Govt"redistribution of wealth" is no more than theft and distribution of stolen goods

[Little-Acorn]

In a country of government by the people, the people have the right to choose to help the needy via the government.

And they can exercise that right at any time, simply by amending the Constitution to give such a power to the Federal government.

In 200+ years, they have repeatedly chosen not to do so.

And until they do.....

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” - James Madison, principal author of the U.S. Constitution

 

[Centinel]

Sounds like the liberals are trying Diversion #2, telling fibs like "Taxation is theft", in an attempt to dodge discussing the fact that government wealth redistribution is the REAL theft.

If a farmer has a bushel of apples that he grew, and I offer him $20 (or whatever the going rate is) for them, and he says OK, then I hand him my money and he hands me the apples, and we both go away happy. No theft involved, both of us agreed beforehand to turn over what we had, in exchange for what the other guy had.

If I say to a group of people, "Hey, someone robbed my house last night and attacked and injured my family. I'll pay you $xxx amount if you'll go out, find the guy who did it, throw him in jail, accumulate evidence that proves he did it, get a jury together, get him a lawyer, and put him on trial." They agree to do all that, I hand them the money, they go out, find out who it was, grab him and put him in jail, get the evidence, get the jury and a lawyer, and hold the trial. Again, there is no theft involved here between me and the group. We both agreed beforehand what we would do, both sides stuck to the deal, both are happy with the exchange.

These two examples are identical, business-wise. But in the second example, the group might be called "government". And the agreement we had, might be called the "Constitution". And the money I paid, might be called "taxes". In fact, even if nobody robbed my house or attacked my family, I still agreed to pay that money, to have those people ready to do what they did when needed.

If I didn't like the procedures in that agreement, then when I reach the age of majority, I have the option of petitioning to change it; or if I REALLY don't like it, I have the option of leaving the country where it's in force.

But in no case is any theft involved in these "taxes". Because the collection of them, and the use they were put to, is spelled out in advance in the document I agreed to ("Constitution").

Suppose that farmer, after we worked our agreement and exchanged our things, then went behind my back and grabbed my wallet and took enough money for ten bushels of apples; but still only gave me the one bushel. And then he handed the rest of the money to another guy because that other guy was poor, only owning 1/4 bushel of apples himself. That IS theft, since it was no part of our agreement. And the guy he gave the extra money to, did nothing to earn it. It is theft... or as liberals call it, "redistribution of wealth".

And suppose that group I asked to find and try the robber, grabbed a bunch of extra money from me and gave it to some other guy who was poor. That, again, is theft, since nowhere in the rules I agreed to ("Constitution") is there any mention of those people being authorized to spend money they got from me, on giving it to a guy who did not earn it. The fact that liberals call this "redistribution of wealth", does not change the fact that it is theft, just like the farmer ripping me off.

Comment?

It's wrong to take someone else's stuff. I would have thought that most people would have learned this in kindergarten.

 

[Centinel]

In a country of government by the people, the people have the right to choose to help the needy via the government.

In a country of government by the people, the people have a right to kill every red-headed person.

 

[Rustic]

Sounds like the liberals are trying Diversion #2, telling fibs like "Taxation is theft", in an attempt to dodge discussing the fact that government wealth redistribution is the REAL theft.

If a farmer has a bushel of apples that he grew, and I offer him $20 (or whatever the going rate is) for them, and he says OK, then I hand him my money and he hands me the apples, and we both go away happy. No theft involved, both of us agreed beforehand to turn over what we had, in exchange for what the other guy had.

If I say to a group of people, "Hey, someone robbed my house last night and attacked and injured my family. I'll pay you $xxx amount if you'll go out, find the guy who did it, throw him in jail, accumulate evidence that proves he did it, get a jury together, get him a lawyer, and put him on trial." They agree to do all that, I hand them the money, they go out, find out who it was, grab him and put him in jail, get the evidence, get the jury and a lawyer, and hold the trial. Again, there is no theft involved here between me and the group. We both agreed beforehand what we would do, both sides stuck to the deal, both are happy with the exchange.

These two examples are identical, business-wise. But in the second example, the group might be called "government". And the agreement we had, might be called the "Constitution". And the money I paid, might be called "taxes". In fact, even if nobody robbed my house or attacked my family, I still agreed to pay that money, to have those people ready to do what they did when needed.

If I didn't like the procedures in that agreement, then when I reach the age of majority, I have the option of petitioning to change it; or if I REALLY don't like it, I have the option of leaving the country where it's in force.

