The Instigator
KJVPrewrather
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
DrAnomaly
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points

Is taxation theft?

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The Voting Period Ends In
69days08hours58minutes21seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/29/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 weeks ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 172 times Debate No: 106236
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

DrAnomaly

Pro

A video I see. Challenge accepted.

0:10 - "Boy do I wish AnCaps and libertarians would try moving to Somalia for a bit," Okay, this is INSANE, Somalia has a government, however there was a short period of time wherein Somalia did not have a government, and during this time the standards for living by almost every metric were raised. Also, Anarchists like me aren't against government, we are against the initiation of force, do you really believe that the people of Somalia respect the NAP and property rights?

Here are some sources on this:
http://www.peterleeson.com...
https://www.youtube.com...

0:19 - "Without the state you have no property rights, there is no such thing as property rights, the state creates these property rights (he rambles more, but his first premises are wrong so there is no need to go further)", No, a right is not something that is provided to you! A right is something that you have a just claim to, and can use force to protect it. Property rights are logical and come from the natural world.

More on property rights:
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...=

1:08 - "You are receiving things in turn, it is not theft if you are receiving things in return (He again rambles more, but his first premise is false)," Ahh, this old long debunked argument. Take this same argument and apply it to the mafia/mob. If the mob steals a percentage of your revenue, and protects you from hoodlums and other mobster is it still theft, of course it is! More over, I could move away from the mafia, but I could not move away from the state as every inch of the world is controlled by a government.

Also, when did I ever agree to live under a government? Last time I checked I was born into this "social contract" and we all know you cannot be justly born into a contract.

The man in the video is kind of like a pigeon playing chess. He got up and pooped on the board, and then strutted around acting as if he won.

Here is a video by Stefan Molyneux, it is an introduction to Anarchy, and Libertarianism - https://www.youtube.com...
Debate Round No. 1
KJVPrewrather

Con

My point is this: Unless you'te disabled, you should have to pay for the legal right to use public services. If you drive on public roads, go to the library, or use emergency services, these are provided to you because you pay taxes. It is not theft when you receive a benefit for your money, but it is selfish to hog all of the wealth. I bet you support the military which is taxpayer funded.
DrAnomaly

Pro

"I bet you support the military which is taxpayer funded" No, I'm an anarchist, I want to abolish the military and all forms of aggression.

"Unless you're disabled, you should have to pay for the legal right to use public services. If you drive on public roads, go to the library, or use emergency services, these are provided to you because you pay taxes. It is not theft when you receive a benefit for your money, but it is selfish to hog all of the wealth," If a slave eats the meals given to him by his master is he still a slave? If a Jew in a concentration camp eats the food he is given - Does he consent to being in a concentration camp? Once again, take the mobster example from the previous argument.
Debate Round No. 2
KJVPrewrather

Con

What school of anarchy do you follow? I was an individualist. Anywhoo, If you want an anarcho-libertarian society, Somalia is waiting for you. I am a moderate independent, I see value from most belief systems.
DrAnomaly

Pro

I'm an Anarcho-Capitalist. I also debunked the "Move to Somalia" in round 1.

EXCERPT FROM ROUND 1 : "Somalia has a government, however there was a short period of time wherein Somalia did not have a government, and during this time the standards for living by almost every metric were raised. Also, Anarchists like me aren't against government, we are against the initiation of force, do you really believe that the people of Somalia respect the NAP and property rights?"

Here are some sources on this:
http://www.peterleeson.com...
https://www.youtube.com...

Saying "Move to Somalia is not a valid argument.
Debate Round No. 3
KJVPrewrather

Con

So you don't believe in helping the poor? You have only provided biased sources, not independent information. That would be like me asking a smoke shop if I should smoke ciggies.
DrAnomaly

Pro

"So you don't believe in helping the poor?" Of course I do, I just don't think it should be done by force!

"You have only provided biased sources" - NOT AN ARGUMENT. You have to prove my sources to be incorrect. Also, I've only provided 4 links

The first one is a a peer reviewed document about Somalia's statelessness for a well respected journal (The Journal of Comparative Economics)
The second is a YouTube video by Stefan Molynuex once again going over the facts about Somalia, what are wrong with his sources?
The third is a YouTube video from Shane Killian logically explaining the NAP and property rights
And the fourth one is a YouTube by Stefan Molynuex explaining the logic behind his ethics system (Universally Preferable Behavior) and property rights.

Saying "The sources are biased" is not an argument unless you prove them to be false.
Debate Round No. 4
KJVPrewrather

Con

I am obligated as a Christian to do unto others. If I want charity, I need to give it to the best of my ability. I don't care about political parties, I just care about what works. I am disabled, and unable to work full time. Don't I have the right to live? Taxes provide me with Medicaid and assistance for which I'm very grateful. How am I supposed to feel?
DrAnomaly

Pro

"Don't I have the right to live?" You have a right to do whatever you want with yourself, and your own legitimately owned property.

"Taxes provide me with Medicaid and assistance" - I have already logically established how taxation is theft under all circumstances.

"How am I supposed to feel" - Ah, a common logical fallacy - argumentum ad passiones (appeal to emotion)

Not to be rude, but you clearly have very little understanding of anarchy. You also mentioned you were a Christian, I'd like to debate you on this topic. Would you like to? This was fun, I hope you have gained some knowledge about the philosophy of anarchy.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by The-Voice-of-Truth 2 weeks ago
The-Voice-of-Truth
KJVPrewratherDrAnomalyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro by far made better arguments in contrast to Con's appeals to emotion and question-begging. Pro provided substantiated refutations to Con's points that went uncontested save for Con pointing out bias. However, as Pro used the only sources, the point goes to him. Looking further into arguments: Con's case is riffled with fallacies, as previously outlined, and her argument is basically a wordy version of "muh roads" - regarding which, pro provided numerous scenarios to outline and drive home his points; any attempt at refuting this amounted to saying pro is wrong but not explaining *why.* The whole argument regarding property rights is completely unrelated to the resolution as argued. If either debater is confused and needs clarification on my vote, feel free to PM me.