The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!
Why do you so freely wish to spend other people's money?
in Politics
Debra AI Prediction
Arguments
You can change it through the democratic process if you are displeased with it, but it can hardly be considered theft or "slavery".
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 92%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.72  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 84%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 94%  
  Substantial: 14%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.7  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 86%  
  Learn More About Debra
I have no idea what that means and how it is related to the OP. Is this another red herring fallacy?
  Considerate: 59%  
  Substantial: 35%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.4  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 84%  
  Substantial: 77%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.58  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
If you refuse to address the OP again, I will mute you!
  Considerate: 42%  
  Substantial: 38%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.84  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
Because you don't have a refute. This is relevant to the topic.
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 25%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 80%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.18  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 80%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 15%  
  Substantial: 25%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.16  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 87%  
  Substantial: 14%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 85%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.28  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 83%  
  Substantial: 97%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.66  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 55%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 92%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.6  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 71%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.18  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 97%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.52  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra