azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Taxation is Legalized Theft
Side: No

How much does somebody in mcdonalds get paid to do their job? How much less do you think they'd get paid if it wasn't for the government? Billionaires own factories and pay shit prices to their workers.In a society with no government the middle class would die out and there would only be extremely wealthy and extremely poor. The wealthy exploiting the poor and the poor putting up with it for financial security.What you don't understand is that it wouldn't happen straight away. It will slowly lead to this. There wouldn't just be one day where everybody rich would live on paradise island and everybody poor will live in slums. Over time if the rich get to play their hand (as you advocate) they will surpress the poor until they are nothing more than slaves. They won't care Freedom of Speech, the Bill of Rights etc. - they'll care about how many tons their purses weigh.
Debate: Taxation is Legalized Theft
Side: yes

again i tell you. there are limits on the rich. no government does not mean no law.the rich will not be able to take over to the point of infringing on people's rights. and again i tell you, you continue to confuse libertarianism with aristocracy. your fears of the rich taking over are justified to an extent, but its no different form my fears of a dictator taking over our democracy and ruthlessly leading us. the rich in a government that own business are usually intertwined with government causing unfairness and inequality.but if big business did not have government behind them bailing them out in a crises, they would rely on their workers for their income meaning that impoverishing the workers would be disadvantageous for them. look at Russia, as government failed during ww2 the workers overthrew their factories being angry with them and since the factories had no government to protect them they were defenseless. I'm no Marxist and i strongly disagree with the formation of communism there but it was my example of workers in a non government time period making a change.
Debate: Taxation is Legalized Theft
Side: no

History: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Beers#Forceful_relocation_of_indigenous_Bushman_people_in_Botswana  The article says government, but i assure you de beers enjoyed the profits much more. Another one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Fruit_Company#Banana_massacre  united fruit co also had to do with a cia operation which over threw a democratically elected president, i can search for the article if you wish. If a company(s) can just buy out and manipulate government as it has done in the past, why make it easier and allow them to pay mercenaries well we dissolve our defenses for privatized ones who only care about money, instead of about being in office next year when elections roll around or some such thing. Capitalism results and exists because of an imbalance of power relations, unless those power relations are eliminated anarchy is impossible. Regulated capitalism is currently creating the means to eliminate those, getting rid of that regulation will result in things like early Chicago's back of the yards/cannary vile:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_City,_Chicago upton's sinclar's setting for his famous book "the jungle." admittedly his book is a little extreme but based on actuality. Capitalism needs to be regulated, or else the free market disappears and whatever is profitable weather it be poor working conditions, lead in our toys, coke(the drug) in our cola etc happens.
Debate: Taxation is Legalized Theft
Side: No

I don't really know what you're getting at here... I don't even know what your point is tbh...Libertarian isn't aritocracy - that's why they're 2 different things (lol). But it will lead to that. It's just one of the many bad outcomes of libertarian ideals. Libertarians are one of the stupidest groups of people I've ever met. They have no idea of how the world really works. They miss half of the picture and what they do see, they only see in the short run. The only reason I bother arguing is because I know they'll run out of shit to say. Just as you have.End of discussion.
Debate: Taxation is Legalized Theft
Side: yes

again you are wrong, and i will never run out of shit to say, why in fact, you repeat your self every time you post a statement. making it look like you have been out of stuff to say for a while and instead have resorted to repetition.libertarians have laws to stop the things you are talking about from happening.our law is this. it is illegal to interfere and stop other people's freedom.that means slavery(which you said would result to my society), assault, rape, theft, and etc are illegal.as for me not seeing the whole picture of the world. i big to differ. i used to strongly support government going out of my way to bash liberals and anarchist right and left telling them their retarded like you are now.but then i had a revelation to say. i saw government for what it is. that government is what causes war, intolerance, inequality, and causes man to become evil. while you can have better governments (such as democracy) they are only a lesser evil then others. i feel. that after people or educated to not think government wise. that we can live in a society with out needing a large central power telling us what to do.
Debate: Taxation is Legalized Theft
Side: yes

Every argument, in this debate, that I have read, which denies that taxation is legalized theft, is a red-herring argument. Not a one of those arguments has argued ‘taxation is not legalized theft’. All of them justify theft by asserting taxation is legal and therefore there is no theft.Would you care to debate the proposition of this debate?
Debate: Taxation is Legalized Theft
Side: yes

lol, so your saying that the only response to my arguments is that they say its legal (because government said so) making it not theft? if so, i agree, they have not come up with any good reasons for taxation not being theft besides things that i have shown can be done with out government help.
Debate: Taxation is Legalized Theft
Side: yes

