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

[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!

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.

And in plain English the Constitution gives the federal government the power to do anything necessary and proper to carry out its powers,

including its power to promote the general welfare.

 

[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?

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

Revenues are raised by legislation, but the legislation by its nature authorizes that taxes can be collected by what amounts to force. The above poster said he wants an alternative where the People have no power to use force against any person.

He doesn't want a government. In fact he doesn't want any laws that 'force' a person to do something they don't want to do,

or not do something they want to do.

He's like you...nuts.

 

[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.

And in plain English the Constitution gives the federal government the power to do anything necessary and proper to carry out its powers,

including its power to promote the general welfare.

Nope. If that were the case, then the enumerated powers would be entirely unnecessary since they would automatically be included in the general welfare. The enumerated powers define what is meant by the general welfare, and that's how the document was interpreted until FDR II ascended the throne and threatened to end the court if it didn't interpret the document the way he wanted it interpreted - that is, to give him unlimited power.

 

[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?

Revenues are raised by legislation, but the legislation by its nature authorizes that taxes can be collected by what amounts to force. The above poster said he wants an alternative where the People have no power to use force against any person.

He doesn't want a government. In fact he doesn't want any laws that 'force' a person to do something they don't want to do,

or not do something they want to do.

He's like you...nuts.

What's nut's about that? Why should government have any powers that individuals don't have? Most of what government does would be deemed a crime if performed by an individual.

 

[Centinel]

And in plain English the Constitution gives the federal government the power to do anything necessary and proper to carry out its powers,

including its power to promote the general welfare.

Actually, you're wrong. The constitution give congress the power to enact any law necessary and proper for carrying into execution its specifically enumerated powers.

 

[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.

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

Courts could be completely funded via court costs.

 

[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?

Courts could be completely funded via court costs.

The Idea of a Private Law Society

 

[Fishlore]

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

Actually, by kindergarten most kids have learned that the issue is much more subtle than that. In families "someone else's stuff" is a concept that requires distinction between individual property and rights, family property and rights and the reciprocal obligations of family membership (giving things, sharing things, not being selfish etc.).

For most kids, adapting the complexities of individual and community rights in the family is the basis for grasping the similar concepts in broader social context as they grow older. By high school time, most kids can explain the phrase "We, the people" and its plural implications in contrast to the French counterpart, The Rights of Man and Citizen.

For most of us, the bulwark of communitarian values was religion. Catholic, Protestant, Jew or Muslim, all of us who had religious instruction in youth were indoctrinated with the concept of charity, of the obligation to help the poor, the weak, the suffering etc. Americans used to have a strong, shared sense of "the right thing to do." Most of us still do.

But all that has been eaten away by consumer advertising and the corporate strategy of making money off individual greed and vanity. Since putting the issue in such simple terms reveals its profound immorality, scads of spinmeister and PR flaks have been paid to get on the airwaves and dress up the profit motive as the Holy Grail of America.

Angry, confused old white guys, seeing themselves left behind by an American society that no longer shares their attitudes toward women, guns, church, sex and a score of other things, fall for this corporate propaganda like ten pins. Grab all you can, fook anyone who tries to take it away from you, whoever dies with the most toys wins -- that's the American way and the meaning behind the Constitution. Yeah, right!

No wonder our country has been going down the crapper since Ronald Reagan blessed the new religion of solipsistic greed. Fortunately, the kids have seen through this bullsh!t and as the old guys die off, America is getting back on the tracks. Amen, brother!

 

[regent]

The Constitution is what the Court say it is. Justice Hughes.

 

[bripat9643]

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

Actually, by kindergarten most kids have learned that the issue is much more subtle than that. In families "someone else's stuff" is a concept that requires distinction between individual property and rights, family property and rights and the reciprocal obligations of family membership (giving things, sharing things, not being selfish etc.).

For most kids, adapting the complexities of individual and community rights in the family is the basis for grasping the similar concepts in broader social context as they grow older. By high school time, most kids can explain the phrase "We, the people" and its plural implications in contrast to the French counterpart, The Rights of Man and Citizen.

For most of us, the bulwark of communitarian values was religion. Catholic, Protestant, Jew or Muslim, all of us who had religious instruction in youth were indoctrinated with the concept of charity, of the obligation to help the poor, the weak, the suffering etc. Americans used to have a strong, shared sense of "the right thing to do." Most of us still do.

But all that has been eaten away by consumer advertising and the corporate strategy of making money off individual greed and vanity. Since putting the issue in such simple terms reveals its profound immorality, scads of spinmeister and PR flaks have been paid to get on the airwaves and dress up the profit motive as the Holy Grail of America.

Angry, confused old white guys, seeing themselves left behind by an American society that no longer shares their attitudes toward women, guns, church, sex and a score of other things, fall for this corporate propaganda like ten pins. Grab all you can, fook anyone who tries to take it away from you, whoever dies with the most toys wins -- that's the American way and the meaning behind the Constitution. Yeah, right!

No wonder our country has been going down the crapper since Ronald Reagan blessed the new religion of solipsistic greed. Fortunately, the kids have seen through this bullsh!t and as the old guys die off, America is getting back on the tracks. Amen, brother!

"We" are not a family. There is no stuff that we share. The president is not the Dad of "we the people." America has been going down the crapper because of Stalinist morons like you who don't understand the meaning of "what's mine is mine, and what's yours is yours."

Mod edit:
xxxxxxxxxxxx

Leave other members' families out of the discussion.

 

[bripat9643]

The Constitution is what the Court say it is. Justice Hughes.

He was one of those Souter type justices put on the court by Hoover.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

But for the federal government and US constitution and laws thereof, your farmer has no property rights, no farmland, no apples to sell.

You libertarians occupy a fantasyland where rules, infrastructure and life in general come ready made and are at your disposal for exploitation. You stand on the shoulders of others...of the efforts of others. You are no island. Start showing a little goddam gratitude to the people that made your lifestyle possible.

Article I, Section 8, states:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States."

And the 16th Amendment states:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

If we stand on the shoulders of previous generations then whose shoulders did the first person stand on? I'm just kind of curious about what explanation you have for this?

 

[SuperDemocrat]

And in plain English the Constitution gives the federal government the power to do anything necessary and proper to carry out its powers,

including its power to promote the general welfare.

Actually, you're wrong. The constitution give congress the power to enact any law necessary and proper for carrying into execution its specifically enumerated powers.

The left hears that as "Since God is all powerful and Obama is God then their are no limitation on his authority". I suspect that as this dictatorship passes they will begin to loosen their release of their d-chomp on his dick. It is the reason why Obama hasn't been smiling lately.

 

[bripat9643]

But for the federal government and US constitution and laws thereof, your farmer has no property rights, no farmland, no apples to sell.

You libertarians occupy a fantasyland where rules, infrastructure and life in general come ready made and are at your disposal for exploitation. You stand on the shoulders of others...of the efforts of others. You are no island. Start showing a little goddam gratitude to the people that made your lifestyle possible.

Article I, Section 8, states:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States."

And the 16th Amendment states:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

Really? You mean private property didn't exist prior to the Constitution? Jefferson didn't own Monticello and Washington didn't own Mt Vernon before the document was ratified?

You are reaching for the stratosphere when it comes to stupid arguments.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

The Constitution is what the Court say it is. Justice Hughes.

The people always have the final say because of this clause

--with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The power of the court to interpret the constitution can be checked by the congress because they can remove their authority over certain cases. This means that the people themselves have the final say over what the constituton means.

 

[Little-Acorn]

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.

You're joking, right?

It says that, right next to the part where it says Congress shall have to power to regulate firearms.

 

[Little-Acorn]

'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.

TRANSLATION: I can't find any way to refute the OP's point, but I hate it anyway. So I'll call it names, insult the OP, and hope somebody somewhere believes me anyway.

