Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
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.
Strange that you have no problem at all where YOUR MONEY was REDISTRIBUTED as "tax cuts" to the wealthy elite "job creators". Furthermore none of the "jobs" that they were supposed to "create" ever materialized either. So basically the wealthy elite have stolen $1+ Trillion of YOUR MONEY and given you NOTHING in exchange.
Why aren't you holding them accountable for stealing from you?
If you're an America Citizen everything in the Constitution applies to you. Also, all taxes were approved and passed by the Legislative Branch of Government and signed into Law by the President. If you do not like how you are being taxed, and the folks that represent you voted for things you do not like (e.g. Obamacare) work to vote the bastards out. That is your only recourse. Otherwise, the laws apply to you, whether you were alive or not.
The Government has the power to tax anyway they like under the Commerce Clause. We the People ratified that power under the Constitution. Sorry if you don't like it, but that is the way it is.
According to bripat he doesn't have any 2nd amendment rights because he never personally consented to the terms of the Constitution therefore We the People can take away his guns.Bet he never thought of that when he made that inane post.
However if he has ever registered to vote, nevermind actually voted, he has tacitly accepted the social contract as defined by the Constitution and is thereby bound by the terms and conditions.
The fact that you have decided to remain a citizen of a land where the Supreme Law of the Land authorizes the government to collect taxes, means that you HAVE agreed to that taxation..
Wrong. As I said previously, the federal government doesn't own the United States. Living in a given location doesn't constitute consent to anything, especially to third parties. When you rent an apartment, you sign a lease. You give your consent explicitly to pay rent. The kind of "consent" you are talking about is what a Mafioso extortion racket enforces. It claims a business "consents" to pay for "protection" because it decided to locate on the turf of the extortion racket. Your theory of "consent" is indistinguishable from the Mafioso definition of the term. It's the ethical system of a criminal enterprise.
Yes, those are the choices the government extortion racket imposes on me. However, they still do not constitute any form of consent. What you're saying is that if a mugger gives you a choice of handing over your wallet or taking a bullet, then you have consented to taking a bullet when you decline to hand over your wallet.
Again, that's the ethical system of organized crime.
Would you call the entire Constitution null and void, since it was written and ratified before you (and any other American citizen alive today) were born, and so did not get your personal blessing?
Yes, I would call it null and void. No person in this country is ethically bound by any terms in the Constitution. I never consented to it. How could I? I wasn't even born when it was adopted.
If you would like more information on this subject, read "Constitution of no Authority" by Lysander Spooner.
That has to be the DUMBEST response I have ever seen in this forum.
You are a typical libertarian freeloader. You want all the benefits of US citizenship without paying.Wrong. As I said previously, the federal government doesn't own the United States. Living in a given location doesn't constitute consent to anything, especially to third parties. When you rent an apartment, you sign a lease. You give your consent explicitly to pay rent. The kind of "consent" you are talking about is what a Mafioso extortion racket enforces. It claims a business "consents" to pay for "protection" because it decided to locate on the turf of the extortion racket. Your theory of "consent" is indistinguishable from the Mafioso definition of the term. It's the ethical system of a criminal enterprise.
Yes, those are the choices the government extortion racket imposes on me. However, they still do not constitute any form of consent. What you're saying is that if a mugger gives you a choice of handing over your wallet or taking a bullet, then you have consented to taking a bullet when you decline to hand over your wallet.
Again, that's the ethical system of organized crime.
Yes, I would call it null and void. No person in this country is ethically bound by any terms in the Constitution. I never consented to it. How could I? I wasn't even born when it was adopted.
If you would like more information on this subject, read "Constitution of no Authority" by Lysander Spooner.
You live in the US. You're protected by its military, clean air regs, clean water regs, you have roads, your internet, you have cell phones, you have public education, libraries, inoculations, a criminal justice system, a post office, student loans, the g i bill, hell even the very money you carry is government issued, etc, yet you waltz in here like the world is your oyster and you're owed everything for free.
Stop being a selfish teenager and pay your dues like the rest of us.
Yup, and stay the hell away from Yellowstone Park. And Yosemite too. Sure hell as don't go to Rapid City, SoDak and no Grand Canyon. No national parks for BritPat. He probably would like to sell them all off to foreign investors.
That's funny, you make the same exact arguments as the Von Mises crowd.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)?
So what exactly is government redistributing? Is it apples? I hate to repeat myself but you've gone to the Arthur Murray school of debating. Tap dancing around the subject matter.
The farmers deed to his property has value b/c the US government makes it so. No deed. No ownership.
I have yet to see you counter this simple observation: But for the federal government and US constitution and laws thereof, your farmer has no property rights, no farmland, no apples to sell.
RightDown, your are right on.
Strange that you have no problem at all where YOUR MONEY was REDISTRIBUTED as "tax cuts" to the wealthy elite "job creators". Furthermore none of the "jobs" that they were supposed to "create" ever materialized either. So basically the wealthy elite have stolen $1+ Trillion of YOUR MONEY and given you NOTHING in exchange.
Why aren't you holding them accountable for stealing from you?
Why aren't you holding Obama accountable for it?
The OP is talking about holding accountable the people who took his money and reneged on their side of the exchange.
Looks like we have another liberal who disagrees with the Declaration of Independence, which says we have certain unalienable rights, and that they come from our Creator.In the USA, all property rights are created by the government. That's a fact.
When is your flight leaving for Cuba, France or Iran? They disagree, too. You'd be right at home there.
Back to the subject:
If a government has no authorization to spend tax money by handing it to people who did nothing to earn it, is the act of doing that, any different from "theft and distribution of stolen goods", in any important way?
Since no 'Creator' is on record ever establishing and delineating any inalienable rights, the statements in the D of I are nothing more than opinions and wishes.
As to the authorization of the government to spend tax money -
we have a government of the People, and that is in the actual governing document, and therefore the People hold the power and the right to authorize the government to raise and spend taxes as the People see fit.
That is irrefutable fact.
Boss sits on his ass doing nothing but collecting money off of others hard work.
This is one of the more common fibs that socialists use to justify the theft that's at the core of their agenda - the silly notion that bosses do nothing.
The socialists and other liberals in this thread, are finding an amazing number of ways to change the subject and not talk about the actual topic of the thread.
Back to the subject:
Government redistribution of wealth is where the govt takes money from people who earn more, and give it to people who did not earn it.
If a government has no authorization to spend tax money by handing it to people who did nothing to earn it, is the act of doing that, any different from "theft and distribution of stolen goods", in any important way?
If the workers are the ones selling the stuff they should get a large part of the profit instead a lousy minimum wage while their "supervisors" who did less of the work get nice bonus's and higher wage.
In the US, the government is by and for the people. The government creates all rights and laws.In the USA, all property rights are created by the government. That's a fact.
Oh, I forgot, you live in the Iroquois nation. hahahaha
But you don't. and the rest is just more of your meandering ramblings.
The Government creates nothing. All law in this Republic is derived from We the People....not the Government. That includes both tax law and basic property rights. Taxation as a form of wealth redistribution is either implied in the Constitution or directly approved by We the People. As a result it is not theft if We the People sanctioned it.
If We the People don't like how the Government is taxing us (ex. Obamacare) we can vote the bastards out. I think many will get voted out next November. That is how our system of Government works. So I guess to sum up, I sort of half agree with you.
How can one worry about the redistribution of goods to the poor when it is so very very obvious that the money migrates in exactly the opposite direction?
One can either be a fool or tool, that's how.
If the far left had their way all money would go to government and then the government would decide what you are worth to them.
How can one worry about the redistribution of goods to the poor when it is so very very obvious that the money migrates in exactly the opposite direction?
One can either be a fool or tool, that's how.
You have to be suffering from brain damage not to understand who are the primary beneficiaries of government transfer payments.
If the far left had their way all money would go to government and then the government would decide what you are worth to them.
that is how it is in the socialist utopias.
nothing good comes out of it - the system is not viable and eventually collapses.
Neither has received billion$ in taxpayer subsidies over the past century, unlike fossil fuels.How about wind and solar, or maybe there isn't sufficient profit in metering the sun?Turn loose our own energy resources....oh wait...I know Global Warming and all that crap, you can't.
Neither has proven to be a viable alternative on a macro scale, pretty simple.
If the far left had their way all money would go to government and then the government would decide what you are worth to them.
that is how it is in the socialist utopias.
nothing good comes out of it - the system is not viable and eventually collapses.
As opposed to those other systems where all of the money ends up in the hands of the wealthy elite and the outcome is widespread poverty and brutal oppression followed by a revolution.
Yeah ? Upon WHAT do you base that statement ? I would guess it to be just the opposite.
He bases it on the laws of economics.
A law is not a basis for a quantitative fact. Either the majority of workers are paid what they're worth or they're being paid less than that. Part of this revolves around the meaning of the word worth. It isn't just what the worker is "worth" to the employer. It is also the intrinsic worth of every human being, and what they SHOULD be entitled to receive. For 40 hours a weeks I'd saying that would be a living wage (that wage than can afford them a "living".
Neither has received billion$ in taxpayer subsidies over the past century, unlike fossil fuels.How about wind and solar, or maybe there isn't sufficient profit in metering the sun?
Neither has proven to be a viable alternative on a macro scale, pretty simple.
Even simpler.
He bases it on the laws of economics.
A law is not a basis for a quantitative fact. Either the majority of workers are paid what they're worth or they're being paid less than that. Part of this revolves around the meaning of the word worth. It isn't just what the worker is "worth" to the employer. It is also the intrinsic worth of every human being, and what they SHOULD be entitled to receive. For 40 hours a weeks I'd saying that would be a living wage (that wage than can afford them a "living".
The laws of economics are like the laws of physics. If you don't like them: too bad.
that is how it is in the socialist utopias.
nothing good comes out of it - the system is not viable and eventually collapses.
As opposed to those other systems where all of the money ends up in the hands of the wealthy elite and the outcome is widespread poverty and brutal oppression followed by a revolution.
What other system is that? Under capitalism, the quality of life for the average man improved by leaps and bounds. In the year 1800, the average lifespan was 34. Now it's 78. Today even people on welfare own a car, a refrigerator, air conditioning, electricity, an auto mobile, a cell phone and a flat screen TV.
These are all products of capitalism and would have all been viewed as fantastic luxuries in 1800.
Your claim is obvious horseshit. It always has been. Nevertheless, the left keeps promoting this lie.
As opposed to those other systems where all of the money ends up in the hands of the wealthy elite and the outcome is widespread poverty and brutal oppression followed by a revolution.
What other system is that? Under capitalism, the quality of life for the average man improved by leaps and bounds. In the year 1800, the average lifespan was 34. Now it's 78. Today even people on welfare own a car, a refrigerator, air conditioning, electricity, an auto mobile, a cell phone and a flat screen TV.
These are all products of capitalism and would have all been viewed as fantastic luxuries in 1800.
Your claim is obvious horseshit. It always has been. Nevertheless, the left keeps promoting this lie.
Will you ever get your nomenclature in order?
Capitalism has been around since Adam and Eve.
If circumstances dictate, our Federal and State Constitutions ALLOW for redistribution of assets and income.
If you find this distasteful, get behind a movement to change those Constitutions.
