DA - Coercion - Michigan 7 2023 CMFP

Coercion DA
“Don’t tread on me” – Ike Song
“All taxation is theft” – Billy Blechman
“The power to tax, is the power to destroy” – Magnus Lee
1nc
shells
1nc – the impact
Freedom outweighs 🦅 🦅 🦅
Henry 1775 (but a timeless argument)– (Patrick; American politician and orator; 3/23/1775; "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death;" No Publication; https://academyatthelakes.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/PatrickHenryGiveMeLibertyAddressExcerptsFinal-rev-1-25-16.pdf, *edited for gendered language) //
Mr. President, it is natural to man [patriot] to indulge in the illusions of hope. [But] Is this the part of wise men [patriots], engaged in a great struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.
I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to comfort themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves, are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. And what have we to oppose to them?
Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of Parliament.
Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrance’s have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation? There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free, we must fight! I repeat it, sir [fellow patriot], we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. The war is actually begun! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
1nc—shell—1 card
the plan’s fiscal redistribution is STATE SANCTIONED THUGGERY – the impact is THE DEATH OF FREEDOM!
Meredith ’21 (Dave Meredith, BA in polisci from John Carroll University & staff writer at The Carroll News.), “Progressive Taxes Are Theft,” 2-24-21, The Carroll News, https://carrollnews.org/61716/opinion/progressive-taxes-are-theft //ike
Over the years, I have concluded that some people simply refuse to fully comprehend the reality of governmental taxation and spending. These individuals don’t seem to realize that the government is spending our money. This may sound silly because on its face, these concepts are exceptionally basic. With that said, the advocacy of fiscal policies espoused by some of these individuals are illogical. One such policy is the progressive tax. The obvious immorality of the progressive tax system (which is an increase in the tax rate as taxable income increases) should be the enemy of anyone in search of legitimate freedom. Progressive taxes essentially seek to redistribute the wealth from one group of people to another. Politicians advocating for increased taxes on higher earners are saying, “Vote for me, and I will use the levers of power to take their money and give it to you!” Over time, the government has grown exponentially larger and continues to infringe upon our fundamental liberties. As a society, we have allowed this enlarged government to legalize theft right before our eyes. When Congress confiscates the dollar of one person to reallocate it to another, nobody raises an eyebrow. If a private citizen carried out this action, we would deem them guilty of theft. Earnings are personal property, just like a house or car. You are in no way entitled to the money of others, and any argument in defense of such a claim is an overt fallacy. An attack on the personal property of others is an attack on freedom. Freedom can hardly be exercised when property is being disproportionately confiscated based on income levels.
1nc—shell—long(er)
[link]
all taxation is GOVERNMENT COERCION – its ontological evilness scales LINEARLY!
Birie ‘2k (Madsen Birie, Co-founder & President of the Adam Smith Institute.), “All taxes are immoral,” 3-16-00, The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2000/mar/17/comment //ike
Herein lies the immorality of taxation. Taxation means compulsion. Our habit of clothing it in fine words often conceals the brute fact that taxation is the confiscation of our property by people who prefer to spend it on their priorities rather than ours. Higher taxation means more compulsion. It forces further retreat by individuals from the area of their lives in which they can make decisions and assume responsibilities. At the heart of the debate is the question of whether people are to live by their own values as adult citizens, or made to live according to the values of their government. Hague has opted for the former, and holds out the prospect of a more equal relationship in which citizens meet the government eye to eye and freely contract with it to discharge their obligations. The United States has just seen its annual list of the top 100 lifetime benefactors. In the number one slot is George Soros, who has given away $2.65bn. The list includes Bill and Melinda Gates, rapidly making their way up its ranks, and even the actor Paul Newman, whose supermarket sauces pay every penny to charity. The US can be generous with its private charity because government leaves space for its citizens to do so. It takes 28% of their income each year, as against the 40% which our own treasury takes. Further, US tax laws allow full deduction for charitable gifts. This helps to explain why we give £7 a month, versus the equivalent of £17 given by Americans. It is not just charity which is crowded out by the state. Whenever it undertakes a responsibility, it denies us the chance to assume it. If people are less inclined to care for their elderly relatives than before, it is because the state has convinced them that it is its job, not theirs. If people do not save enough to meet their future needs, it is because the state has spent decades telling them that it will take care of them instead. Wherever government has advanced, individual responsibility has retreated. Now Hague is telling us it can be rolled back for moral reasons, to create a space in which people can grow. His guarantees are spot on. By pledging that the overall tax burden will diminish, he tells us that we will undertake responsibility for a larger part of our lives. We will have the resources to make better provision for our relatives and for own own future. We will have the means to contribute to charitable causes, and to support those less fortunate than ourselves. By pledging an end to stealth taxes, he is telling us that he intends to take away some of the cynicism and dishonesty which discredit government. If we are to pay taxes, he says, let them be open and understood and accepted. Gordon Brown has made it his style to rack up taxes by keeping them concealed and keeping taxpayers confused. William Hague plans to expose taxation, probably in the belief that if people know what they are paying, they will be less tolerant of the high tax culture, and the arrogant assumption that it will plan and organise our lives better than we can do it ourselves.
1nc—shell—k version
[link]
all taxation is GOVERNMENT COERCION – its ontological evilness scales LINEARLY!
Birie ’2k (Madsen Birie, Co-founder & President of the Adam Smith Institute.), “All taxes are immoral,” 3-16-00, The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2000/mar/17/comment //ike
Herein lies the immorality of taxation. Taxation means compulsion. Our habit of clothing it in fine words often conceals the brute fact that taxation is the confiscation of our property by people who prefer to spend it on their priorities rather than ours. Higher taxation means more compulsion. It forces further retreat by individuals from the area of their lives in which they can make decisions and assume responsibilities. At the heart of the debate is the question of whether people are to live by their own values as adult citizens, or made to live according to the values of their government. Hague has opted for the former, and holds out the prospect of a more equal relationship in which citizens meet the government eye to eye and freely contract with it to discharge their obligations. The United States has just seen its annual list of the top 100 lifetime benefactors. In the number one slot is George Soros, who has given away $2.65bn. The list includes Bill and Melinda Gates, rapidly making their way up its ranks, and even the actor Paul Newman, whose supermarket sauces pay every penny to charity. The US can be generous with its private charity because government leaves space for its citizens to do so. It takes 28% of their income each year, as against the 40% which our own treasury takes. Further, US tax laws allow full deduction for charitable gifts. This helps to explain why we give £7 a month, versus the equivalent of £17 given by Americans. It is not just charity which is crowded out by the state. Whenever it undertakes a responsibility, it denies us the chance to assume it. If people are less inclined to care for their elderly relatives than before, it is because the state has convinced them that it is its job, not theirs. If people do not save enough to meet their future needs, it is because the state has spent decades telling them that it will take care of them instead. Wherever government has advanced, individual responsibility has retreated. Now Hague is telling us it can be rolled back for moral reasons, to create a space in which people can grow. His guarantees are spot on. By pledging that the overall tax burden will diminish, he tells us that we will undertake responsibility for a larger part of our lives. We will have the resources to make better provision for our relatives and for own own future. We will have the means to contribute to charitable causes, and to support those less fortunate than ourselves. By pledging an end to stealth taxes, he is telling us that he intends to take away some of the cynicism and dishonesty which discredit government. If we are to pay taxes, he says, let them be open and understood and accepted. Gordon Brown has made it his style to rack up taxes by keeping them concealed and keeping taxpayers confused. William Hague plans to expose taxation, probably in the belief that if people know what they are paying, they will be less tolerant of the high tax culture, and the arrogant assumption that it will plan and organise our lives better than we can do it ourselves.
the alternative is an unflinching ethic of tax avoidance.
Worstall ’15 (Tim Worstall, Senior Fellow of the Adam Smith Institute.), “Tax Avoidance And Tax Evasion Are To The Benefit Of Us All,” 1-7-15, Forbes, https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/01/07/tax-avoidance-and-tax-evasion-are-to-the-benefit-of-us-all/#:~:text=If%20people%20will%20avoid%20or,reduces%20the%20overall%20tax%20rate. //ike
Admittedly, it is possible to take a different view on this matter, but there's a good and entirely reasonable argument that tax avoidance and tax evasion work to the benefit of us all. The crucial point is really how one views the activities of government. And there's two views that seem to be held. One that I regard as hopelessly naive and simplistic, the second something very much closer to reality. That first is that all of the things that government does for us are beneficial to us and that limiting what it does do harms us all. The second is that some parts of what government does are things which both must be done and can only be done by government, but that a rather large part of what it attempts to do shouldn't be done at all, whether by government or not. Thus, starving the beast by avoiding or evading taxes produces a benefit because it reduces the size and scope of government. The trigger for this thought is this excellent piece discussing this very point: Imagine the following world. The only goods that government produces are public goods. Public goods have two characteristics. First, they are non-rival in consumption: one person's consumption of the good does not diminish the amount that others can consume. Second, they are non-excludable: excluding people from benefiting from public goods is prohibitively expensive. National defense and public protection are the standard examples. Government determines what budget these public-good activities require and then levies the most efficient taxes necessary to finance them. Each citizen is charged a tax price lower than his valuation of the public goods (and lower than any alternative way to produce them). In brief, the state finds the optimal level of public-good expenditures and then levies the most efficient taxes to finance them. This is, by and large, the model of orthodox public finance theory. In this model, tax dodging by any individual increases the burden on other taxpayers. As anyone who has ever bothered to observe the sausage making that is government and the legislature this isn't in fact what happens. We all complain about what actually happens. Even those on the left who generally believe in the power of government to do good insist that the special interests (say, the Koch Brothers who are entirely demonic figures to those at places like Alternet and points left) manage to corrupt what government actually does. And those on the right have their own examples and proper liberals like myself will happily make use of both sets of failures to make our point. Leading to this being, to my mind, a much more accurate model of what government is and how it works: Public Choice theory, developed in the last half of the 20th century, provides an alternative model, which can be sketched as follows.12 The individuals who run the state—mainly politicians and bureaucrats—are, like ordinary individuals, motivated by self-interest. Their interests are generally served by expanding the power and scope of government. Politicians do this by providing a large number of private goods and privileges for the benefit of supporting clienteles. Bureaucrats expand the size of their bureaus. We thus observe built-in incentives within the state to collect as much revenue as possible given political and other institutional constraints—to charge what the captive "market" will bear—and then to spend the proceeds on things that benefit those in power and the interest groups whose support they need. Government maximizes revenues; it does not levy revenues only to produce genuine public goods. At which point taxdodging has benefits to all of us. Because by dodging taxes people limit the ability of governments to impose ever higher ones. If you like, you could say that such tax avoidance is a Laffer Effect. The Laffer Curve itself is really, originally at least, about the effects of taxation levels upon economic growth. It's possible for taxes to be so high that lowering them will increase growth enough to provide more revenue to the government. Here though we're perhaps not talking about growth so much as just resistance to high tax levels. If people will avoid or evade what they regard as high taxation then that reduces the revenue from having said high taxation. And, obviously, if enough people avoid then this will reduce total revenue. At which point we can say that tax dodging is one of the things that reduces the overall tax rate. Sure, it does depend upon one's view of governance. But as I say, I defy any rational adult who has really looked at how the system works to deny that the second explanation is a lot closer to reality than the first. And if it is then tax avoidance and tax evasion does us all a favour: it limits the ability of the politicians to take the money of the law abiding.
1nc—shell—procedural
interp – affs must NOT tax.
violation – [ ]
vote neg –
1---limits – taxation allows unpredictable advantage ground and doubles the number of topical affs.
2---ethics – all taxation is unethical – it’s GOVERNMENT COERCION.
Birie ’2k (Madsen Birie, Co-founder & President of the Adam Smith Institute.), “All taxes are immoral,” 3-16-00, The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2000/mar/17/comment //ike
Herein lies the immorality of taxation. Taxation means compulsion. Our habit of clothing it in fine words often conceals the brute fact that taxation is the confiscation of our property by people who prefer to spend it on their priorities rather than ours. Higher taxation means more compulsion. It forces further retreat by individuals from the area of their lives in which they can make decisions and assume responsibilities. At the heart of the debate is the question of whether people are to live by their own values as adult citizens, or made to live according to the values of their government. Hague has opted for the former, and holds out the prospect of a more equal relationship in which citizens meet the government eye to eye and freely contract with it to discharge their obligations. The United States has just seen its annual list of the top 100 lifetime benefactors. In the number one slot is George Soros, who has given away $2.65bn. The list includes Bill and Melinda Gates, rapidly making their way up its ranks, and even the actor Paul Newman, whose supermarket sauces pay every penny to charity. The US can be generous with its private charity because government leaves space for its citizens to do so. It takes 28% of their income each year, as against the 40% which our own treasury takes. Further, US tax laws allow full deduction for charitable gifts. This helps to explain why we give £7 a month, versus the equivalent of £17 given by Americans. It is not just charity which is crowded out by the state. Whenever it undertakes a responsibility, it denies us the chance to assume it. If people are less inclined to care for their elderly relatives than before, it is because the state has convinced them that it is its job, not theirs. If people do not save enough to meet their future needs, it is because the state has spent decades telling them that it will take care of them instead. Wherever government has advanced, individual responsibility has retreated. Now Hague is telling us it can be rolled back for moral reasons, to create a space in which people can grow. His guarantees are spot on. By pledging that the overall tax burden will diminish, he tells us that we will undertake responsibility for a larger part of our lives. We will have the resources to make better provision for our relatives and for own own future. We will have the means to contribute to charitable causes, and to support those less fortunate than ourselves. By pledging an end to stealth taxes, he is telling us that he intends to take away some of the cynicism and dishonesty which di

Preview shortened. Download the file for the full document.