 

[Fishlore]

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

Actually, by kindergarten most kids have learned that the issue is much more subtle than that. In families "someone else's stuff" is a concept that requires distinction between individual property and rights, family property and rights and the reciprocal obligations of family membership (giving things, sharing things, not being selfish etc.).

For most kids, adapting the complexities of individual and community rights in the family is the basis for grasping the similar concepts in broader social context as they grow older. By high school time, most kids can explain the phrase "We, the people" and its plural implications in contrast to the French counterpart, The Rights of Man and Citizen.

For most of us, the bulwark of communitarian values was religion. Catholic, Protestant, Jew or Muslim, all of us who had religious instruction in youth were indoctrinated with the concept of charity, of the obligation to help the poor, the weak, the suffering etc. Americans used to have a strong, shared sense of "the right thing to do." Most of us still do.

But all that has been eaten away by consumer advertising and the corporate strategy of making money off individual greed and vanity. Since putting the issue in such simple terms reveals its profound immorality, scads of spinmeister and PR flaks have been paid to get on the airwaves and dress up the profit motive as the Holy Grail of America.

Angry, confused old white guys, seeing themselves left behind by an American society that no longer shares their attitudes toward women, guns, church, sex and a score of other things, fall for this corporate propaganda like ten pins. Grab all you can, fook anyone who tries to take it away from you, whoever dies with the most toys wins -- that's the American way and the meaning behind the Constitution. Yeah, right!

No wonder our country has been going down the crapper since Ronald Reagan blessed the new religion of solipsistic greed. Fortunately, the kids have seen through this bullsh!t and as the old guys die off, America is getting back on the tracks. Amen, brother!

"We" are not a family. There is no stuff that we share. The president is not the Dad of "we the people." America has been going down the crapper because of Stalinist morons like you who don't understand the meaning of "what's mine is mine, and what's yours is yours."

Mod edit:
xxxxxxxxxxxx

Leave other members' families out of the discussion.

No, my cognitively challenged amigo, we are not a family. We are a society. The point I made, which clearly went over your curly little head is that children learn about society in extrapolation from their childhood experiences in family. You will amazed to learn that there is a thing called "psychology" which studies stuff like this and college guys even write books about it.

To say there is no stuff we share is to overlook everything from our history, our values and our citizenship to our streets, schools, courts and parks. If you had any idea of what you wrote you would see how silly it is. Your avatar says pretty much all I want to know about you. Why you are so angry and vulgarly abusive is a part of your personal sociopathy. Anyone who cannot see the continuum from family to society is either autistic or began his family life as a stain on some whorehouse bed sheet.

You need some professional help. Fortunately for you, Obamacare covers therapy for disabilities such as those your nasty, childish post displays.

 

[Dragonlady]

1.) I'm not a libertarian.

2.) Does anyone have any comments that are actually related to the subject of the thread (govt redistribution of wealth being theft, and examples showing theft and non-theft)?

"Income redistribution" is, exactly, theft. It is the direct violation of one of the most fundamental rights man has: The right to possess property he has justly acquired. Without that right, man is no more than an animal.

Someone who seeks to "redistribute" anyone's income other than his own, is merely a common thief.

And a government that seeks to do the same, is equally a thief. Multiplied by the number of people whose income it tries to "redistribute".

When Reagan revised the tax code in the 1980's, it triggered the largest transfer of wealth in the history of the world, from the working class and middle class Americans, to the wealthiest 5%, and the largest corporations, some of whom pay no income taxes at all.

So what you're saying is that you agree that the savings, equity and wealth of the working and middle classes has been stolen and that this was wrong. Is it not time that the oligarchs and the corporations start returning the wealth which they stole, to the people they stole it from?

Glad to see a conservative finally admit the effect of years of stagnant wages, and off-shoring manufacturing.

 

[Agit8r]

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?

So the GOP is liberal now?

After all, most of the redistribution that goes on in this country is through the tax code--due to legislation passed by Republicans

Child tax credit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia