Proper rebuttal?

[AmoProbos]

Today, I picked a fight on an anti-conservative website that you may or may not have heard of, coffepartyusa. I jumped into a discussion about healthcare (you can read the whole thread here) and met resistance with the OP. I feel as though I did fairly well (not by formal debate standards, certainly, but by casual scuffle standards), but one statement he made irked me. I rebuked it, but for some reason his assertion is still bothering me. I think I'm getting hooked up on the contractual bit. I'll explain. I asked him, "Is taxation theft?" because he referenced that earlier, and he replied with this:

"No. If you are an American citizen, it is by your choice. If you live in America, it is by your choice. By making either or both of these choices you tacitly agree to abide by the laws of the land, and the laws of the land authorize the government to collect taxes and spend them as the government sees fit. This authority does not require your personal approval for either the collecting or the spending. You have three representatives in Congress, so it is not taxation without representation. Therefore, the collection of taxes is not stealing, and if you don't like it you're free to move to a country where no one will demand you pay taxes to support anything you don't want to pay for. Somalia might be an option."

Feel free to read my reply on the forum. Bear in mind that none of my responses are polished and they probably have a fair share of their own flaws. I also used too many expletives, which I realize is crass and I regret using, but I got a little heated.

Let me know where I slipped up. And if this turns into a grilling of my own logic instead of his, then so be it, so long as I learn something. Thanks!

[TLD]

"No. If you are an American citizen, it is by your choice. If you live in America, it is by your choice. By making either or both of these choices you tacitly agree to abide by the laws of the land, and the laws of the land authorize the government to collect taxes and spend them as the government sees fit. This authority does not require your personal approval for either the collecting or the spending. You have three representatives in Congress, so it is not taxation without representation. Therefore, the collection of taxes is not stealing, and if you don't like it you're free to move to a country where no one will demand you pay taxes to support anything you don't want to pay for. Somalia might be an option."

Without reading your contributions, it is clear that the other person is speaking as a pragmatist: he is looking at what is, not what ought to be; he is accepting current law and telling you to just accept it.

The problem with saying "taxation is theft" is that that is in a principled context to which others cannot relate.

Better to argue that you could accept taxation for the essentials of government - those functions that are required to protect our rights, and then question all else.

Edited April 21, 2010 by softwareNerd
Fixed quoter tag

[AmoProbos]

'AmoProbos'

"No. If you are an American citizen, it is by your choice. If you live in America, it is by your choice. By making either or both of these choices you tacitly agree to abide by the laws of the land, and the laws of the land authorize the government to collect taxes and spend them as the government sees fit. This authority does not require your personal approval for either the collecting or the spending. You have three representatives in Congress, so it is not taxation without representation. Therefore, the collection of taxes is not stealing, and if you don't like it you're free to move to a country where no one will demand you pay taxes to support anything you don't want to pay for. Somalia might be an option."

Without reading your contributions, it is clear that the other person is speaking as a pragmatist: he is looking at what is, not what ought to be; he is accepting current law and telling you to just accept it.

The problem with saying "taxation is theft" is that that is in a principled context to which others cannot relate.

Better to argue that you could accept taxation for the essentials of government - those functions that are required to protect our rights, and then question all else.

Agreed. In hindsight, I probably shouldn't have used the phrase. It was one of the "talking points" he was denouncing, however, and I wanted to see how he'd answer it.

[softwareNerd]

You have no social-contract with your fellow citizens... none at all. The notion of a "social contract" may work as a metaphor, but you never agreed to one and there is no reason you ought to. You live where you live, and that does not mean that you must follow the dictates of the majority of your neighbors. If the majority of Americans become Islamic and dictate that the U.S. should become an Islamic state, then that majority is wrong. You may move to another country, but that does not mean they are right... it simply means they are using force and you are moving out of the way of that force, the way you would if the mafia takes over your neighborhood and asks for protection money. As a human being, you have the right you live where you like, in any country in the world, and only subject to an amount of government that is compatible with the protection of individual rights, and no more. The majority have no right to force anything upon you just because they live all around you, nor to keep you out of their midst, if you get your ownership via trade.

Edited April 21, 2010 by softwareNerd

[VcatoV]

Let me know where I slipped up. And if this turns into a grilling of my own logic instead of his, then so be it, so long as I learn something. Thanks!

I don't want to come across harshly, but in essence from the quoted section, he is correct. America is a nation of contract, including the contract citizens "sign"/accept by birth-and-staying here or by moving here. Part of that contact is accepting the price for the services offered, taken/eligible or not. Taxes have been levied and raised by means of the representatives of the people. In this sense, Americans have created a sort of "legal karma"-the sum of individuals in this nation has legally created the situation they deserve.

But you know this-and you have a choice to either stay here and abide by the contract, or leave. Now, had you agreed with him on this point, you could have shifted the argument towards a discussion of breach of contract. Meaning: current laws or tax policies violate the initial terms of the contract (The Constitution). You now are merely practicing your right to "petition the government for a redress of grievances*." Expose the emperor for his nudity-he is using your own contract as a noose which he himself has violated!

* See the First Amendment

[2046]

There is no social contract being here by birth. Taxes are, by definition, not a voluntary arrangement. A contract requires offer and acceptance, valid capacity to consent, etc. You are basically saying tax avoidance is theft. It is a straw man argument, (Objectivism does not, like some versions of conservatism uphold any social contract theory with the state) that ignores property rights and substitutes this "your property doesn't belong to you, it belongs to the government because we say so, now pay up, or else you're the one stealing from us!"

The rest of the argument boils down to "love it or leave it" or really "give us your cash and do what we say or get the f*** out." If someone ever employs this, tell them if they don't like what you're doing with your freedom, then they can be the one to go to Somalia or some other such place, because apparently it's their problem.

[VcatoV]

There is no social contract being here by birth.

The adult/guardian is by definition the primary agent in the contract-children, until the age of 18, are represented by their parents. If the child chooses to leave their parents, that is another issue. If the adult (18) chooses to leave the country, that is another issue.

Taxes are, by definition, not a voluntary arrangement. A contract requires offer and acceptance, valid capacity to consent, etc. You are basically saying tax avoidance is theft. It is a straw man argument, (Objectivism does not, like some versions of conservatism uphold any social contract theory with the state) that ignores property rights and substitutes this "your property doesn't belong to you, it belongs to the government because we say so, now pay up, or else you're the one stealing from us!"

Please reread what I said, and correctly quote my statements, instead of drawing claims based upon supposed assertions. Tax avoidance is theft under the legal system within which we all live. The problem with taxes is that, like slavery, they ought not to have been a part in the Constitution. Unlike most of the world, though, our "contract" gives us the mechanisms to change our contract, even down to the local level, through peaceful means using intellectual debate. Trying to get something like Prop 13 in Zimbabwe would be impossible. The point is exactly in line with what Rand said about taxes-the change to a better system must come over time. Unless you would like for the whole system to collapse into anarchy. Do you believe there to be something wrong with following the law and at the same time attempting to change it-so long as the law has not crossed the point to where peaceful discourse is no longer possible? Where exactly the point lies when the government oversteps its bounds is another discussion.

The rest of the argument boils down to "love it or leave it" or really "give us your cash and do what we say or get the f*** out." If someone ever employs this, tell them if they don't like what you're doing with your freedom, then they can be the one to go to Somalia or some other such place, because apparently it's their problem.

Did I ever say any of this?

[softwareNerd]

The adult/guardian is by definition the primary agent in the contract-children, until the age of 18, are represented by their parents. If the child chooses to leave their parents, that is another issue. If the adult (18) chooses to leave the country, that is another issue.

No, sorry, there is no such contract, and there never was. The constitution is not a contract, nor is it the standard of what is morally right.

[2046]

The adult/guardian is by definition the primary agent in the contract-children, until the age of 18, are represented by their parents. If the child chooses to leave their parents, that is another issue. If the adult (18) chooses to leave the country, that is another issue.

Strawman. And btw, that is not a contract either.

Please reread what I said, and correctly quote my statements, instead of drawing claims based upon supposed assertions. Tax avoidance is theft under the legal system within which we all live. The problem with taxes is that, like slavery, they ought not to have been a part in the Constitution. Unlike most of the world, though, our "contract" gives us the mechanisms to change our contract, even down to the local level, through peaceful means using intellectual debate. Trying to get something like Prop 13 in Zimbabwe would be impossible. The point is exactly in line with what Rand said about taxes-the change to a better system must come over time. Unless you would like for the whole system to collapse into anarchy. Do you believe there to be something wrong with following the law and at the same time attempting to change it-so long as the law has not crossed the point to where peaceful discourse is no longer possible? Where exactly the point lies when the government oversteps its bounds is another discussion.

Again, it's not a contract. The Constitution is not a contract. A constitution written by Objectivists would not be a contract. So no. There is no room for discussion because you have nicely assumed the validity of the "social contract" position.

Did I ever say any of this?

That was actually directed at the "go to Somalia if you don't want to pay your taxes" argument from the OP, but now that you mention it, you did say: "But you know this-and you have a choice to either stay here and abide by the contract, or leave."

[VcatoV]

No, sorry, there is no such contract, and there never was. The constitution is not a contract,

Can you prove that?

nor is it the standard of what is morally right.

I never said it was.

[VcatoV]

Strawman. And btw, that is not a contract either.

Claiming something doesn't make it so. Prove it.

Again, it's not a contract. The Constitution is not a contract. A constitution written by Objectivists would not be a contract. So no. There is no room for discussion because you have nicely assumed the validity of the "social contract" position.

*bold mine

Who was talking about a contract written by Objectivist? If so, I was mistaken-I was discussing the United States Constitution.

[2046]

Claiming something doesn't make it so. Prove it.

The burden of proof is upon you. So let's hear your best argument for why children are in a contract with their parents, therefore I am stealing from the State if I don't pay my taxes.

Who was talking about a contract written by Objectivist? If so, I was mistaken-I was discussing the United States Constitution.

Allow me to make my statement clearer:

Again, it's not a contract. The [United States] Constitution is not a contract. [And, additionally,] [a] constitution written by Objectivists would [also] not be a contract.

[VcatoV]

The burden of proof is upon you.

I have to prove to you that my argument either is or is not what you claim, when I made the argument, and you offered no rebuttal save accusation?

Unless you speak on point and about issues instead of resorting to attacks and mind games, I see no point in furthering the conversation.

[2046]

I have to prove to you that my argument either is or is not what you claim, when I made the argument, and you offered no rebuttal save accusation?

Unless you speak on point and about issues instead of resorting to attacks and mind games, I see no point in furthering the conversation.

I don't know what your argument is. You have yet to present one, aside from a claim that children and parents/guardians are in a contractual relationship, and therefore when I turn 18 I have to pay taxes. Thus far, it is a bare assertion. So let's either hear your argument for why that is, or not. Have you got one?

[softwareNerd]

Can you prove that?

Nobody alive has agreed to this "contract", nor did those living at the time the constitution was written agree to it as a contract. Just because a majority "voted" for it in no way makes it morally binding on others. The only thing that makes it "morally binding" is the various ways in which it actually makes sense, not any assumed consent. Edited April 21, 2010 by softwareNerd

[VcatoV]

So let's either hear your argument for why that is, or not. Have you got one?

You know-it's difficult for me to tell exactly which conversation is going on. What is is different what what ought to be. That is why the burden of proof lies on you. Are you under the assumption that a person who turns 18 and does not pay taxes will receive no penalty? Or that a 15 year old could get a credit card in their name?

I never advocated a position for what ought to be. That is...once again...a different conversation.

[VcatoV]

Nobody alive has agreed to this "contract", nor did those living at the time the constitution was written agree to it as a contract. Just because a majority "voted" for it in no way makes it morally binding on others. The only thing that makes it "morally binding" is the various ways in which it actually makes sense, not any assumed consent.

The Constitution is not an inherently moral document. Its morality only lies in the degree to which it aligns with a proper ethical code. The people agreed and continue to agree to live by these rules, in spite of the fact that some are immoral. In a free, contractual society, the obligation then is to amend the constitution in order to make it fall in line with a proper moral code. If it cannot because its very core, its axioms, are corrupt-then you need a new constitution.

[softwareNerd]

The people agreed and continue to agree to live by these rules, in spite of the fact that some are immoral.

They did not all agree.

[VcatoV]

They did not all agree.

And what happened to those who did not agree? If some disagreed upon moral grounds, and died/were sacrificed in pursuit of that morality, does that not make them moral heroes? If others disagreed, but accepted it anyway, does that not make them moral evaders?

[2046]

Are you under the assumption that a person who turns 18 and does not pay taxes will receive no penalty? Or that a 15 year old could get a credit card in their name?

No, but you are apparently under the assumption that a child who is 0 years old--and I quote you--'"sign"/accept[ed] by birth' a contract.

Time to start providing some reasons to support that. The burden of proof is upon he who asserts the positive.

