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

[Dragonlady]

Asking to reverse a transfer of wealth which has devastated the working poor and middle class is hardly communism or extremist.

Well if you're advocating government force be used to take people's property and transfer it to others that would certainly be unethical and unjust.

So you agree that the transfer of wealth from the middle class to the top, engineered by Reagan's New Deal was wrong.

 

[JoeNormal]

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.

And if anyone expects deeper thought than this from bripat, you'll be sadly disappointed.

 

[Dragonlady]

That's because Bripat has been brainwashed by right wing media. He actually believes their endless lies, and since he never leaves his mother's basement, he sits in the dark regurgitating them all for us.

 

[Centinel]

Asking to reverse a transfer of wealth which has devastated the working poor and middle class is hardly communism or extremist.

Well if you're advocating government force be used to take people's property and transfer it to others that would certainly be unethical and unjust.

So you agree that the transfer of wealth from the middle class to the top, engineered by Reagan's New Deal was wrong.

Not sure. Did it involve government force being used to take people's property and give it to others? If so, can you elaborate on what exactly was done?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

And if anyone expects deeper thought than this from bripat, you'll be sadly disappointed.

Don't think no one noticed that you made no effort to prove that taxation wasn't the same as theft.

 

[Dragonlady]

Don't think no one noticed that you made no effort to prove that taxation wasn't the same as theft.

The fact that this even has to be explained to you tells me you lack the most basic of education in regards to the economy and how it functions.

When you come home with your paycheck, do you get to keep it all for yourself? I have to pay for the roof over my head, the electricity, the gas, the water, phone, internet, and cable? These things aren't free.

Neither are the firemen, police, teachers, roads, schools, libraries, post offices, and the military which protects the country, and all of the services to protect its citizens, like courts of law, which determined disbutes between citizens and or corporation. When you pay your taxes, you are paying your share of the cost of providing services, both to your community and your country.

There are lots of countries where there are no taxes. They are among the poorest hell-holes on the planet. No infrastructure, no personal safety or security, and no social programs. As a result, crime is endemic, bribery and corruption abound, and the disease and pollution are intolerable. The are few jobs because corporations can't thrive without the court system, and protection of their assets, and a First World Infrastructure.

Taxes are the price you pay for living in a First World Country. Consider them your country club dues, asshole.

 

[bripat9643]

Don't think no one noticed that you made no effort to prove that taxation wasn't the same as theft.

The fact that this even has to be explained to you tells me you lack the most basic of education in regards to the economy and how it functions.

When you come home with your paycheck, do you get to keep it all for yourself? I have to pay for the roof over my head, the electricity, the gas, the water, phone, internet, and cable? These things aren't free.

Neither are the firemen, police, teachers, roads, schools, libraries, post offices, and the military which protects the country, and all of the services to protect its citizens, like courts of law, which determined disbutes between citizens and or corporation. When you pay your taxes, you are paying your share of the cost of providing services, both to your community and your country.

There are lots of countries where there are no taxes. They are among the poorest hell-holes on the planet. No infrastructure, no personal safety or security, and no social programs. As a result, crime is endemic, bribery and corruption abound, and the disease and pollution are intolerable. The are few jobs because corporations can't thrive without the court system, and protection of their assets, and a First World Infrastructure.

Taxes are the price you pay for living in a First World Country. Consider them your country club dues, asshole.

You have the cause/effect relationship backwards. Countries have no money for government services because crime is endemic, bribery and corruption abound. The biggest thieves of all work for the government. In Latin America, when you try to start a business, the first thing that happens is a long line of government officials come by with their hands out. That's why these countries are poor and have no jobs.

 

[rdean]

The Bush tax cuts were the first salvo in the major redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the top 1%.

 

[Little-Acorn]

So redistribution of wealth is about farmers stealing wallets.

When a liberal loses a debate, he often starts coming up with absurd fibs like this, in hopes of fooling someone into thinking they're true.

 

[JoeNormal]

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.

And if anyone expects deeper thought than this from bripat, you'll be sadly disappointed.

Don't think no one noticed that you made no effort to prove that taxation wasn't the same as theft.

We've had this conversation many times. You'll never get it.

 

[JoeNormal]

That's because Bripat has been brainwashed by right wing media. He actually believes their endless lies, and since he never leaves his mother's basement, he sits in the dark regurgitating them all for us.

Bripat is a software architect. A software architect with 57,000 posts.

 

[Centinel]

The Bush tax cuts were the first salvo in the major redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the top 1%.

Allowing someone to keep their money is redistribution? Can you explain?

 

[Little-Acorn]

The Bush tax cuts were the first salvo in the major redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the top 1%.

Allowing someone to keep their money is redistribution? Can you explain?

Once again little rdean is asked to explain what he said, and responds with....

.... silence.

 

[Fishlore]

The Bush tax cuts were the first salvo in the major redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the top 1%.

Allowing someone to keep their money is redistribution? Can you explain?

The cardio-vascular system of the human body is all about blood redistribution. The national economy is all about wealth distribution Wealth circulates through the economy like blood through the body. In both cases, when circulation stops, death follows.

In its circulation, blood passes through a number of organs, the lungs, the brain the heart the liver etc. In an economy, wealth circulates through various economic sectors pumped by an economic heart muscle which is the Federal Reserve banking system and the Federal Government. There are also fifty auxiliary hearts, the state governments.

Government is far and away the biggest purchaser of goods and services in the economy. It is the pumping action of taxing wealth in and spending it out that circulates a critical fraction of the national wealth. How that wealth is taxed in and spent out is the framework of economic activity and the prime shaper of American society.

Without study this true nature of the economy is not understood. It seems "common sense" to think of the government as just another customer, buying what it likes and sending the bills to whomever it thinks best. Thinking of the government as just a customer with a credit card makes it seem that government is just a burden on the economy and the taxpayers. The best government is the least government such "common sense" economists cry.

For centuries it was futile to suggest that the Earth travelled around the Sun. Anyone could, by just standing outside and looking up, see clearly that the Earth was not moving and the Sun was traveling across the sky from east to west each day. That was "common sense" astronomy. "Common sense" economics has much the same strengths and weaknesses.

 

[regent]

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)?

That's funny, you make the same exact arguments as the Von Mises crowd.

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.

It's obvious to any numskull that government redistributes income. It takes from some so it can give to others. Only the ignorant believe private property didn't exist before government. The Iroquois each had their own plot of land to farm on which they grew corn and other crops. They had no formal government. Did their land have no value? All the archeological evidence shows that farming originated before government. How would that be possible if farmers didn't own their land?

Ignoramuses often believe that the way things work now is the only way they can work. Comprehending that other solutions may be feasible is beyond their limited intellectual capacity.

So informal primitive government are OK?

 

[Little-Acorn]

The Bush tax cuts were the first salvo in the major redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the top 1%.

Allowing someone to keep their money is redistribution? Can you explain?

The cardio-vascular system of the human body is all about blood redistribution. The national economy is all about wealth distribution Wealth circulates through the economy like blood through the body. In both cases, when circulation stops, death follows.

In its circulation, blood passes through a number of organs, the lungs, the brain the heart the liver etc. In an economy, wealth circulates through various economic sectors pumped by an economic heart muscle which is the Federal Reserve banking system and the Federal Government. There are also fifty auxiliary hearts, the state governments.

Government is far and away the biggest purchaser of goods and services in the economy. It is the pumping action of taxing wealth in and spending it out that circulates a critical fraction of the national wealth. How that wealth is taxed in and spent out is the framework of economic activity and the prime shaper of American society.

Without study this true nature of the economy is not understood. It seems "common sense" to think of the government as just another customer, buying what it likes and sending the bills to whomever it thinks best. Thinking of the government as just a customer with a credit card makes it seem that government is just a burden on the economy and the taxpayers. The best government is the least government such "common sense" economists cry.

For centuries it was futile to suggest that the Earth travelled around the Sun. Anyone could, by just standing outside and looking up, see clearly that the Earth was not moving and the Sun was traveling across the sky from east to west each day. That was "common sense" astronomy. "Common sense" economics has much the same strengths and weaknesses.

One of the more ridiculous allegories.

Unsurprisingly, it comes from someone who considers government the main "beating heart" of a "system", instead of citizens being that beating heart.

This goes a long way toward explaining the source of this person's confusion.

 

[regent]

Can anyone name a nation, besides the Iroquois, that doesn't redistribute their wealth?

 

[Fishlore]

The Bush tax cuts were the first salvo in the major redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the top 1%.

Allowing someone to keep their money is redistribution? Can you explain?

The cardio-vascular system of the human body is all about blood redistribution. The national economy is all about wealth distribution Wealth circulates through the economy like blood through the body. In both cases, when circulation stops, death follows.

In its circulation, blood passes through a number of organs, the lungs, the brain the heart the liver etc. In an economy, wealth circulates through various economic sectors pumped by an economic heart muscle which is the Federal Reserve banking system and the Federal Government. There are also fifty auxiliary hearts, the state governments.

Government is far and away the biggest purchaser of goods and services in the economy. It is the pumping action of taxing wealth in and spending it out that circulates a critical fraction of the national wealth. How that wealth is taxed in and spent out is the framework of economic activity and the prime shaper of American society.

Without study this true nature of the economy is not understood. It seems "common sense" to think of the government as just another customer, buying what it likes and sending the bills to whomever it thinks best. Thinking of the government as just a customer with a credit card makes it seem that government is just a burden on the economy and the taxpayers. The best government is the least government such "common sense" economists cry.

For centuries it was futile to suggest that the Earth travelled around the Sun. Anyone could, by just standing outside and looking up, see clearly that the Earth was not moving and the Sun was traveling across the sky from east to west each day. That was "common sense" astronomy. "Common sense" economics has much the same strengths and weaknesses.

One of the more ridiculous allegories.

Unsurprisingly, it comes from someone who considers government the main "beating heart" of a "system", instead of citizens being that beating heart.

This goes a long way toward explaining the source of this person's confusion.

I like this alternative allegory much more than my own and I thank you so much for bringing to the discussion. When we think of America as a critter with three hundred million beating hearts and a handful of farting assholes, we realize how precious your contribution really is. Hundreds of millions of American hearts say, "thank you!"

 

[Centinel]

The cardio-vascular system of the human body is all about blood redistribution. The national economy is all about wealth distribution Wealth circulates through the economy like blood through the body. In both cases, when circulation stops, death follows.

In its circulation, blood passes through a number of organs, the lungs, the brain the heart the liver etc. In an economy, wealth circulates through various economic sectors pumped by an economic heart muscle which is the Federal Reserve banking system and the Federal Government. There are also fifty auxiliary hearts, the state governments.

Government is far and away the biggest purchaser of goods and services in the economy. It is the pumping action of taxing wealth in and spending it out that circulates a critical fraction of the national wealth. How that wealth is taxed in and spent out is the framework of economic activity and the prime shaper of American society.

Without study this true nature of the economy is not understood. It seems "common sense" to think of the government as just another customer, buying what it likes and sending the bills to whomever it thinks best. Thinking of the government as just a customer with a credit card makes it seem that government is just a burden on the economy and the taxpayers. The best government is the least government such "common sense" economists cry.

For centuries it was futile to suggest that the Earth travelled around the Sun. Anyone could, by just standing outside and looking up, see clearly that the Earth was not moving and the Sun was traveling across the sky from east to west each day. That was "common sense" astronomy. "Common sense" economics has much the same strengths and weaknesses.

I asked, "Allowing someone to keep their money is redistribution? Can you explain?" You didn't explain.

If I keep my money, nothing is being redistributed. How can you considered this 'redistribution'?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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?

Why do you not have 15 "winner" ribbons?

Conservatives are slacking