frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





Why do you so freely wish to spend other people's money?

Debate Information

Have you noticed most Americans want government to fund this or that program, even if it is not a power of the federal government?  They claim they are opposed to theft and slavery, but where to they think the money comes from?  It comes from forcible taking it from their neighbors out of their labors, which is theft and slavery.  What is up with this immorality?

DrCerealHankEmeryPearson



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • DrCerealDrCereal 193 Pts   -  
    Have you noticed most Americans want government to fund this or that program, even if it is not a power of the federal government?  They claim they are opposed to theft and slavery, but where to they think the money comes from?  It comes from forcible taking it from their neighbors out of their labors, which is theft and slavery.  What is up with this immorality?

    This is what we call a social contract. If you expect to get benefits out of the government (such as a military to protect you from foreign threats or public services that do not operate for profit), then you should expect to pay for it in some way. It isn't theft because you agree to give money to governmental programs simply by living and conducting yourself within this country.

    You can change it through the democratic process if you are displeased with it, but it can hardly be considered theft or "slavery".
    NopeHankEmeryPearson
    Bis das, si cito das.
  • FascismFascism 344 Pts   -   edited November 2017
    People are entitled to the state, and the state is entitled to the people. 
    NopeHankEmeryPearson
  • ViceRegentViceRegent 68 Pts   -  
    @Fascism

    I have no idea what that means and how it is related to the OP.  Is this another red herring fallacy?
    EmeryPearson
  • FascismFascism 344 Pts   -   edited November 2017
    @ViceRegent ;
    No it's not a red herring. Entitled means deserving. Without the state, people can't govern themselves. Without people, a state isn't a state. 

    Your argument is basically stating that people are entitled to their property. I'm stating that people are also entitled to the state and vice versa, therefore they pay the state to govern the people. 
    BaconToesEmeryPearson
  • ViceRegentViceRegent 68 Pts   -  
    @Fascism

    If you refuse to address the OP again, I will mute you!
    BaconToesEmeryPearson
  • FascismFascism 344 Pts   -  
    @ViceRegent ;
    Because you don't have a refute. This is relevant to the topic. 

    EmeryPearson
  • ViceRegentViceRegent 68 Pts   -  
    The only thing worse than an irrational ignorant is an arrogant, irrational ignorant!
    BaconToesDrCerealEmeryPearson
  • NopeNope 397 Pts   -  
    I don't. That money belongs to the government
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5967 Pts   -  
    We always spend other people's money, albeit not necessarily in a direct way. Every time you drive a car on a public road - you spend the money of people who keep maintaining this road. Every time you as a child put on clothes to go to school, you spend your parents' money who bought the clothes for you. Every time you breath in fresh air in the middle of a large city, you spend money of the people who invested into technology in order to make car emissions less toxic to the air.

    Now, of course all roads can be made into toll roads. All children can be given a way to earn money they need for their clothes. All public investments into emission purification can be removed and, instead, people can buy air purification masks to keep breathing fresh air... But that would be a pretty bizarre system would it not?

    There is something to say, however, about people who want to force others to give them money to spend. It is one thing to pay taxes for services that are provided equally to everyone, such as public roads or clean air. It is another to redistribute those taxes back to people in a "fair" way, which strangely tends to not be the "give everyone back what they gave you" way in many people's minds. Public services are healthy; resource redistribution is mostly not, however.
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1823 Pts   -  
    MayCaesar said:
    We always spend other people's money, albeit not necessarily in a direct way. Every time you drive a car on a public road - you spend the money of people who keep maintaining this road. Every time you as a child put on clothes to go to school, you spend your parents' money who bought the clothes for you. Every time you breath in fresh air in the middle of a large city, you spend money of the people who invested into technology in order to make car emissions less toxic to the air.
    That isn't exactly true, since you fail to acknowledge the flip-side.  Every time you buy something and pay state sales taxes and/or state income taxes, you are paying to have the roads maintained.  Every time you buy a car or have your car's emissions checked, you are investing in technology to make car emissions less toxic to the air.
    Applesauce
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5967 Pts   -  
    @CYDdharta

    Yes, but the amount of taxes I pay does not exactly cover the costs of the related entity. For example, when I buy a car, I invest, maybe, a couple thousands to make car emissions less toxic - however, the related technology has been being developed for well over a century. People paid for that development in our stead, and we only pay for the current development endeavors. 

    If we started from scratch, where this technology does not exist, we would have to pay orders of magnitude more to bring it to the stage it is in currently. Our ancestors did the job for us and invested in it - we cannot return the investment now, since they are all dead. Granted, they did get the technology they had in return for the investment at the time, but that is a different matter.

    Everything that has been created since humans started walking on two legs, has been paid for by people who are long dead. If all this technology is suddenly eliminated, all the money in the world will not be sufficient to recreate even 1% of it within our lifetime.

    And there is nothing wrong with it. Appropriating others' ideas and building on top of them is what defines technological and societal evolution. The key here is that we are not taking money away from someone who possesses it; we are using the outcome of investments already made.
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1823 Pts   -  
    MayCaesar said:
    @CYDdharta

    Yes, but the amount of taxes I pay does not exactly cover the costs of the related entity. For example, when I buy a car, I invest, maybe, a couple thousands to make car emissions less toxic - however, the related technology has been being developed for well over a century. People paid for that development in our stead, and we only pay for the current development endeavors. 

    If we started from scratch, where this technology does not exist, we would have to pay orders of magnitude more to bring it to the stage it is in currently. Our ancestors did the job for us and invested in it - we cannot return the investment now, since they are all dead. Granted, they did get the technology they had in return for the investment at the time, but that is a different matter.

    Everything that has been created since humans started walking on two legs, has been paid for by people who are long dead. If all this technology is suddenly eliminated, all the money in the world will not be sufficient to recreate even 1% of it within our lifetime.

    And there is nothing wrong with it. Appropriating others' ideas and building on top of them is what defines technological and societal evolution. The key here is that we are not taking money away from someone who possesses it; we are using the outcome of investments already made.

    True enough, but our ancestors used the technology they developed.  We used the technology we develop.  I don't see the point you are trying to make.  What difference does it make if the technology in question is new or an advancement of an older technology?
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5967 Pts   -  
    @CYDdharta

    My point is that our current technology is based on the technology which no one of us has invested a dime in, and our ancestors did instead. So we all use someone else's money, in a way, even if that money was invested by the people who are long dead.

    Self-reliance is a good ideal, but full self-reliance is not very practical. Its fully-dedicated practicing would mean having to start in the middle of the forest with no pants on, and that would not be the ideal usage of the modern opportunities. Using the opportunities the society created for us is what I see as a pragmatic way of practicing self-reliance, and that does mean using others' money in an indirect way to a large extent.

  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1823 Pts   -  
    MayCaesar said:
    @CYDdharta

    My point is that our current technology is based on the technology which no one of us has invested a dime in, and our ancestors did instead. So we all use someone else's money, in a way, even if that money was invested by the people who are long dead.

    Self-reliance is a good ideal, but full self-reliance is not very practical. Its fully-dedicated practicing would mean having to start in the middle of the forest with no pants on, and that would not be the ideal usage of the modern opportunities. Using the opportunities the society created for us is what I see as a pragmatic way of practicing self-reliance, and that does mean using others' money in an indirect way to a large extent.

    That's a distinction without a difference.  Just as it was for our fore-bearers, it is still current investment in technology, among other things, that make current advancements possible.  No one is talking about full self reliance except you.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch