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.
a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it
b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property
Taxation:
a "pecuniary burden laid upon individuals or property owners to support the government [...] a payment exacted by legislative authority." It "is not a voluntary payment or donation, but an enforced contribution, exacted pursuant to legislative authority" and is "any contribution imposed by government [...] whether under the name of toll, tribute, tallage, gabel, impost, duty, custom, excise, subsidy, aid, supply, or other name."
If you use that definition then when a bank repossesses a house that also counts as theft, however it is not seen liked that because the homeowner sign a contract or an agreement with the bank.
Likewise the fact that someone has citizenship is a contract that they will pay tax, ultimately so that they can then obtain the benefits of the services that state provides.
Right, all contracts are reserved in voluntary and conscious matter, the social contract is just some imaginary concept preserved by statists. Besides, this social contract doesn't even has any definitions, does it say what the APPROPRIATE rate is as to what TAXATION is not theft? It can't because it doesn't exist.
Really? Because I never signed any such contract. I was just 'born into' it.
That said, some minimal taxes are probably required by the government to keep it running... unless you're a politician and want to increase your salary. Again.
You gain nothing from theft, you gain so many things you take for granted via taxation.
Not only taxation not theft because it's legal, but because taxation is responsible for providing the populace of whatever society is taxed, with necessities and services taxation isn't thievery, even legalized.
What next, paying a maid to clean your house is theft? Paying a McDonalds employee for doing their job is theft?
If paying those people aren't theft, paying the government isn't theft.
There is just much to gain from theft from private individuals as there is theft from taxation. It is unearned transfer of property.
The services exchanged with a maid McDonald's employee are based on voluntary exchange both of which money was invested by private individuals from previous labor while government taxation is the use of force or the threat of force with no assets of its own.
There is just much to gain from theft from private individuals as there is theft from taxation. It is unearned transfer of property.
So private individuals will run the police force? And only people they respect will be protected and arrested?
Private individuals will run the fire department, and only the people they accept or like will have their fires put out?
How about the fact that if private individuals own things, they will make you pay to use it. You want to pay to use everything? There are people just barely making it day to day, on meager minimum wage paychecks, while the minimum wage is alleged to be just enough to support a basic lifestyle. When all these new things are made to paid for, minimum wage won't pay for the basic necessities, when the basic necessities now include driving on a private road, paying for police to protect you if you get mugged, paying for a lawyer if you get into some court trouble, etc.
Anything the market provides is always more efficient and cheaper than government. Why do you think that public roads, police and lawyers are cheaper if supplied by government monopolistic agencies compared to private agencies?
The only reason people can just barely make it day to day or paycheck to paycheck is because of bad government monetary policy through the manipulation of the currency by inflation, which debases the purchasing power value of money.
Anything the market provides is always more efficient and cheaper than government.
Really? Because independent suppliers always have the consumer's best interest at heart with little or no thoughts of getting rich.
Why do you think that public roads, police and lawyers are cheaper if supplied by government monopolistic agencies compared to private agencies?
This is saying that government offered things are cheaper than privately owned things. Which is contradictory to your last statement.
The only reason people can just barely make it day to day or paycheck to paycheck is because of bad government monetary policy
Whatever the cause, you agree that people can barely live on minimum wage. That is while son many public services are government owned and free. If they were privately owned and not free living on minimum wage would be impossible.
Independent suppliers are not government, are they? They are still privately owned and engage in the marketplace. Not sure how they are even relevant to to this lining of debate.
Actually, my last statement is not contradictory, it is very accurate. It was a question, not a statement, and you didn't answer it. Any service or good supplied by force from a monopolist is always less efficient. Even mainstream economists agree monopolies can't supply services or goods cheaper. The excessive demand fomented by free and other under priced services is just one of the many reasons that makes government cheaper, it is one of the reasons why it misallocates resources by failing to supply the service where it is most needed, which makes providing the service inefficient. Government Inefficient
The cause is fundamental to the problem because minimum wage is still bad bad policy coupled with the inflationary monetary policy. In free market capitalism, minimum wage wouldn't exist, and markets wouldn't be distorted by either fiscal or monetary policy. Purchasing power would drastically increase.
Question: What makes goods and services cheaper and allows all incomes the ability to increase living standards? I want to know what you think otherwise this conversation is over.
Independent suppliers are not government, are they?
This was your statement.
"Anything the market provides is always more efficient and cheaper than government. Why do you think that public roads, police and lawyers are cheaper if supplied by government monopolistic agencies compared to private agencies?" So the market provides would be privately owned. The publically owned would be the government owned. If the publically owned is cheaper than the privately owned that means it's easier on the wallets of everyone if the government taxes us to give us things, rather than paying private companies for these things.
What makes goods and services cheaper and allows all incomes the ability to increase living standards?
When these goods and services are offered for the greater good.
Question: Who (out of the two) is more concerned with the greater good: The government, or privately owned businesses?
"Anything the market provides is always more efficient and cheaper than government." --Statement
"Why do you think that public roads, police and lawyers are cheaper if supplied by government monopolistic agencies compared to private agencies?" " --Question
This statement nor question suggests that publicly owned is cheaper than privately owned.
When these goods and services are offered for the greater good.
The statement is wrong. People who don't care for the greater good or about anything other than profit, won't be selling their goods cheaper than the government who just wants to see the country grow.
The question was saying that government appointed goods and services are cheaper than privately owned ones, therefore contradicting that statement.
If you want to point the 'idiot' finger look how many point back at yourself.
There is no such thing as greater good, how do you define as the greater good? Who defines it? The stupidest thing about your greater good, which you don't even realize it, that so many different definitions of greater good exist that nobody really even knows what it is, so achieving this imaginary concept crumples every time because nobody can agree on what it is much less implementing this fantasy. Government isn't about wanting to see the country grow, it's only propose is power and control, and so any involvement of government is only that.
Government appointed goods and services are not cheaper than privately owned. Every single economist even mainstream economists don't agree with that absurd comment. It is idiotic even to suggest.
There was no finger pointing, not sure if you know this, but we are typing, so only typed words.
Out of the two "Personal gain" or "countrywide gain" I'd have to say countrywide gain. That's what the government wants.
Government isn't about wanting to see the country grow
Did you even read that before typed it? What is the purpose of a government if it's not to keep the country it's in control of from being destroyed, and to make it prosper?
Government appointed goods and services are not cheaper than privately owned.
False. Government is the reason Canada has free healthcare, as opposed to hear where it's sold, and it is certainly not cheaper than free.
Government picks up your garbage, for free.
Government hires police officers and firemen that come to your service for free.
Private roads cost more than public roads.
When people are involved, more often than not, they want personal gain, and that involves money.
When government is involved, they want to get their services to those who need it, and that means cheaper.
How do you know what the government wants? Nobody has ever been able to define what the greater good is, and neither did you, it was just some retarded generic statement with no reasoning or logic. There are millions of unproductive government employees all with different personalities and beliefs that not two would even be able to agree on what the greater good is.
If the government truly wanted a country prosper, it would stay out of the way completely because it only wants power and control.
When someone says that healthcare, garbage pickup, police officers, roads are free, this is someone who has no idea what they are talking about. These are not free, the real cost comes at high taxation due to no market signals as to what these people are willing to pay, so these prices are arbitrary created out of nowhere by government and always overcharges due to its monopoly status.
I see it in the policies it makes. It does not try to hinder the people, it tries to help the people grow.
Nobody has ever been able to define what the greater good is, and neither did you
The greater good isn't literally what I was going for. When trying to explain something one should know through common sense it's hard to formulate the words to express it. The government's goal is obviously to aid it's people, that would be the greater good in this case.
There are millions of unproductive government employees all with different personalities and beliefs that not two would even be able to agree on what the greater good is.
Yet, when a vote is made, the decision they come up with as a single entity is what was best for the people or what they believed to be best for the people.
If the government truly wanted a country prosper, it would stay out of the way completely because it only wants power and control.
This was tried before with laissez faire, the government kept out of business' way, and the result was people losing their jobs over terrible uncalled for reasons, and overall very little prospering except for the private business owners.
When someone says that healthcare, garbage pickup, police officers, roads are free, this is someone who has no idea what they are talking about. These are not free, the real cost comes at high taxation due to no market signals as to what these people are willing to pay, so these prices are arbitrary created out of nowhere by government and always overcharges due to its monopoly status.
Obviously nothing is free. Yet if taxation didn't exist these things that seem relatively free, would be paid for right out of pocket, which not every person can afford.
How do you know the government over taxes us if you've never lived in a place where it doesn't?
Government policy is never total agreement among officials, that is what politics is, and it is called compromise. Every single policy government creates is severely flawed either economic or social.
If the greater good isn't what you were going for, then why did you type it before. How does the government aid it's people since there is no way of defining what the aid is or what the greater good is. Aiding people is impossible without knowing what it is first, and if no one agrees on what that is, government will always fail and so does collectivism.
That is laughable to even suggest that laissez faire was tried before, America has never been laissez faire.
Really, nothing is free, wow, you figured that out, congratulations, your previous post argued that healthcare, garbage and police force is free until I pointed it out that it isn't. Taxation is the reason why these services seem unattainable because of how it has completely distorted those services if provided by the market due to its huge shift in allocation of resources with no economic calculation.
Government policy is never total agreement among officials
Obviously not, but things do get decided on eventually, and when they do the decision is what most of the politicians assumed would be best for the people.
Every single policy government creates is severely flawed either economic or social.
If they're so severely flawed how are we even still alive. They are managing, and we've been slowly getting better.
How does the government aid it's people since there is no way of defining what the aid is or what the greater good is.
So you're saying people don't need progressive policies like welfare? Those government programs don't help people?
That is laughable to even suggest that laissez faire was tried before, America has never been laissez faire.
Now you're just disputing facts.
Really, nothing is free, wow, you figured that out, congratulations, your previous post argued that healthcare, garbage and police force is free until I pointed it out that it isn't.
I never said it was free in the literal sense, I said we don't have to pay for it out of pocket. We pay for it, via taxation. Taxation is not theft because we get something for the taxes we pay, does that argument look familiar?
How do politicians know what is the best for the people? To even suggest that, this would imply elitism.
Never suggested that government policy was mortally endangering, nice strawman. Government is one of all reasons for all recessions and depressions.
Progressive policies like welfare don't help these people, it just creates generations of dependency.
Not disputing facts, you are denying facts. Laissez faire is free of government intervention apart from protection of property rights, and government has always intervened in markets in America even since the founding.
Saying that we get something for the taxes we pay is like saying slaves got free shelter and food for working hard labor without pay.
What? That honestly is a dumb statement. You gain what you stole.
The rest of your argument is flawed. Taxatiom regardleds of the actions performed after is still theft. Can I take your money and disperse it among the population? Its seems to benefit people but the action is still theft.
Paying your employees is theft? That is a stupid way to present your argument. Those are forms of voluntary action. Contracts were signed. Taxation is involuntary. No contract is signed. Thats the difference. That is where your argument flaws.
What? That honestly is a dumb statement. You gain what you stole.
You are confused. In both these cases the actions are being done to you. When you are stolen from, nothing is given to you. When you are taxed, you get benefits and services.
The rest of your argument is flawed. Taxatiom regardleds of the actions performed after is still theft.
False. Taxation is legal, completely neglecting any possibility of theft.
Can I take your money and disperse it among the population?
If you are the ruling body.
Its seems to benefit people but the action is still theft.
Theft is illegal, taxes are not.
Paying your employees is theft? That is a stupid way to present your argument. Those are forms of voluntary action.
You often seem to think things are stupid when you are actually confused. In the case of paying your taxes, you do that of your own volition, even though you don't want to. In the case of your employer paying you, he does that of his own volition even though he may not want to. Do you see the similarities?
Taxation is involuntary. No contract is signed.
Do you have a job? Have you ever filled out the tax forms? Those are the contracts you sign to show how much the government will take from you.
The key would is 'felonious'. This is where the definition fails to meet that of taxes. In the UK the definition of theft is the 'dishonest appropriation of property belonging to other'. There is no 'dishonesty' in taxation. Its an accepted consequence of living in a civilised society. There is the option of not living in society. If you live in a forest you dont pay taxes.
Prove it sure. First look at our two varying definitions. They are different. Second ask any libetarian why taxation is theft such as prayerfails or guitaristdog.
Yes, in the same way that drone strikes against American citizens without trial is legalized murder.
People, I suppose, may be okay with these things since government is doing it, but that doesn't change what it really is...
I suppose if the administration agreed to have virgins brought to the president, people would eventually start forming excuses to justify rape when done by the government.
I question if the average populace would ever realize the flaws in their reasoning... maybe I'm not thinking of extreme enough scenarios.