But the amount of work, coordination, and outside costs it would take to make everything private would probably end up costing you more in the long run than the taxes you pay.
Debate: Taxation is Legalized Theft
Side: yes

thats why it would be a slow process to reach a period of no taxation. I'm not talking over the night change.
Debate: Taxation is Legalized Theft
Side: yes

Yes I am!Most of the participants would change their tune very abruptly if the question is: Capital punishment is legalized killing. Albeit, principally, there is no difference betwixt that proposition and the question of this debate.
Debate: Taxation is Legalized Theft
Side: No

Yeah I guess your right. For me its more about the retarded libertarian ideals rather than the debate itself.So my stance is - taxation is NOT legalized theft.I've got 2 arguments to this - so here's my first (not so strong)Taxation isn't theft as the government is taking money that is being put back into society which benefits those who have paid the taxes - something theft does not entail.
Debate: Taxation is Legalized Theft
Side: yes

Here is the initial phase of an argument affirming that Taxation is legalized theft.Let’s digress for a moment. Capital punishment is legalized killing. Let’s now consider both propositions. 1) Both taxation and capital punishment are legal. This is axiomatic.2) Capital punishment is killing. This is axiomatic.3) Taxation is theft. This is also axiomatic.How? Simple, the government of the United States enforces both taxation and Capital punishment by obvious, open coercion-- which is legal. I’ll now focus upon the principles of taxation as they relate to men taxing other men. (Only men collect taxes from men. Let’s forget the notion that a government exists apart from men.)Men bind themselves to one another through contracts. All parties who are signatories of a contract are consenting to the terms of that contract. If a person does not sign a contract, the same has then not bound itself thereby, to other men, according to its terms. Either way, no person can be (justly) punished for refusing to contract with other men. Notwithstanding, no man can justly assume the consent of another man. Two men can’t assume the consent of a third person. Two-hundred men can’t assume the consent of another person. Five-hundred politicians, calling themselves the ‘government’, can’t assume the consent of another person. Yet, if a people decide that they can assume the consent of another person, the same are enemies, criminals and tyrants to the person who no longer has a choice to determine with whom it shall not covenant.Are we in agreement thus far before I continue this argument?
Debate: Taxation is Legalized Theft
Side: No

3) Taxation is theft. This is also axiomatic.I don't agree with this statement (obviously)Legally living in a country means willingness (or atleast pretence) to abide by the rules, and so by owning property within a nations border you have given consent to the laws set by the nation. By living (legally) in a country I have consented to paying tax.A man does not have money taken off him by a government and call it taxation. A man PAYS his taxes. It is not theft. It is investment. A man injecting money into the national treasury does so for a return - better hospitals, better emergency services, better schools etc which in the long run would benefit him.In the scenario of the underworld. A man pays taxes to the strongest gang to do his trade. If he doesn't he'll face the reprecussions. However - this man has to pay these taxes regardless of his choice - he has no say in the matter. In a democracy you have a say in who you pay your money to whether you win or you loose. You pay the government for its services and the government provides for you in return for your money.If you disagree with paying taxes yet benefit from the government who has an services against foreign and domestic threats, services for your health, services for your basic needs/requirements, services for your income, services for your welfare then you are the thief. If you truly disagree with benefits you would be living outside of any government influence/services.I hope that gives my argument and counters yours. (You have a way with words which may have left a guy as blunt as myself confused)
Debate: Taxation is Legalized Theft
Side: yes

Legally living in a country means willingness (or atleast pretence) to abide by the rules, and so by owning property within a nations border you have given consent to the laws set by the nation. By living (legally) in a country I have consented to paying tax.Bullshit! And you know it! (I am being friendly and not antagonistic. Just ask my friends and family.) Sorry, there is no argument which will persuade me that my dissent is illegal. Especially when I am told that my consent is legally assumed by other persons. However, the fact remains that I have not formally consented to anything. There is no contract in existence which allows another man to evidence I have formally consented, by writing, to be taxed without my consent. (Prove to me that paying taxes universally negates coercion. After all, I would rather consent to the demands of a thief/thieves than suffer both the loss of my property and imprisonment.)And until some man or group of men can produce a document in which I have voluntarily, and contractually, bound myself to taxation, all efforts to extort my wages are criminal.Ultimately, your rebuttal, as well as nearly all others of the same position, is criminalizing dissent. (I would have thought that most people understand that one man’s liberty is not legally negated by other men’s tyranny.)Let me now focus my argument toward you and those of your view.Currently, your camp believes it derives a greater benefit from taxation than the benefit of self-reliance. Your camp, which I will now refer to as the “Cabal”, thusly relies upon the labors of others in order to support its standard of existence. (I’ll stop for moment for the sake of avoiding my re-visitation of the degenerate intellect of serfs and proletariats. And no, I am not intending to insult you. But you may very well be my punching bag, temporarily. Sorry! )
Debate: Taxation is Legalized Theft
Side: yes

