Charles_Main
AR15 Owner
You can force someone to be charitable it's called socialism
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.
I suspect that the real reason you say "it depends" has less to do with the length of your essay justifying theft for some, while denying to others, and more to do with you reluctance to face the conclusion that independent of context, theft is wrong.
Whether it's taxation or not, is not particularly relevent--the question is theft.
Unless you're asserting that theft is moral so long as it is called taxation; in which case I am pefectly willing to take issue with you, and it won't require an essay of any particularly significant length.
Says you. Theft is wrong; period.
Need does not mean entitlement. His need does not confer a right, particularly a right to the life product of another.
Absolutely not.
On what, EXACTLY?
Yes. We al have equal capacity to consume value; those with greater capacity to produce value should not be penalized for that capacity and are in no way obligated to those with lesser capacities, beyond those obligations which they freely agree to mutually.
You can force someone to be charitable it's called socialism
No.So it's about tax after all.
See? The discussion is still about the morality of theft, which you insist can be moral within some context you still have not provided.Some people want to conflate taxation with theft.
Yes, just like they're entitled to their assholes, but pointing out those entitlements still does not explain the context in which theft is moral.They're entitled to their opinion.
Is it Moral to steal one mans property to give to another man? Is it Moral to take MORE of one man's property because he has more, than another man's property for the common good?
Is it Moral to force those that can work and will work to pay for those that refuse to work?
Depends? Forcing one man to pay Higher tax percentage just because he makes more is always wrong. It is immoral as hell.
If it is wrong to force those that can work to pay for those that won't work, then taking more of one persons money then another is the same thing.
That's the opening post from RGS.
RGS followed up with:
The opening post was a stalking horse for the condemnation of taxes.
As I said, fine if someone wants to call taxation theft, they're entitled to their opinion.
Depends? Forcing one man to pay Higher tax percentage just because he makes more is always wrong. It is immoral as hell.
If it is wrong to force those that can work to pay for those that won't work, then taking more of one persons money then another is the same thing.
For a discussion of the morality of theft - I opened a thread:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/55551-can-theft-be-moral.html#post722276
The struggle between those people who want to be "free" and the government is one that, hopefully, will always continue. You can't have a point of compromise without opposing views. As long as the means to oppose exists, then we have a raucous but healthy situation.
People working within the government can't help but come to the conclusion that they know what is best for everyone. Everyday details that the public has no or little knowledge of and are too complicated to explain in a sound bite contribute to their thinking and conclusion that it's just best if they make the decisions.
But they also forget that many of those obstacles are self-imposed. The government, at least here in the U.S., is not a cohesive system that operates in harmony. Various departments voraciously compete with one another and many policies, often disguised as something that is for the good of the people, are really tactical manuevers to position one's department or agency into strongere positions of power or funding.
There will always be those within the government who believe they know best and push for a socialist agenda and they aren't always Democrat. Hopefully, there will always be those within the private sector who resist that urge and push to limit government. As long as we have a market economy those two forces will remain at odds and that is a good thing.
the small amount that goes to a family in need is just that, a small amount. I personally think it is our duty as moral beings to support those in need
The rising cost of food means their money gets them about a third fewer bags of groceries — $100 used to buy about 12 bags of groceries, but now it's more like seven or eight. So they cut back on expensive items like meat, and they don't buy extras like ice cream anymore. Instead, they eat a lot of starches like potatoes and noodles.