. It should not be judged based up "most likely's", but rather from the standard of "absolute proof". ConclusionI have demonstrated that my opponent has failed to prove either of the claims he was burdened to prove. In the case of theft, I have demonstrated that taxation is not theft based upon the very definition of theft. I have further demonstrated that the opponent's "Natural Law" claim was not proved to be true. Regarding morality, I have shown that logical flaws exist in the single logical argument for objectivism that was presented. The opponent presented an "axiom" which we cannot believe is true on its own (regardless of how it's labeled. ) The axiom utilized circular reasoning and was not even applicable in a literaly or philosophical way. It is clear that the opponent has not provided adequate proof of either claim. As such, the vote should clearly rest with me tonight.