I can't find a true argument to say that taxation is not legalised theft. Instead my stance is that tax is (or should be) for the common good so by default is not theft which isn't good.Currently, your camp believes it derives a greater benefit from taxation than the benefit of self-reliance. Your camp, which I will now refer to as the “Cabal”, thusly relies upon the labors of others in order to support its standard of existence.Ultimately - yes. I don't know how to fix pot-holes in roads. I don't have time to look through the evidence to decide whether or not an individual is guilty. I don't have the time to check whether or not somebody is carrying drugs on the plane.I have the ability to produce more than I can use. The surplus can either be used to pay private companies to help themselves and me... or the government to help everybody. That's tax in this day and age (to me anyway) hiring a public (not a private) company.Do you disagree?
Debate: Taxation is Legalized Theft
Side: yes

I have the ability to produce more than I can use. The surplus can either be used to pay private companies to help themselves and me... or the government to help everybody. That's tax in this day and age (to me anyway) hiring a public (not a private) company.Do you disagree?Interesting perspective you have there.And yes, categorically, I disagree.Let’s consider exhibit 99: Food stampsIn the U.S., a portion of the taxes collected from private citizens are allocated for food benefits. The recipients of these benefits can then buy food from their local China-mart or Mexi-mart. The businesses which accept these benefits as payment for food are monetarily reimbursed by Morgan Stanley, which handles the clearing house for these transactions; well, 80% of them anyway. Shall I also add that Morgan Stanley generates a profit thereby? What about the farms that receive monetary payment from China-Mart or Mexi-Mart in exchange for their food. See, in the example of the food stamps, the government is transferring your surplus wealth from your hands to the hands of other private entities, through the hands of the impoverished citizens of your society. Therefore, in the example of food stamps, you are benefitting private corporations despite your effort to benefit a public company by paying taxes.(For the record though, I do believe, and I mean “believe”, all human beings have a responsibility to not over-look the needs of the poor. Why? In one simple term: reasonable and unadulterated COMPASSION!) But, I will add the qualification: each according to his ability and abundance in accord with his choice. After all, no man will rationally choose to give one cent each to 1000 paupers when ten bucks given to one pauper will..., and the right to choose which pauper shall be...)But let’s assume that no man dissents to taxation for the sake of paupers, despite the lucrative profits such taxation provides for private corporations, and consider another subject: a standing army.Would you care to argue this one for me, or shall I? (I chose that subject as one which seemingly lends itself to a justification for taxation regardless of dissent.)
Debate: Taxation is Legalized Theft
Side: yes

Firstly isn't your argument the improper use of taxes rather than tax itself? I'm guessing you're not against welfare or helping the poor pay for their meals - but would prefer it if the money didn't go into the hands of private companies?In UK we don't have food stamps so I don't really know much about how it works - so there are other ways of applying tax without letting the money go to private companies.Would you care to argue this one for me, or shall I? (I chose that subject as one which seemingly lends itself to a justification for taxation regardless of dissent.)Having an army in private hands? Would only lead to dictatorship. Having several armies with several 'companies' would only lead to cold wars between them. An true army's intention would be for the public's intention, working for a private company only makes them mercenaries. An army (by my definition) are people who offer their lives to protect or expand their nation - not for their bank statements or their leader's ill intentions.I think it'd be better if you argued this one though because I don't really know how to poke at this subject.
Debate: Taxation is Legalized Theft
Side: yes

Firstly isn't your argument the improper use of taxes rather than tax itself? I was following along with your post. Consider it an application of how tax revenues can and do benefit both the poor and wealthy. But, truthfully, I am not intending to dispute proper or improper allocation of tax revenue. I'm guessing you're not against welfare or helping the poor pay for their meals - but would prefer it if the money didn't go into the hands of private companies?If I consent to be taxed for that purpose, then the answer is no. And consequently I must disregard who is the final beneficiary. Would you care to argue this one for me, or shall I? (I chose that subject as one which seemingly lends itself to a justification for taxation regardless of dissent.)I think it'd be better if you argued this one though because I don't really know how to poke at this subject.I was not thinking ‘private’ standing Armies, rather public. Would you like to have the first stab at this one? Originally, I did not clarify either a public or private Army.
Debate: Taxation is Legalized Theft
Side: No