Of course it is. Someone, or an organization, is taking away the possessions of other people, with no form of consent, and often no opt out clause (you need to leave the country or more).
But that's not to say that taxation is a bad thing - which seems to be what many non-libertarians seem to be arguing here. The intention for an action does not change the action itself, but it can justify it.
No. Taxation is our way of paying for the services we enjoy. Things like safer roads, and repairs to bridges, ambulance services, police protection, schools, national defense etc. We use more public services than we think, and paying taxes is what we contribute to afford these things. Nearly 50% of people don't pay taxes anyway and they all complain about it.
No. The state/country bills us for services we use. For example if a doctor treats your strep throat, you pay them for diagnosing and for writing the prescription. It is not stealing. It is the price you pay for living in the country you live in. Every country has a taxation system. It is not stealing it is payment for services rendered.
If I buy a car I buy a car. Why am I still having a tax on my car? Home taxes. Income tax. Thats theft. Stuff you owe doctors is stuff you owe that doctor.
You pay a tax to pay for the road you drive your car on, for the police to keep the roads you drive your car on safe, for the safety measures that are in place to make the road safer.
I get benefits for supplying the state to perform poorly for the country? I pay taxes to fund mass slaughter? If pay taxes to have the rich and political figures dominate the system? Taxation is just a coercive levy.
Yes, you get benefits such as safe roads, free education up till 12th grade, police to keep you safe, fire departments to help you should your home catch fire. Those are some of the very basic benefits you receive. Tell me why you think you should not have to pay for services you use. Perhaps you would like to steal those services without having to pay for them?
I should be able to pay for it myself. Not have it stolen. I should be able to voluntarily contribute to society. Not have money taken out of my pocketsfor the greater bad.
No you should not. Because whether you contribute or not, you will still receive the benefit of others who pay in. You seem to be one of those types that thinks someone owes you services for free. That isn't how it works in the real world.
Then the police, and the road crews, can voluntarily decide whether to protect you or scrape your road according to how much you contribute. Also the teachers can decide to charge you for public school. If you can't afford it? Too bad.
So let's say in this warped scenario your house is burned down by an arsonist. You would have to pay the police to find this arsonist, who would only look for clues after you pay the firefighters to put out the fire. Yet everything in your house is burned, what do you pay them with? Will the fire fighters take an I.O.U.? Will they do this on mentally assured credit while you run to the bank? What are you going to pay with to use the roads, that are now not free? I guess you'll walk. No wait sidewalks are made by the government too, so the sidewalk people are now going to take an I.O.U. while you run to the bank, but let's say you're broke, or this was the week you were getting your paycheck, what do you do now? The police lock you away for not paying the firefighters. No one investigates what happened to your house so the person who ruined you just got off scott free. They won't feed you in prison since that's payed for by the government, so they put you to work in there, but maybe the police wanted to rough you up just for the hell of, (and they definitely do sometimes) so now you're broken up and unable to work, so in this poor, broken, impoverished state you're locked up, unable to work, not being fed, not being given medical service, and nothing is able to help you because you were so sure that in case of an emergency, you'd be able to pay everyone to get everything done.
Yes, you get benefits such as safe roads, free education up till 12th grade, police to keep you safe, fire departments to help you should your home catch fire. Those are some of the very basic benefits you receive. Tell me why you think you should not have to pay for services you use. Perhaps you would like to steal those services without having to pay for them?
For free? Pfft. No they are being spent with the money I should be spending myself. Dont say free because you dont pay then and there. It is not free. Tax dollars are spent everywhere. Why dont you look at our debt and tell me how great our system of taxation is working.
Yes, we have a serious spending problem. Also many people don't pay much in taxes. I didn't say the system wasn't flawed. You are projecting that. I said that taxation wasn't theft, because you take from the system you must pay into it.
We take from the system? The system takes from us. The government is a business. It gets money and it spends it when it wants to. Taxation is legalized theft. You are taking my money without permission. Thats theft.
The arent fucking free or else tax wouldnt be necessary. They cost money. So they steal it and say bam here you go. Some get a good school some dont. Either way they are stealing.
Correct. They aren't free. You want them to be, but they cannot be. You want to take and take and take, and not give. Well, guess what? You can't do that.
Well, then if you drive on the road and do pay taxes, then you should be arrested for theft. You are stealing from those who pay for the roads without paying your share.
LOL it doesn't really. Voluntary contribution? So regular people should just wake up one day to put their lives on the line to protect you for...nothing?
Why be so aggressive? You are acting like the state. How do I have to right to public service if its my money in the first place being spent unwisely in multiple places? All I am doing is supplying the state their checks.
i never said that I run libertarians, and I do not deserve this abuse. I have done nothing wrong to be treated this way. I was a good fucking friend to you until you stabbed me in the god damn back.
You said that. Also nobody every fucking did shit to you. You started insulting libertarians for no reason. Dont fucking act all sappy. Nobody is abusing your ass quit being a puss and stop acting all weak and shit.
I have done nothing wrong, you backstabbing cunt. God fucking damn it, I do not deserve this god damn abuse. The way I am treated on this god damn website is wrong. You are wrong, cunt. That bitch insulted me first. I have the god damn right to defend myself. I hate you so god damn much. I bet you are a Lizzie acting out a perverse need to be a bitch. I do not deserve to be abused.
Oh cool so I am Lizzie? Cool. Nice. How does Lizzie even put up with your dumbass. If I was Lizzie I would have banned you. How are we both currently active then? She didnt do anything to your sorry ass.
I was just trying to piss that bitch off, but now I really do hate libertarians. You are al;l whiney ass pussies who do not stand for one god damn thing. Jesus fucking Christ, I do not need your god damn persion to have a fucking opion, you two faced bitch. I feel sorry for Lizzie having a bitch like you for a god damn sister. You can all go to Hell for being backstabbing cunts.
You can literaly close your fucking lips before I close them for your ass. If I am a bitch you are a two balled she devil who whines when she is about to lose. Shut the hell up. Stop speaking to me.
Cunt, you do not own me. I do what I god damn well please. This is what you get for being so god damn fake. I have done nothing wrong, and I do not deserve this abuse.
And that is why I hate you, cunt. Lizzie does not deserve to be abused either. Backstabbing whore. You care more about poltics than friendship. I wish nothing but death and eternal hellfire on you. If you play with fire, you fucking get burned. You are on notice.
Taxation cannot be theft. First if someone steals from you, you will not get services for it. Second you can go away from the collection zone at any time... I think that Sudan, Somalia, SAE, Kongo will not tax you at all.
You're totally right! We should adopt an optional system of taxation, so that you can chose what taxes and services you pay/receive, that way you can keep your hard earned money out of the government's clutches and drive yourself to the hospital and put out your own fires!
By paying tax a government will serve you automatically. As you paid certain portion of your income, government as a protector of the people will provide some services for you. It is a kind of exchange.
This is the problem I have with libertarians. While I'm big on personal liberties, it's taking it way too far to say that taxation is theft. If you want your country to have stuff, you have to pay your fair share. Voluntary contributions? Yeah, right.
it is and it isn't. On one hand you are forced to be a tax payer from the day you are born because of all those nifty services the government can organize. but, sometimes we don't like what they do with the money and would have rather kept it. On the other hand, we are forced to pay taxes by law and being threatened with jail time or the repossession of material goods if payments are not met. Which brings it more to a more Robin Hood type of shakedown.
However, despite all that the way our government has been going because of this war on terror and terrorism. Governments are getting to the point where they are taking our money and then using it to make our lives more miserable and taking away freedoms for the illusion of security. 9 times out of 10 if someone wanted me dead, no police officer, army, or government would be able to stop them. Locks can be shot out with shotguns and even pistols. Windows can be smashed and fellowships corrupted. Yeah, sure they may get caught in the end and have to serve a long jail term but, I wasn't any safer with the services provided by the government. I would have been safer with a AK-47 strapped to my back at all times and a machete in case I ran out of bullets and had no other choice.
As long as you live within a society, then you have implicitly given your consent to be taxed. You cannot possibly live with other people and expect to enjoy the same benefits without shouldering your fair share of the burden. When you are in danger you call the police, when you are injured you call for an ambulance. These essential services are provided by taxes. So no, taxation is not theft.
In some cases, overtaxation can be akin to robbery if none of the fiscal spending is benefiting the general populace. In the US however, we enjoy relatively mild tax rates compared to our European counterparts, but considering the US is one of the greatest countries to live in in terms of civil and political rights as well as a shrinking–but still sizable–middle class, I think it's fair we are taxed a enough to maintain the general stability and infrastructure of this great nation.