[softwareNerd]

And what happened to those who did not agree?

Well, there were lot of slaves alive when the constitution was written, and I suspect some of them would have disagreed with the notion that they were to remain slaves under the constitution. Some generations later, some of their descendants could articulate this disagreement. Obviously, this disagreement is a factor that they would take into consideration in their actions, but this is not the only consideration. If someone holds a gun to your head and says "don't move", it is not heroism to start moving willy-nilly, nor is it evasion to sit still and consider your options. Morality ends at the point of a gun.

Admittedly, it's a bit of a cheat to use slavery as an example, because it is so extreme. However, the same principle holds for smaller things. If the constitution as interpreted by a particular set of 9 judges allows the government to take away everyone's gold, as they did under FDR, someone might well disagree. If he can get away with not giving up his gold, that's fine and dandy; but, if his best judgement tells him that there is a certain chance of being caught and being sent to jail, or being fined or whatever, that consideration has to be weighed.

Anyhow, I think this is veering from the OP's question. Definitely, he did not agree to that constitution in any contractual sense, and is not obliged to obey it in a contractual sense. Nor is he obliged to leave the country because he does not like it.

Edited April 21, 2010 by softwareNerd

[VcatoV]

No, but you are apparently under the assumption that a child who is 0 years old--and I quote you--'"sign"/accept[ed] by birth' a contract.

Time to start providing some reasons to support that. The burden of proof is upon he who asserts the positive.

I think we need to get something straight: are we talking about things as they are or as they ought to be?

From my initial post:

America is a nation of contract, including the contract citizens "sign"/accept by birth-and-staying here or by moving here.

*bold added

I don't see ought to be anywhere in my post.

[VcatoV]

Well, there were lot of slaves alive when the constitution was written, and I suspect some of them would have disagreed with the notion that they were to remain slaves under the constitution. Some generations later, some of their descendants could articulate this disagreement.

I agree. That's why I believe the problem lies (and has lied) with the system. Do we disagree about that?

Obviously, this disagreement is a factor that they would take into consideration in their actions, but this is not the only consideration. If someone holds a gun to your head and says "don't move", it is not heroism to start moving willy-nilly, nor is it evasion to sit still and consider your options. Morality ends at the point of a gun.

You are correct, and I was not clear. What I meant was that those who stood by moral principle in the face of opposition would be worthy objects of adoration by others. Is that not what makes Kira's "Escape" so tragic yet heroic?

Admittedly, it's a bit of a cheat to use slavery as an example, because it is so extreme. However, the same principle holds for smaller things. If the constitution as interpreted by a particular set of 9 judges allows the government to take away everyone's gold, as they did under FDR, someone might well disagree. If he can get away with not giving up his gold, that's fine and dandy; but, if his best judgement tells him that there is a certain chance of being caught and being sent to jail, or being fined or whatever, that consideration has to be weighed.

Anyhow, I think this is veering from the OP's question. Definitely, he did not agree to that constitution in any contractual sense, and is not obliged to obey it in a contractual sense. Nor is he obliged to leave the country because he does not like it.

I never said morally obliged. I was merely discussing the way things were. Do you know any other options currently available in the real world?

[2046]

No you didn't. You quite clearly stated that the way things are, a child of 0 years old has '"sign"/accept[ed] by birth' a contract. Now you're saying that you don't agree with this, that it's just how it is. That's not how it is, it might be what someone people think, they might call it a contract, but I only know of several criteria for a valid contract and "because the Coffee Party says so" isn't one of them.

Anyway, I think you are BSing, but glad that we can all agree now, there is no such contract.

[VcatoV]

No you didn't. You quite clearly stated that the way things are, a child of 0 years old has '"sign"/accept[ed] by birth' a contract. Now you're saying that you don't agree with this, that it's just how it is. That's not how it is, it might be what someone people think, they might call it a contract, but I only know of several criteria for a valid contract and "because the Coffee Party says so" isn't one of them.

Anyway, I think you are BSing, but glad that we can all agree now, there is no such contract.

Not for the sake of reducing this to a long tit-for-tat argument, but I almost feel like you were the one BSing. I explained the way in which our current society is structured, as I would expect to describe an apple that had rotted. Doesn't mean I want to eat it.

I thought that it might help the OP to clarify the way things are. The world of ought-to-be is not imaginary, floating in the clouds. It is the actual end result of the attempt of Objectivism. But the only way to get there is to know where we are.