But in no case is any theft involved in these "taxes". Because the collection of them, and the use they were put to, is spelled out in advance in the document I agreed to ("Constitution").

Suppose that farmer, after we worked our agreement and exchanged our things, then went behind my back and grabbed my wallet and took enough money for ten bushels of apples; but still only gave me the one bushel. And then he handed the rest of the money to another guy because that other guy was poor, only owning 1/4 bushel of apples himself. That IS theft, since it was no part of our agreement. And the guy he gave the extra money to, did nothing to earn it. It is theft... or as liberals call it, "redistribution of wealth".

And suppose that group I asked to find and try the robber, grabbed a bunch of extra money from me and gave it to some other guy who was poor. That, again, is theft, since nowhere in the rules I agreed to ("Constitution") is there any mention of those people being authorized to spend money they got from me, on giving it to a guy who did not earn it. The fact that liberals call this "redistribution of wealth", does not change the fact that it is theft, just like the farmer ripping me off.

Comment?

Redistribution of wealth is only for lazy people - fucking deadbeat ass wipes...

 

[Centinel]

When the states established their union, they gave it a small set of legislative powers. Per art I, sec 8, congress has now power to redistribute wealth.

 

[NYcarbineer]

In a country of government by the people, the people have the right to choose to help the needy via the government.

And they can exercise that right at any time, simply by amending the Constitution to give such a power to the Federal government.

In 200+ years, they have repeatedly chosen not to do so.

And until they do.....

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” - James Madison, principal author of the U.S. Constitution

Since it's being done, the Constitution didn't need to be amended, did it?

 

[NYcarbineer]

In a country of government by the people, the people have the right to choose to help the needy via the government.

In a country of government by the people, the people have a right to kill every red-headed person.

And what is your alternative?

 

[Centinel]

And what is your alternative?

My alternative? The people may not use force against a person unless/until he has trespassed against someone's person or property.

 

[Centinel]

Since it's being done, the Constitution didn't need to be amended, did it?

No. It simply needed to be violated. No amendment necessary.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

'Govt"redistribution of wealth" is no more than theft and distribution of stolen goods'

This is just as moronic and wrong today was it was back in December of 2013.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And what is your alternative?

My alternative? The people may not use force against a person unless/until he has trespassed against someone's person or property.

How do you run a government without revenue? How do you raise an army, for example?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Since it's being done, the Constitution didn't need to be amended, did it?

No. It simply needed to be violated. No amendment necessary.

You can call it a violation, but you're not in the game. You're just some schmo in the stands yelling kill the umpire!

 

[Centinel]

How do you run a government without revenue? How do you raise an army, for example?

Personally, I wouldn't run a government, because I'm not a control freak.

 

[Centinel]

You can call it a violation, but you're not in the game. You're just some schmo in the stands yelling kill the umpire!

Feel free to cite the language in the constitution that gives congress the legislative power to engage in wealth redistribution.

 

[bripat9643]

In a country of government by the people, the people have the right to choose to help the needy via the government.

And they can exercise that right at any time, simply by amending the Constitution to give such a power to the Federal government.

In 200+ years, they have repeatedly chosen not to do so.

And until they do.....

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” - James Madison, principal author of the U.S. Constitution

Since it's being done, the Constitution didn't need to be amended, did it?

The Supreme Court amended it by interpreting it.

 

[bripat9643]

And what is your alternative?

My alternative? The people may not use force against a person unless/until he has trespassed against someone's person or property.

How do you run a government without revenue? How do you raise an army, for example?

You don't. So what's your point?

 

[bripat9643]

Since it's being done, the Constitution didn't need to be amended, did it?

No. It simply needed to be violated. No amendment necessary.

You can call it a violation, but you're not in the game. You're just some schmo in the stands yelling kill the umpire!

The Constitution was written in plain English precisely so every schmo can determine for himself whether the government is following it or not. Empires are not infallible, and often they are crooked.

 

[regent]

How many nations do not redistribute the wealth, can anyone name one? If we can find one we may have a lot of conservatives moving soon.

 

[Norman]

Sounds like OP managed to apply very basic logic properly. Not a feature commonly found, especially in liberals.

 

[NYcarbineer]

How do you run a government without revenue? How do you raise an army, for example?

Personally, I wouldn't run a government, because I'm not a control freak.

Ok so you're just some lunatic anarchist, or troll, messing around here. Enjoy yourself.