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

[Little-Acorn]

Are your saying that prior to the 20th century, that kings and queens didn't levy taxes? That's absurd.

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.

 

[regent]

So redistribution of wealth is about farmers stealing wallets. Welfare for the states might also be found in state constitutions and state laws. Until the Great Depression welfare for states was a state function, then the states no longer could handle the demand and the federal government aided the states in welfare.

 

[Centinel]

You appear to be assuming that the ethical limits of the state and the individual are the same.

Actually, I'm assuming that ethical standards apply to all people equally.

 

[bripat9643]

You appear to be assuming that the ethical limits of the state and the individual are the same.

Actually, I'm assuming that ethical standards apply to all people equally.

I love this theory that government is moral when it does stuff that you and I would be condemned for doing.

 

[Centinel]

You appear to be assuming that the ethical limits of the state and the individual are the same.

Actually, I'm assuming that ethical standards apply to all people equally.

I love this theory that government is moral when it does stuff that you and I would be condemned for doing.

I agree. And technically, government can't be moral or immoral. Government is simply an organization. It isn't a sentient actor. Because it can't act, it can't act ethically or unethically. It can't act in the first place.

People, not organizations, act, and ethical rules apply to all people equally.

 

[Fishlore]

You appear to be assuming that the ethical limits of the state and the individual are the same.

Actually, I'm assuming that ethical standards apply to all people equally.

I love this theory that government is moral when it does stuff that you and I would be condemned for doing.

I agree. And technically, government can't be moral or immoral. Government is simply an organization. It isn't a sentient actor. Because it can't act, it can't act ethically or unethically. It can't act in the first place.

People, not organizations, act, and ethical rules apply to all people equally.

You make a very good point. Ethics and morals apply to humans, not corporations or governments. The humans who exercise the power of a corporation or of government have special, heavy moral obligations because the institutions they control magnify the power of their moral behavior. Leaders of all organizations should be held to a higher standard that plain folks, with much stiffer penalties for bad acts.

We see government leaders who have taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution cheerfully violate the oath they made to their marriage partner. Such people should be barred from office. As Ross Perot put it speaking of Clinton, "If his wife can't trust him, why should i?"

 

[bripat9643]

You appear to be assuming that the ethical limits of the state and the individual are the same.

Actually, I'm assuming that ethical standards apply to all people equally.

I love this theory that government is moral when it does stuff that you and I would be condemned for doing.

I agree. And technically, government can't be moral or immoral. Government is simply an organization. It isn't a sentient actor. Because it can't act, it can't act ethically or unethically. It can't act in the first place.

People, not organizations, act, and ethical rules apply to all people equally.

You make a very good point. Ethics and morals apply to humans, not corporations or governments. The humans who exercise the power of a corporation or of government have special, heavy moral obligations because the institutions they control magnify the power of their moral behavior. Leaders of all organizations should be held to a higher standard that plain folks, with much stiffer penalties for bad acts.

We see government leaders who have taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution cheerfully violate the oath they made to their marriage partner. Such people should be barred from office. As Ross Perot put it speaking of Clinton, "If his wife can't trust him, why should i?"

Taxing people is a "bad act." It's indistinguishable from theft. End of story.

 

[Fishlore]

You appear to be assuming that the ethical limits of the state and the individual are the same.

Actually, I'm assuming that ethical standards apply to all people equally.

I love this theory that government is moral when it does stuff that you and I would be condemned for doing.

No you don't love it at all. You hate it. When the government decides to build a road across your land, it can force you to sell. You can't do that if you want to redirect your driveway.

If the government decides that homeless vets need help, it can make you pay taxes to help them. You have no such power to make me pay for your good idea, and if you try, it is a crime.

Get serious and think before you rant. It helps.

 

[Centinel]

You appear to be assuming that the ethical limits of the state and the individual are the same.

Actually, I'm assuming that ethical standards apply to all people equally.

I love this theory that government is moral when it does stuff that you and I would be condemned for doing.

I agree. And technically, government can't be moral or immoral. Government is simply an organization. It isn't a sentient actor. Because it can't act, it can't act ethically or unethically. It can't act in the first place.

People, not organizations, act, and ethical rules apply to all people equally.

You make a very good point. Ethics and morals apply to humans, not corporations or governments. The humans who exercise the power of a corporation or of government have special, heavy moral obligations because the institutions they control magnify the power of their moral behavior. Leaders of all organizations should be held to a higher standard that plain folks, with much stiffer penalties for bad acts.

We see government leaders who have taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution cheerfully violate the oath they made to their marriage partner. Such people should be barred from office. As Ross Perot put it speaking of Clinton, "If his wife can't trust him, why should i?"

I agree that ethics apply to people, not organizations. And ethical rules apply to all people equally, despite what organizations they belong to.

 

[Centinel]

You appear to be assuming that the ethical limits of the state and the individual are the same.

Actually, I'm assuming that ethical standards apply to all people equally.

I love this theory that government is moral when it does stuff that you and I would be condemned for doing.

No you don't love it at all. You hate it. When the government decides to build a road across your land, it can force you to sell. You can't do that if you want to redirect your driveway.

If the government decides that homeless vets need help, it can make you pay taxes to help them. You have no such power to make me pay for your good idea, and if you try, it is a crime.

Get serious and think before you rant. It helps.

But this is the point. It's not ethical for a person to force another person to sell his land. Nor is it ethical for one person to extort money in order to pay for something he considers a noble cause.

Ethical laws apply to all people equally.

 

[bripat9643]

You appear to be assuming that the ethical limits of the state and the individual are the same.

Actually, I'm assuming that ethical standards apply to all people equally.

I love this theory that government is moral when it does stuff that you and I would be condemned for doing.

No you don't love it at all. You hate it. When the government decides to build a road across your land, it can force you to sell. You can't do that if you want to redirect your driveway.

If the government decides that homeless vets need help, it can make you pay taxes to help them. You have no such power to make me pay for your good idea, and if you try, it is a crime.

Get serious and think before you rant. It helps.

You're obviously a moron who doesn't recognize obvious sarcasm when he sees it.

 

[Fishlore]

You appear to be assuming that the ethical limits of the state and the individual are the same.

Actually, I'm assuming that ethical standards apply to all people equally.

I love this theory that government is moral when it does stuff that you and I would be condemned for doing.

No you don't love it at all. You hate it. When the government decides to build a road across your land, it can force you to sell. You can't do that if you want to redirect your driveway.

If the government decides that homeless vets need help, it can make you pay taxes to help them. You have no such power to make me pay for your good idea, and if you try, it is a crime.

Get serious and think before you rant. It helps.

But this is the point. It's not ethical for a person to force another person to sell his land. Nor is it ethical for one person to extort money in order to pay for something he considers a noble cause.

Ethical laws apply to all people equally.

Eminent domain is an interesting example of an area where government and citizen have fundamentally different powers. Your right to your land is no greater and no less than my right to my land. The government, however, has a right our lands that supercedes our own rights. This is because our right to property comes from the government and can, under specified conditions, be revoked as necessary for the greater good of the community. The government also has the right to take away your life or liberty. I don't. It's all rather simple really, once you grasp the social nature of the human animal.

 

[Fishlore]

You appear to be assuming that the ethical limits of the state and the individual are the same.

Actually, I'm assuming that ethical standards apply to all people equally.

I love this theory that government is moral when it does stuff that you and I would be condemned for doing.

No you don't love it at all. You hate it. When the government decides to build a road across your land, it can force you to sell. You can't do that if you want to redirect your driveway.

If the government decides that homeless vets need help, it can make you pay taxes to help them. You have no such power to make me pay for your good idea, and if you try, it is a crime.

Get serious and think before you rant. It helps.

You're obviously a moron who doesn't recognize obvious sarcasm when he sees it.

An interesting analysis from a little boy who obviously takes great pleasure in vulgar insults. You aren't expecting to be taken seriously are you?

 

[Centinel]

Eminent domain is an interesting example of an area where government and citizen have fundamentally different powers. Your right to your land is no greater and no less than my right to my land. The government, however, has a right our lands that supercedes our own rights. This is because our right to property comes from the government and can, under specified conditions, be revoked as necessary for the greater good of the community. The government also has the right to take away your life or liberty. I don't. It's all rather simple really, once you grasp the social nature of the human animal.

The government is an organized group of people. None of those people has an ethical justification for taking anyone's property. Ethical laws apply to all people equally.

 

[regent]

Eminent domain is an interesting example of an area where government and citizen have fundamentally different powers. Your right to your land is no greater and no less than my right to my land. The government, however, has a right our lands that supercedes our own rights. This is because our right to property comes from the government and can, under specified conditions, be revoked as necessary for the greater good of the community. The government also has the right to take away your life or liberty. I don't. It's all rather simple really, once you grasp the social nature of the human animal.

The government is an organized group of people. None of those people has an ethical justification for taking anyone's property. Ethical laws apply to all people equally.

Who makes the ethical laws?

 

[bripat9643]

Eminent domain is an interesting example of an area where government and citizen have fundamentally different powers. Your right to your land is no greater and no less than my right to my land. The government, however, has a right our lands that supercedes our own rights. This is because our right to property comes from the government and can, under specified conditions, be revoked as necessary for the greater good of the community. The government also has the right to take away your life or liberty. I don't. It's all rather simple really, once you grasp the social nature of the human animal.

The government is an organized group of people. None of those people has an ethical justification for taking anyone's property. Ethical laws apply to all people equally.

Who makes the ethical laws?

Whether a law is ethical doesn't depend on who makes it.

 

[regent]

Eminent domain is an interesting example of an area where government and citizen have fundamentally different powers. Your right to your land is no greater and no less than my right to my land. The government, however, has a right our lands that supercedes our own rights. This is because our right to property comes from the government and can, under specified conditions, be revoked as necessary for the greater good of the community. The government also has the right to take away your life or liberty. I don't. It's all rather simple really, once you grasp the social nature of the human animal.

The government is an organized group of people. None of those people has an ethical justification for taking anyone's property. Ethical laws apply to all people equally.

Who makes the ethical laws?

Whether a law is ethical doesn't depend on who makes it.

So who decides if a law is ethical or not ethical?

 

[bripat9643]

Eminent domain is an interesting example of an area where government and citizen have fundamentally different powers. Your right to your land is no greater and no less than my right to my land. The government, however, has a right our lands that supercedes our own rights. This is because our right to property comes from the government and can, under specified conditions, be revoked as necessary for the greater good of the community. The government also has the right to take away your life or liberty. I don't. It's all rather simple really, once you grasp the social nature of the human animal.

The government is an organized group of people. None of those people has an ethical justification for taking anyone's property. Ethical laws apply to all people equally.

Who makes the ethical laws?

Whether a law is ethical doesn't depend on who makes it.

So who decides if a law is ethical or not ethical?

Logic and reason decide it. Who decides what the law of gravity is?

 

[regent]

Eminent domain is an interesting example of an area where government and citizen have fundamentally different powers. Your right to your land is no greater and no less than my right to my land. The government, however, has a right our lands that supercedes our own rights. This is because our right to property comes from the government and can, under specified conditions, be revoked as necessary for the greater good of the community. The government also has the right to take away your life or liberty. I don't. It's all rather simple really, once you grasp the social nature of the human animal.

The government is an organized group of people. None of those people has an ethical justification for taking anyone's property. Ethical laws apply to all people equally.

Who makes the ethical laws?

Whether a law is ethical doesn't depend on who makes it.

So who decides if a law is ethical or not ethical?

Logic and reason decide it. Who decides what the law of gravity is?

Newton and other scientists. Interesting because the law of gravity had an influence on America and our revolution, But back to logic and reason, who decides the logic and reason, and who decides if the logic and reason are logical and reasonable?

 

[Centinel]

So who decides if a law is ethical or not ethical?

People do, using logic and reason.

No person has an ethical justification for taking another's property just because he wants it.