Small government/debate

This mapping is incomplete; I'm starting with the supporting arguments first.

Government should be reduced or eliminated.

Reducing the size of government gives people more freedom.

Government creates burdensome regulations that interfere with people's personal lives.

Government cannot provide freedom; it can only enslave.

"Reducing the size of government" is an ambiguous phrase that can be interpreted in different ways depending on context, enabling position dancing.

A government big enough to give you everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have. (literal interpretation)

If government has sufficient resources to provide a living for a significant portion of the population, it also has the resources to deprive people of their rightful property.

This is why it is important to have a well-run government, whatever the size might be.

Simply reducing funding to an already-despotic government will not make it less despotic, since it already has the ability to take by force that which it needs.

In the event of diminished funding, established interests will fight to maintain those government activities which benefit them specifically at the expense of others; services which benefit the general public will be cut first, followed closely by those which are merely harmless.

The mere fact that a tool can be misused does not negate the need for the tool.

A government big enough to give you everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have. (implications)

The hidden cost of a government-provided social safety-net is too high.

If you accept the need for government to have the power to give, you accept the need for government to take without consent.

Accepting the need for government revenue does not imply endorsement of taking that revenue by force; there are other ways to collect revenue.

People who want a social safety-net are supporting theft.

A government-provided social safety-net means that the government takes from some people and gives it to others.

Anyone who wants this supports stealing from others.

This presumes that taxation is theft, which is not true.

People who want a social safety-net are being selfish.

People who support a social safety-net just want a free ride at the expense of others.

Many people who do not themselves need a social safety-net nonetheless support the existence of one.

Government is unethical because it relies on taxation, which is theft.

All government relies on taxation.

This is not true.

Taxation is theft

Taxation is taking without consent.

Most people voluntarily pay their taxes.

They only do so under threat of imprisonment.

There are documented instances of people (a) being happy to pay their taxes, (b) suggesting that taxes for their income bracket should be higher.

There are very few instances of people objecting to automatic tax deductions from their paychecks.

There are many people for whom this would be an inconsistent position.

Anyone who objects to paying taxes would not argue in favor of providing government benefits (such as a social safety-net), and there are certainly plenty of people arguing in favor of providing those benefits.

Although most people may voluntarily pay taxes, it is still taking without consent from those who do not.

Taking without consent is theft.

If the problem with government is how revenues are collected, the solution is tax-collection reform, not reduction in revenues.