> The onus is on naysayers to rovide proof that a system that lacks these components is better. This is true only if they are arguing another system is better.

> The onus is on naysayers to rovide proof that a system that lacks these components is better. This is true only if they are arguing another system is better. I would argue that our current system - including taxation - is immoral. Whether or not it’s “better” by whatever standard you choose to apply has no bearing on that argument. This is the difference between the deontological and utilitarian perspectives.