CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Maybe I wouldn't use the words whack jobs but I think they're certainly very disconnected from reality. To think that you can pay a tiny amount of tax and still enjoy the same quality of life is infantile.
I don't want government run healthcare. I don't want government run energy. I don't want government run roads. I don't want government run factories. I don't want government run anything.
Its not that we don't want to pay for things (that would be people like you wish to use the government to take other people's money to pay for your services) its that we don't want to be forced to pay for things by the government. Why should I be forced to buy something from the government when I could choose to purchase it from a different entity? I'm still paying for the product/service I'm using, I'm fine with paying for it, just not being forced to buy a product/service from a violent entity.
Okay well maybe its that I don't understand the libertarian position very well . Lets look at healthcare (its an area that interests me). If I have a heart attack, spend a very days in an intensive care unit, need an operation etc. The hospital charges me 100k. You don't believe that we should all help to pay for that? That doesn't seem like the good thing to do as a society? Its a tiny amount of its split between all of us, but yet its an amount that could see one single individual on the street.
Okay well maybe its that I don't understand the libertarian position very well.
Not to be harsh, but you really don't.
ets look at healthcare (its an area that interests me). If I have a heart attack, spend a very days in an intensive care unit, need an operation etc. The hospital charges me 100k. You don't believe that we should all help to pay for that? That doesn't seem like the good thing to do as a society? Its a tiny amount of its split between all of us, but yet its an amount that could see one single individual on the street.
Yes, you don't understand libertarian philosophy very well. We are not against helping, generosity and charity, we are against the government monopolizing the healthcare industry and forcing us to pay for their product/service at gun point. Understand?
Yes, you don't understand libertarian philosophy very well. We are not against helping, generosity and charity, we are against the government monopolizing the healthcare industry and forcing us to pay for their product/service at gun point. Understand?
I see. But explain to me how this could happen without tax? How would the majority pay for this surgery?
I have three main objections to government run health care.
1. I don't think anyone has the right to what belongs to another.
2. If we dramatically reduced the regulation on private sector healthcare they could do it more efficiently.
3. If the government runs healthcare they now can put legal restrictions on risky activity under the guise of cutting healthcare costs. (Junk food, smoking, dodge-rock)
You can have order with government. Chaos generally (but not always) comes from shortages or violence. Shortages are generated by poor economic conditions, which government creates. The government operates on violence, the world would be better off without the leech on society.
Don't feel bad about being down-voted. They do this whenever an idea exists that isn't what the majority here thinks. Facts are irrelevant here, just popular belief is what counts on CD.
You said taxation isn't theft because the government allows it. So I guess democide isn't killing because the government allows it.
You might want to ask yourself who the actual whack jobs are, those who believe that voluntary trade and peace will make the world better or those who believe that violence and coercion will make the world better.
PS: You saying "oh you're only 17" is not a valid argument.
I just wanted to add that taxation isn't theft, not because the government allows it, but because it's the fee we pay for living in an organized civilization. It's an agreement between the individual and the group as a whole to ensure all people contribute.
Organized civilization is based on voluntary exchange. Law and order merely thwarts theft, murder and all other acts of aggression, yet all of these acts are committed by government everyday. Violence and the threat of violence only creates disorganization.
Agreement is a strange word to use though. Usually with an agreement both parties consent to doing something. In this case there is no consent but rather an obligation.
So? A bunch of lazy, stupid and incompetent morons in a far distant capital say "give us your money or we'll send our soldiers in to take it from you" what obligation do I have to them? Violence and threats do not make an obligation legitimate.
You consent when you agree to participate in our society. If you don't work or purchase anything you don't have to pay taxes, you are only forced to pay taxes if you have already taken advantage of societal benefits.
What other means of survival do I have? You could argue that I could grow my own food but I couldn't without land. To own land would mean I pay tax. Society has a monopoly on the resources that people need to survive therefore they have no choice but to pay tax.
Your personal survival isn't the concern of a society you have chosen not to participate in. You are correct that society has a monopoly on the resources, all known land which can be easily lived on have been claimed, but you have no inherent right to land.
There are people who choose to live in the woods, it may be uncomfortable and lead to a miserable and short life, but you have no right to the product of civilization if you do not wish to contribute.
My work is my contribution. When someone gets a job, that is contribution. When someone comes up with good ideas, that is contribution. When someone creates great inventions, that is contribution. When someone creates great artistic work, that is contribution. When a violent entity forces me to hand over a percentage of my produce with threats of violence and imprisonment, it is not contribution, it is damaging.
Tell me, when someone opens up a factory that produces are the contributing to society? Yes? Then why is it that when they refuse to submit to the threats and violence of the government they are consider to "not wish to contribute?"
PS: If society has a monopoly on all resources and land and it is not voluntary, you can't really claim consent.
You do not get to decide how you contribute to society, the society does, and in most, it is by paying taxes. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, simply that is the way it is.
If you don't like the way society decides what contribution is accepted, you can attempt to change it. You also have the option to leave society and rough it on your own.
The point we were talking about is whether it is an agreement to pay tax or not. It seems you now agree with me in saying that society has a monopoly on resources. This means that there is no other choice but to consent.
You do have a point in that there is living in the woods as an alternative. However, as you've said, its very difficult to survive in the woods. The way society is run leaves no room for people to cultivate their own land and condemns them to a life of suffering if they choose not to engage in society and pay tax. This is why any 'agreement' that could be made would not constitute a true agreement - because any real alternative has been eliminated.
The real alternative is still available, it is just so horrible compared to our way of lift you don't even consider it. It would be hard to survive like it was hard to survive before civilization, but that is the choice you make when leaving society.
I'm not making an argument for or against taxes, or government. All I'm trying to convey is that the way society is set up, there is a fee to participate, if you don't wish to pay that fee, you are welcome to opt-out.
Its the 'welcome to opt-out' but that I don't think is right.
Imagine that you come to my house - you could leave but there is my big vicious dog outside who may eat you ( :/ ). I give you two choices. You can pay to live inside the house or you can leave and risk not surviving the onslaught of the dog. Would any arrangement we made in regard to how much we paid to stay at my house but an agreement to you? I would say its not an agreement but rather something you'd feel compelled to do due to the situation that the person demanding the money has created.
This is the same with tax in society. Society has created laws so that you cannot live without risking your own life without paying tax. There is no other safe alternative. If they had just one area of the country in which you could live the way you wanted to off the land then my argument wouldn't stand. However, this is not the case.
The land of every country has an owner, whether it is a King, the Church, or the country's society as a whole. That fact that you were born doesn't grant you any right to land. When a society owns land as a whole, why would someone who doesn't want to be part of that society have any claim to that land, it is by definition not that person's land.
I understand where you are coming from, you are making the case that without a safe alternative, people don't really have a choice. I'm arguing that what you call an unsafe alternative is simply a life lacking society.
The reason society is safer is because people have contributed to make it that way. If you don't wish to contribute in the way any given society dictates, you don't have any right to what people before you have contributed, and that includes a safe place to exist.
I just wanted to add that taxation isn't theft, not because the government allows it, but because it's the fee we pay for living in an organized civilization. It's an agreement between the individual and the group as a whole to ensure all people contribute.
The argument of if government is efficient, practical or is necessary for civilization is another issue, but morally it is still theft, no matter what you pretend it is. Taxation involves a government using threats of violence, imprisonment and coercion to ext rat funds from their owners. That is still theft, you can dress a pig up as a person and call it a person, but it is still a pig.
You consent when you agree to participate in our society. If you don't work or purchase anything you don't have to pay taxes, you are only forced to pay taxes if you have already taken advantage of societal benefits.
Society can exist without a government, I never consented, I don't have an option, I either pay taxes or go to jail. You're also wrong about taxes (again) you don't only have a percentage of your spending money and income stolen from you, your property is also taxed.
No no no, its not our society, it is just society. Government is a leech on society of which it forces its taxation and laws on. Now for taxes being a "fee of inclusion" from your argument, the only way to not give consent is to not do anything. Everyone has the right to voluntarily work, purchase and own property, government just taxes are restricts those rights, so the government is still the aggressor and people aren't simply just choosing to be a part of it, they are being forced into it.
No, you do not have the right to voluntarily work, purchase, or own a portion of a counties land if you are choosing not to contribute in the way said society dictates.
You are more than welcome to sneak into the forest and live a short miserable life there, not enjoying the product of the society you wish to not contribute to.
Enjoying the product? Ha! So wait, let me get this straight, if someone is opening up factories that actually produce wealth and raise the standards of living they aren't contributing because they don't pay taxes, but the government is contributing to society even though they are stealing people's money and ruining the economy? You have a funny little ideology.
This isn't an ideology, I have already stated I'm not arguing for or against taxes, or government.
The product of society is a relatively safe place to live, that is what you enjoy. You are free to live in the woods. Sneak out there, don't pay taxes, and forfeit access to safer living conditions.
Our society dictates what is considered contribution, your opinion of what counts is irrelevant. Someone could raise and donate 1000 cattle to a society, but that doesn't matter when that society dictates you contribute a clean sock every month.
You have yet to demonstrate how the government is stealing money, and ruining the economy is irrelevant to this discussion.
I've made my opinion very clear, yet you can't seem to even grasp what I'm saying enough to disagree with it. I think I will just right you off as too young. Plenty of 17 year olds can participate in logical discussion, you're not quite there yet.
The woods are mainly government owned, that would make you a squatter on their property.
Society's opinion of what is or what isn't contribution is meaningless, public opinion and society's perception of most issues are over simple, flat, dumbed down and out right stupid. Just because a large group of uninformed or misinformed people gather around and say something that isn't true does not make it true.
The society benefits more from the cattle then it does from the socks, the people of that society can scoff at the rancher for donating the cattle and pat themselves on the back for contributing a clean sock, but it doesn't matter, the rancher still contributed more.
I've made it very simple for you, taxation is coercing, intimidation tactics and force are used to extract taxes from people.
Plenty of college students are capable of understanding that 1,000 cattle is worth more than a clean sock, you're not quite there yet.
Again you have completely failed to comprehend my argument. I'm not saying you are wrong or right about what you said in your response, I'm telling you that you didn't even address my argument.
The product of society is a relatively safe place to live, that is what you enjoy. You are free to live in the woods. Sneak out there, don't pay taxes, and forfeit access to safer living conditions.
The woods are mainly government owned, that would make you a squatter on their property.
Our society dictates what is considered contribution, your opinion of what counts is irrelevant. Someone could raise and donate 1000 cattle to a society, but that doesn't matter when that society dictates you contribute a clean sock every month.
Society's opinion of what is or what isn't contribution is meaningless, public opinion and society's perception of most issues are over simple, flat, dumbed down and out right stupid. Just because a large group of uninformed or misinformed people gather around and say something that isn't true does not make it true.
The society benefits more from the cattle then it does from the socks, the people of that society can scoff at the rancher for donating the cattle and pat themselves on the back for contributing a clean sock, but it doesn't matter, the rancher still contributed more.
You have yet to demonstrate how the government is stealing money, and ruining the economy is irrelevant to this discussion.
I've made it very simple for you, taxation is coercing, intimidation tactics and force are used to extract taxes from people.
I've made my opinion very clear, yet you can't seem to even grasp what I'm saying enough to disagree with it. I think I will just right you off as too young. Plenty of 17 year olds can participate in logical discussion, you're not quite there yet.
Plenty of college students are capable of understanding that 1,000 cattle is worth more than a clean sock, you're not quite there yet.
The woods are mainly government owned, that would make you a squatter on their property.
This is irrelevant to what I'm saying. It didn't matter to the settlers that the Native Americans believed they owned that land. The same would apply to someone who decides to leave society. Sure that person doesn't have the force to take some land they believe they are entitled too, but neither did the Native Americans. They had to decide to join our society or try to survive hiding in our woods, you have the same choice.
Society's opinion of what is or what isn't contribution is meaningless
This is analogous with saying "Your opinion of what is or what isn't payment for your labor is meaningless."
When you agree to provide a good or service, you get to dictate what you accept as payment. In our society that payment is in the form of taxes, if you do not want to pay with what our society considers payment, you don't get the benefits that come within living in our society.
The society benefits more from the cattle then it does from the socks
You are assuming that, I haven't defined what this society would benefit from, for all you know they have all the food they could ever need, but cotton is at a premium. None of that really matters, the one offering the goods/service decide what they accept as payment, not the purchaser.
I've made it very simple for you, taxation is coercing, intimidation tactics and force are used to extract taxes from people.
You have asserted that taxation is coercing. Intimidation tactics and force are only used on people who owe taxes, taxation isn't coercive in itself. When the government forces people who don't owe taxes to pay, they I would agree that is a case of coercive taxation (similar to how a gang may offer to protect your store if you pay them, but destroy it if you don't.). The government only coerces people who have agreed to pay them, but are now refusing. I guess you did address this point, I must have just ignored it as I still think it is irrelevant to this discussion, my bad
Plenty of college students are capable of understanding that 1,000 cattle is worth more than a clean sock, you're not quite there yet.
I never claimed that 1,000 cattle are worth less than a clean sock, you are simply asserting I did. This just supports my assertion that you don't even grasp what I'm saying enough to disagree with it.
This is irrelevant to what I'm saying. It didn't matter to the settlers that the Native Americans believed they owned that land. The same would apply to someone who decides to leave society. Sure that person doesn't have the force to take some land they believe they are entitled too, but neither did the Native Americans. They had to decide to join our society or try to survive hiding in our woods, you have the same choice.
To me, this highlights your naive view of how force works. The settlers rolled in with guns, took their land, enslaved them and killed any that didn't join them. Even when they did join the settler's society they were discriminated against, didn't get fair treatment in the legal system and were oppressed because of their race. It wasn't a choice, they were forced into it. This really isn't a hard concept, they had almost everything taken from them by force, but to you, it wasn't theft because they could have chose to just give it up to the settlers and join their society.
This is analogous with saying "Your opinion of what is or what isn't payment for your labor is meaningless."
When you agree to provide a good or service, you get to dictate what you accept as payment. In our society that payment is in the form of taxes, if you do not want to pay with what our society considers payment, you don't get the benefits that come within living in our society.
You still assume that people agree to pay taxes. Its not voluntary payment when someone tells is threatening you with violence and imprisonment.
You are assuming that, I haven't defined what this society would benefit from, for all you know they have all the food they could ever need, but cotton is at a premium. None of that really matters, the one offering the goods/service decide what they accept as payment, not the purchaser.
I'm not just assuming that, I'm thinking logically. Cattle has so many more uses than just food, a sock warms your foot and in most situations would have almost no effect on your overall body heat. You can pat yourself on and say "my sock is worth more than the cattle because the government says it is" but the cattle is still worth much more.
You have asserted that taxation is coercing. Intimidation tactics and force are only used on people who owe taxes, taxation isn't coercive in itself. When the government forces people who don't owe taxes to pay, they I would agree that is a case of coercive taxation (similar to how a gang may offer to protect your store if you pay them, but destroy it if you don't.). The government only coerces people who have agreed to pay them, but are now refusing. I guess you did address this point, I must have just ignored it as I still think it is irrelevant to this discussion, my bad
If the government tells me that I owe taxes it doesn't make the intimidation tactics and theft just disappear. Just because some people in a far distant capital say that something is just does not make it just. Just because they say that I owe them something does not mean that I owe them anything.
There is no purpose to continue. Despite my best efforts, you are unable to comprehend my arguments well enough to discuss them. When I'm talking about one thing, and you are arguing against another, there is no progress to be made.
The fact that you think I was putting forth some view goes to show how pointless this was. We were only discussing definitions, we hadn't gotten to a single positions on anything.
We weren't discussing the definition of force and theft we were discussing if these things were force and theft. You believed that the settlers coming to the new world and taking land, taking property, enslaving natives and killing people over race wasn't force based on your previous argument, I was arguing against that.
And yet, I never even claimed that, that isn't even close to what I was talking about. I really have tried, but for some reason the way I write prevents you from understanding. Maybe it is my fault, who knows.
"It didn't matter to the settlers that the Native Americans believed they owned that land. The same would apply to someone who decides to leave society. Sure that person doesn't have the force to take some land they believe they are entitled too, but neither did the Native Americans. They had to decide to join our society or try to survive hiding in our woods, you have the same choice."
Saying taxation isn't coercion or force because I can run from the government and avoid it my living in the woods in the same sense that the settlers taking the Native American's land wasn't coercion or force because they could have ran from the settlers and avoided them by hiding in the woods isn't exactly a solid arguing point.
Saying taxation isn't coercion or force because I can run from the government and avoid it my living in the woods in the same sense that the settlers taking the Native American's land wasn't coercion or force because they could have ran from the settlers and avoided them by hiding in the woods isn't exactly a solid arguing point.
It's a good thing I never made that argument. This is an example of the straw-man fallacy.
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.
I have tried my absolute best to have this conversation, but you repetitively commit this fallacy. I'm not saying you are doing it on purpose, I simply don't think you can help it because you don't understand what I am trying to say, which I will claim responsibility for.
Alright, show me how I created a straw man argument. Explain to me the actual argument that was intended by this:
"It didn't matter to the settlers that the Native Americans believed they owned that land. The same would apply to someone who decides to leave society. Sure that person doesn't have the force to take some land they believe they are entitled too, but neither did the Native Americans. They had to decide to join our society or try to survive hiding in our woods, you have the same choice."
the settlers taking the Native American's land wasn't coercion or force
This is a statement I never made, and you cannot logically get from what I said to this. I never mentioned the word force when referencing any settlers, I never even used the word force as a verb, which is the only way you could equate it with the word coerce, as it is a synonym for the verb form of force, not the noun which has a different meaning.
Noun
Strength or energy as an attribute of physical action or movement: "he was thrown backward by the force of the explosion".
Verb
Make a way through or into by physical strength; break open by force.
This is a statement I never made, and you cannot logically get from what I said to this.
You were talking about the Native Americans having their land taken away in comparison to someone not wanting to be coerced into paying taxes by a government. You said that taxation is not theft, force or coercion, if so, then why did you compare it to an event that clearly involved theft, force and coercion?
"They had to decide to join our society or try to survive hiding in our woods, you have the same choice."
You were talking about the Native Americans having their land taken away in comparison to someone not wanting to be coerced into paying taxes by a government.
You are pulling this out of nowhere. I specifically said that they believed they owned that land, I never said they did. This is why we are having a hard time, I put great care into the words I choose in order to convey a very specific idea. You are so eager to argue that you don't take the time to understand what I am trying to say.
"They had to decide to join our society or try to survive hiding in our woods, you have the same choice."
You are pulling this out of nowhere. I specifically said that they believed they owned that land, I never said they did. This is why we are having a hard time, I put great care into the words I choose in order to convey a very specific idea. You are so eager to argue that you don't take the time to understand what I am trying to say.
Well then I must apologize, I prefer to debate ideas, not spend time doing a TPCASTT analysis of your sentences.
But any how, please explain to me, how did the Native Americans not own that land? They had been working it and living on it for centuries, what right did the settlers have to take it from them?
Yes, this is the equivocation I made.
The don't compare two scenarios that you believe to be different.
I prefer to debate ideas, not spend time doing a TPCASTT analysis of your sentences.
If you read my sentences without assuming I hold a specific position, and you don't make assumptions about things I left intentionally unclear, there shouldn't be a problem. Ideas exist in sentences, which are made up of words. If you don't wish to take the time to know what each word means, that is your bad, not mine.
please explain to me, how did the Native Americans not own that land? They had been working it and living on it for centuries, what right did the settlers have to take it from them?
You are doing it again. I never stated that they did not own the land. You are making assumptions.
The(n) don't compare two scenarios that you believe to be different.
Sign... fine I will break down statement to show you what all is there.
It didn't matter to the settlers that the Native Americans believed they owned that land.
This is a comment about the mindset of the settlers with reference to land. They did not care that Native Americans believed they owned it. No where is it stated that they own the land, or don't own the land. I did that on purpose.
The same would apply to someone who decides to leave society.
I am now comparing the mindset the settlers had on what the Native Americans believed to be entitled to, to the mindset of a society to someone who isn't a member. What that person feels entitled to is of no concern.
Sure that person doesn't have the force to take some land they believe they are entitled too, but neither did the Native Americans.
Both the person who left society and the Native American's lacked the power to have what they felt entitled to.
They had to decide to join our society or try to survive hiding in our woods, you have the same choice."
Because they couldn't have their way, they had the option to join the society who controls the land they lived on, or flee. You also lack the power to have your way, you have the same choices.
The moral of my story is this. What you feel entitled to is irrelevant to a society you are not a part of. When you exist on the territory of a society and but are not apart of it, that society isn't obligated to give you a place to go. You can try to survive on the land they have control over, but that involves a risk of getting caught. You also can leave the area of land controlled by that society. If there is no free land left that is the isn't the concern of a society you aren't apart of. If you had the power to take land, you would have a place to go, but you don't, and again that isn't of concern to a society you are not a part of.
As I hope you can see now, this is just a collection of things that I believe are factual. Before we discuss anything else, we need to come to an agreement on this. Please find that parts that are illogical or you just disagree with, and I will address those.
It is really hard to understand how people think violence and coercion by means of government make the world a better place. As government grows, the world becomes more violent and coercive and less free.
You said taxation isn't theft because the government allows it. So I guess democide isn't killing because the government allows it.
Democide isn't killing when the citizens of a nation allow the government to do such things. If something is accepted by society then it is. When society wants change they have to act and can no longer be a spectator. Example; were the people of Germany responsible for the killing of Jews? Yes, because they did nothing.
You might want to ask yourself who the actual whack jobs are, those who believe that voluntary trade and peace will make the world better or those who believe that violence and coercion will make the world better.
Anybody that believes they have all the answers is a whack job.
You saying "oh you're only 17" is not a valid argument.
If you only read the first chapter of a book; Do you know as much about that book as somebody that has read the whole book?
Democide isn't killing when the citizens of a nation allow the government to do such things. If something is accepted by society then it is. When society wants change they have to act and can no longer be a spectator. Example; were the people of Germany responsible for the killing of Jews? Yes, because they did nothing.
What do you mean they did nothing? There were over 30 assassination attempts on Hitler, Ernst Rome plotted to kill Hitler, there were many underground movements against Hitler and there was always the White Rose Resistance. Democide is democide, regardless of what people thing of the killings.
Anybody that believes they have all the answers is a whack job.
When did I say I had all the answers? You're the one who thinks that government is the answer to all our problems.
If you only read the first chapter of a book; Do you know as much about that book as somebody that has read the whole book?
Terrible metaphor, you're assuming that everyone's life is the same book. Age =/= experience. Age =/= wisdom. Age =/= knowledge.
What do you mean they did nothing? There were over 30 assassination attempts on Hitler, Ernst Rome plotted to kill Hitler, there were many underground movements against Hitler and there was always the White Rose Resistance. Democide is democide, regardless of what people thing of the killings.
If the majority of the people in Germany wanted him gone, he would have been gone. It took the majority of the world to final do him in.
When did I say I had all the answers? You're the one who thinks that government is the answer to all our problems.
Are you now admitting you don't have all the answers? This being the case, why are you still posting? I don't believe the government has any answers, in fact they posse more questions then answers. Like, Who elected that jackass?
“I would rather be governed by the first 2000 people in the Manhattan phone book than the entire faculty of Harvard.” William F. Buckley Jr.
My position is that I'd rather have people in office that actually live life than those that buy lives.
Terrible metaphor, you're assuming that everyone's life is the same book. Age =/= experience. Age =/= wisdom. Age =/= knowledge.
I'm not assuming that everybody's life is the same book, you are. People's lives are like books in a library, each one is different. In order to know anything one has to get past the first chapter.
I'm not sure what you mean by "whack jobs" but unless it is an attribute necessary to be a libertarian, I don't think you can demonstrate that ALL libertarians are whack jobs.
If it is an attribute necessary to be a libertarian than this debate serves no purpose, because by definition all libertarians would be whack jobs.