Government is Inherently Violent
Debate Rounds (4)
Those who believe that violence is only acceptable in self defense or defense of another can not also support government of any sort. All government actions are funded by taxes, which are collected using violence and threats of violence. Implying that an individual has accepted a social contract upon birth is as illogical as those who stated that those who were born to enslaved parents consented to involuntary servitude upon birth.
"...if one chooses, you don't have to own a home, have a job, or buy groceries from the store."
This is true -- however, if I do wish to own a home, have a job, or buy groceries from the store, I will have money forcibly taken from me. Because I have these things, I have somehow consented to such a system, thus making taxation voluntary and acceptable?
"The Amish are very self-sufficient, thus, people and government generally leave them alone."
Many of us are not Amish, nor wish to be. Because we'd rather have modernized items, we've somehow consented to pay tax dollars?
*I'm afraid I did not understand the conclusion of your post regarding war.*
Argument from Consistency
Because I have no right to use your house, I do not have a right to tell my friends that they may use your house. One can not allocate a right that they themselves do not have.
Because I have no right to chop the tree in your front yard down, I don't have the ability to give my friends the right to chop the tree in your front yard down. One can not allocate a right that they themselves do not have.
Similarly, I don't have the right to forcibly take your money and cage or shoot you if you resist. So how, then, can I give politicians the right to do the same? All humans are equal, and the initiation of violence is unethical -- violence is only acceptable in self-defense.
It's a commonly held belief that because 51% of a population says it is moral to extort someone in this manner, it is made acceptable. That is called taxation, and the mob's blessing does not make that which is unethical ethical.
That which is wrong for the individual is also wrong for the majority.
One can not allocate a right that they themselves do not have.
I respectfully point out that my opponent has not addressed my Argument from Consistency and will proceed assuming that he has conceded that the creation and maintenence of government is inconsistent with the nature of individual rights, and thus, is violent.
"But, when you do so, when under a government jurisdiction, when living in a certain Geo spatial area, you must follow the laws of the land. If one isn't happy about certain laws of the land, one has two options; leave the country or change the law."
This is true. When one is born within a particular geographical area, one is told he must tolerate rules created by groups of individuals that claim that they have the ability to allocate rights that they themselves do not possess. This, of course, is obsurd. If individuals have the ability to allocate rights that they themselves are not in possession of, any criminal need only have a friend that excuses a murder by saying, "that's alright, I said he could kill them." Any pyromaniac needs only an acquiantance that excuses the destruction of another persons' property by saying, "calm down, I gave him permission." Any thief needs only one (or six) of the ten community members to say "it's alright, I/we gave him permision to steal those items."
I also would make the case that forcing someone to spend their resources -- that they acquired through use of time, labor, and funds -- on leaving a particular geographical area, lest they be forcibly extorted -- is violence. Saying to an individual who has labored for his products "you must concede ten percent of your wealth to me, because six of your ten neighbors gave me permission to take it for the good of the community" and offering the solution that "you may pick up and relocate your home, family, and make new friends if you disagree," is no less violent than those that rob at gunpoint. The ultimate punishment for refusing to budge is an armed attack on oneself and one's family, theft of one's property, and imprisonment or physical harm if one resists -- all whilst the individual in violation of the mob's decree has done no violence upon any other.
Note also that not one individual that makes up the majority has the right to do all of the things that they supposedly give other individuals (whom we call government officials) the right to do. Again, one is entirely unjustified in attempting to allocate a right that they themselves do not have.
For a contract to be at all valid on any level, both parties must mutually agree to enter into said contract. By remaining in one's birthplace, one does not give consent to be violated by those who would unjustly violate them by claiming they've been granted rights that can not be granted. Holding such a belief would justify every act of government violence, theft, torture, etc. that has ever taken place domestically. Black Americans' segregation and forced usage of inferior facilities, schools, etc. would be justified. Mao's Great Leap Forward that lead to the starvation of millions of Chinese would be justified. The fining and/or imprisonment of individuals who consume a large soda in New York City would be justified. Those peaceful individuals simply should have left the country -- and indirectly forcing them to do so isn't violence in the slightest.
Whether one wishes to argue that government is a necessary evil is still a debate that can be had, but to claim that government is not firmly embedded in a foundation of coercion and violence seems unjustifiable.
JosephKomor forfeited this round.
To conclude, I'd like to propose that -- if we truly believe violence is only acceptable in defense -- we stop omitting individuals simply because we've been taught to do so.
Look at something and see what is really there, not what you think is there.
Liberty is always dangerous, but it is the safest thing we have.
JosephKomor forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.