The Instigator
A341
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
ludwiglindau
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Our Current Mandatory Taxation System is Immoral

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
A341
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/11/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 442 times Debate No: 60302
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

A341

Pro

First round is for acceptance only.

Definitions:

Taxation: "A means by which governments finance their expenditure by imposing charges on citizens and corporate entities."

Immoral: "Not conforming to accepted standards of morality."

Mandatory: "Required by law or mandate; compulsory."
ludwiglindau

Con

I'll accept the debate, good luck to my opponent. I'm looking forward to a great debate.

We've agreed to debate over this structure:
round 1 for acceptance only,
round 2 for cases,
round 3 for rebuttals and disproof
and round 4 for conclusion and rebuttals.
Debate Round No. 1
A341

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting my challenge. I should say this is coming from a British perspective. Also while I can make a case for why we should hold the moral standards I use here since you accepted the definition of morality I gave I don't see that I need to.

Paying For Violence

Every bomb that is dropped, every bulled that fired in anger, every missile, every shell and every explosive is owned by the tax payer in fact a fraction is owned by you specifically. The tax payer pays the salary of the soldier who kills a child in cold blood and the politician who orders a drone strike on a school. The tax payer pays for all the horrors of modern warfare and all without any choice. There are those who do not want to pay for war and violence and if they fall out of line what happens to them? They will be taken away from their lives by force and thrown into what is basically a rape room. In what way could this be considered remotely moral.

Extortion

Extortion (defined as using coercion to obtain value) is more or less universally considered immoral. Now apply that definition to the government use of force (a form of coercion) to obtain tax dollars (a form of value) from residents of the country.

Non Aggression Principle

The non aggression principle is one of the most basic and widely accepted moral standards ever devised and it has some interesting implications when applied to areas that it usually isn't. The non aggression principle is simply that:

It is not justified to initiate coercion (physical force, blackmail/threats or fraud) against another and that the only time coercion can be used is in defence against coercion initiated by another party to end their coercion or reclaim any property lost because of the coercion of the other party.

Now if you apply the N.A.P. to the idea of enforced taxation you almost certainly will come out with the realisation that the initiation of coercion by the government (either through threats or physical force) is immoral.
ludwiglindau

Con

ludwiglindau forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
A341

Pro

I will wait.
ludwiglindau

Con

ludwiglindau forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
A341

Pro

My opponents account appears to no longer be active.
ludwiglindau

Con

ludwiglindau forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Mister_Man 2 years ago
Mister_Man
I disagree that it is immoral, and I have arguments, but I can't really form anything right now. All the pieces are there but for whatever reason I'm just drawing a blank.

A341 - If I can figure my brain out, would you be willing to debate me on this subject?
Posted by ludwiglindau 2 years ago
ludwiglindau
Then I'll accept.
Posted by A341 2 years ago
A341
Yes the debate will be more of an ideas debate than a factual one and your debate structure sounds good.
Posted by ludwiglindau 2 years ago
ludwiglindau
Will the debate be like this:

round 1 for acceptance,
round 2 for cases,
round 3 for rebuttals
and round 4 for conclusion and rebuttals?
Posted by ludwiglindau 2 years ago
ludwiglindau
I would accept the debate depending on the answer on my question.
Posted by ludwiglindau 2 years ago
ludwiglindau
Hello A341.

This debate sounds really intresting to me, just a question:
I suppose this debate is meant to be a debate with like no facts/information and a more own idea debate, cause that would be great.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
A341ludwiglindauTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by Atheist-Independent 2 years ago
Atheist-Independent
A341ludwiglindauTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Full forfeiture by Con.