Is it Moral to steal

[Charles_Main]

You can force someone to be charitable it's called socialism

 

[Diuretic]

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.

So it's about tax after all. Some people want to conflate taxation with theft. They're entitled to their opinion.

 

[Diuretic]

You can force someone to be charitable it's called socialism

Nope, that's not socialism - but I reckon you know that.

 

[LOki]

So it's about tax after all.

No.

Some people want to conflate taxation with theft.

See? The discussion is still about the morality of theft, which you insist can be moral within some context you still have not provided.

They're entitled to their opinion.

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.

 

[Diuretic]

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?

That's the opening post from RGS.

RGS followed up with:

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.

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

 

[editec]

Is it moral to call taxes stealing?

It is only if you're an anarchist.

It isn't if the same taxes you now calling stealing have paid your salary your whole life.

Context, folks.

 

[Ravi]

Damn. I guess that makes RGS one of the more immoral posters at USMB.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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

Wrong as usual. I have no problem with reasonable, fair taxation. Unfair taxation is what caused this Country to be formed in the first place. It is WRONG to take a HIGHER percent from one man because he has more than from another cause he has less.

Read the Constitution of the United States, it states taxation must be UNIFORM across the States, since we are a representative Republic that means Uniform amongst the people once we quit requiring the States to pay the bill and shifted it to the people individually.

 

[cbi0090]

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.

 

[editec]

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.

YES!

Just as every car needs brakes AND an engine, so too do we need people whose sympathies are for the status quo and people whose sympathies are for changing things when conditions change.

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.

People devoting their full attention to the mineutia of problems are apt to have a better handle on it than those who are judging everything through the lenses of their own philosophical prejudices, that is true.

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.

Some people are foolish enough to think our government is a monolith of like minded robots. CLEARLY they never read anything written by the players who were involved, or the historians who compile the record of how government is so often at odds with itself.

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.

Very sensible.

Governments are manned with people. People have their own prejudices, and people also make terrible mistakes.

Given the enormous power that our governments have (and must have in many cases) it is easy for some of us to think that governments are out of control.

But...try living in a place without the rule of law sometime and get back to me to report if in fact that experience was better or worse than the one we typically have here in America.

The price of civilization is our lose of absolute freedom, and the obligation to serve that civilization in whatever capacity one can find.

 

[Ninja]

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

HAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, it's our moral duty to give 40-year-old lard asses who haven't performed an honest day's work in their entire lives enough money to include ice cream in their monthly budget. It's our moral duty to subsidize morbid obesity.

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.

For Some Ohioans, Even Meat Is Out Of Reach : NPR