So the general question is should we tax and use taxes to maintain a standing army?Armies are needed. At all times. Regardless of whether or not we THINK we need them as they hold purpose for the future too.Knowing that we need armies - armies that serve the public, with people putting their lives up so others can live by their ideals - we should fund them so they can be maintained.An army is a necessity to a nation. Without an army you cannot really be defined as an independant nation.
Debate: Taxation is Legalized Theft
Side: yes

Did you know that the same army, which is paid in part from your wages, could in fact be given orders to imprison you as an enemy of the state because of your ideology? Would you therefore consent to taxation for the purpose of depriving you of your ideal? I do not think so! Unless of course you desire to pay the cost for unjustly imprisoning you.Does this make sense?
Debate: Taxation is Legalized Theft
Side: No

It makes sense.My taxes go to the army for them to follow the orders. If they lock me up - I have consented to their actions. What I have not agreed to is the government's decision to lock me up. It's the government who I have the problem with not the army.If I'm not being hypocritical that is. Nobody would truly admit this though. ;)I hope you can agree with that.
Debate: Taxation is Legalized Theft
Side: yes

My taxes go to the army for them to follow the orders. If they lock me up - I have consented to their actions. That is not consent. It is surrender. One cannot consent to an ultimatum. Shall I explain this in detail? What I have not agreed to is the government's decision to lock me up. It's the government who I have the problem with not the army.So, you have a problem with the decision to “lock you up” but you don’t have a problem with being locked up? This is not compatible. Either you have a problem with both the order and its affect, or you have a problem with neither; but you can’t, reasonably, separate cause and effect and then affirm you have a problem with the cause and no problem with its effect.If I'm not being hypocritical that is. Nobody would truly admit this though. ;)I hope you can agree with that.Here is what I agree with:As long as you pay taxes by consent, taxation is not theft. But, the moment you decide you no longer consent to it, taxation is legalized theft.Remember, the legalization of an act is not the negation of a criminal act. Furthermore, justice is a natural, universal concept that is common to all men and not subject to a society of criminals who believe that the writ of man establishes justice. After all, this debate can be reduced to one, compound, propositional question: Justice is not legal or illegal. Evidence:Not robbing your neighbor is not legal. There is no law that legalizes the negative action of not robbing your neighbor. This is an evidence of the existence of justice. But contrariwise, just because men can write and obey laws which are thusly legal, does not mean those actions are above and immune to natural justice. See, whether it is legal or illegal, justice is the judge of both. Have you heard the expression: “Justice is blind.”?
Debate: Taxation is Legalized Theft
Side: No

Ok so as long as we pay tax with consent, you agree it's not theft.For those that sit there saying they'd rather have a nation without tax will always (I can garauntee this) come to the conclusion that taxing is good/better. But should we sit there waiting for 100 years to go by for these people to learn their lessons?Have you heard the expression: “Justice is blind.”?Yes, I love the saying. But I will never witness it. Too many times justice is not served
Debate: Taxation is Legalized Theft
Side: yes

The foundation of the U.S. is built upon freedom from taxation, hence the war of independence.Clearly, the King of England, George, was willing to kill taxpayers in order to benefit the taxpayers. Mind you, all of which was tax-payer funded. Therefore, he stole from others in order to steal from more.
Debate: Taxation is Legalized Theft
Side: No

Lol I know little about all of that.But he's obviously breaking his role as King. He's abusing his powers pure and simple.
Debate: Taxation is Legalized Theft
Side: yes

good good, your argument has good points in it, and while at first (when i looked for the justification of forced taxation) i looked at the upsides of taxation, and i came up with the same outcomes as you.but, for the sake of argument and also some of the flaws that still occur in forced taxation i must, like always, dispute you.you say that you don't have the skill to do the things you mentioned. your right none of us have all the skills to everything. but you, when hurt, look for a doctor, or when you need new shoes, go to a shoe store.the same would be done with the things government has monopolized. a builder would come to a city, some people may agree to pool some money for the builder to repair a road or such. the builder gets paid and the people who paid get a service done, all done with out the need of forced money taking.but then you take the argument to a bigger scope. that is, crime and justice. this is where we would use privatized police forces. people or business, seeing crime rising realize that their workers do not like going to work because of the crime near the work place. or the bank sees that people will not invest in their bank if robbery is common. theses intuitions would hire guards to protect their property, the work place would become safe and the bank a secure place to store money. this is capitalism in the raw. that is, all services and goods being put out on the market for people to ether invest in or not. the neighborhood would increase in safety and beauty as more people invested into the bank and the bank had more money for More police. this was a basic libertarian example of government services being privatized. do you see. that if some thing is good or beneficial for you, that you will pay? if so, then the government would not need to forcefully demand money, this must mean that government knows that the stuff it does is not beneficial to all and there fore must demand money forcefully. that is my opinion.