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

[National Socialist]

I see absolutely no problem with the actual workers getting a fair share of all profits etc. Why should they have to bust their ass to make minimum wage and depend on welfare to get by while the fat cats sit in their corner offices with the sky view and rake in millions and billions? When it comes to economics I am 100% a socialist. I absolutely can not stand capitalism its for the rich by the rich to exploit the poor.

submit your American citizenship and ask asylum in North Korea.

Shall we take a lesson in political ideologies there Vox? I said Socialist not Communist you nimrod. Also I am a National Socialist.

You are a pathetic brainwashed moron.

Not hardly. You would be brainwashed if you don't think workers have a right to the profits they helped make by selling the items for the big bosses...50/50.

You're just proving the accuracy of my assessment of your intellect.

Well I am sure glad you think your opinion of me matters.

 

[georgephillip]

It IS.
and that is why when it happens - the violence is employed.
as history of the XX century has proved.

MILLIONS perish. And in the very end it still DOES NOT WORK.
and those societies crumble and have to revert to the old good proven to work capitalism.

How many millions of people did capitalism kill in the 20th Century?

Virtually none. In fact, capitalism saved millions of lives. We live a lot longer now because of capitalism. We also work a lot less and enjoy life a lot more.

Are you saying capitalism had nothing to do with WWI and WWII?

"Estimated to be 10 million military dead, 7 million civilian deaths, 21 million wounded, and 7.7 million missing or imprisoned. (in WWI)

"Over 60 million people died in World War II. Estimated deaths range from 50-80 million. 38 to 55 million civilians were killed, including 13 to 20 million from war-related disease and famine.

World War I vs World War II - Difference and Comparison | Diffen

BTW, we work a lot less and enjoy life a lot more today because of the struggle of the working class against capitalism, not because of capitalism.

 

[bripat9643]

It's theft only if you reject the principle that a government of the People can establish a set of laws, that include deciding what is legal and what isn't.

I reject it. Government has no authority over me.

Then you're not the constitutionalist you claim to be.

When have I ever claimed to be a constitutionalist, whatever that nebulous phrase is supposed to mean?

 

[bripat9643]

How many millions of people did capitalism kill in the 20th Century?

Virtually none. In fact, capitalism saved millions of lives. We live a lot longer now because of capitalism. We also work a lot less and enjoy life a lot more.

Are you saying capitalism had nothing to do with WWI and WWII?

"Estimated to be 10 million military dead, 7 million civilian deaths, 21 million wounded, and 7.7 million missing or imprisoned. (in WWI)

"Over 60 million people died in World War II. Estimated deaths range from 50-80 million. 38 to 55 million civilians were killed, including 13 to 20 million from war-related disease and famine.

World War I vs World War II - Difference and Comparison | Diffen

BTW, we work a lot less and enjoy life a lot more today because of the struggle of the working class against capitalism, not because of capitalism.

How did capitalism cause WWI or WWII?

 

[georgephillip]

Using the logic of your original thread ALL GOVERNMENT is no more than theft and distribution of stolen goods.

How could it be otherwise since NONE OF US gets a chance to opt out of government?

This is the basical underylying premise of ALL ANARCHISTS.

GOVERNMENT-- all government -- is basically nothing more than organized violence controlled by the powerful.


And ya know...try as I might, I find it rather difficult to entire refute that argument[/SIZE]

Keeping in mind the fact that all governments yet devised existed to serve their richest citizens at the expense of their majority, I think you and the anarchists are exactly correct. I'm not nearly as certain of what the results would be if a government ever came into existence behind a wall of separation between itself and all influences of private wealth...

Such a thing simply isn't possible, which is one reason government should be abolished.

Why not use direct democracy to expropriate all private wealth beyond a certain democratically agreed upon level and fund all elections with public money?

 

[rdean]

Redistribution of wealth:

1. Bush tax cuts for the rich

2. Oil Subsidies

3. Farm subsidies

4. Tax write off's for the wealthy

Those are what drive redistribution of wealth

 

[bripat9643]

I see absolutely no problem with the actual workers getting a fair share of all profits etc. Why should they have to bust their ass to make minimum wage and depend on welfare to get by while the fat cats sit in their corner offices with the sky view and rake in millions and billions? When it comes to economics I am 100% a socialist. I absolutely can not stand capitalism its for the rich by the rich to exploit the poor.

You are a pathetic brainwashed moron.

Not hardly. You would be brainwashed if you don't think workers have a right to the profits they helped make by selling the items for the big bosses...50/50.

They have no rights to the profits. They only have rights to what they agreed to in their employment contract.

 

[The T]

I see absolutely no problem with the actual workers getting a fair share of all profits etc. Why should they have to bust their ass to make minimum wage and depend on welfare to get by while the fat cats sit in their corner offices with the sky view and rake in millions and billions? When it comes to economics I am 100% a socialist. I absolutely can not stand capitalism its for the rich by the rich to exploit the poor.

You are a pathetic brainwashed moron.

Not hardly. You would be brainwashed if you don't think workers have a right to the profits they helped make by selling the items for the big bosses...50/50.

Not their money NOR is it yours.

 

[bripat9643]

Keeping in mind the fact that all governments yet devised existed to serve their richest citizens at the expense of their majority, I think you and the anarchists are exactly correct. I'm not nearly as certain of what the results would be if a government ever came into existence behind a wall of separation between itself and all influences of private wealth...

Such a thing simply isn't possible, which is one reason government should be abolished.

Why not use direct democracy to expropriate all private wealth beyond a certain democratically agreed upon level and fund all elections with public money?

Because I'm opposed to organized plunder. Socialism has never worked and it never will.

 

[georgephillip]

it is.
and that is why when it happens - the violence is employed.
As history of the xx century has proved.

Millions perish. And in the very end it still does not work.
And those societies crumble and have to revert to the old good proven to work capitalism.

how many millions of people did capitalism kill in the 20th century?

none

Millions.

"Can we talk about the massacre of millions of the native peoples by European settlers in the Americas and other lands such as Australia?

"What about the brutality of slavery? The millions of lives lost on the journey from Africa and subsequently in horrific conditions in the New World?

"Let's not forget the brutal colonization of African countries, which caused untold misery and led to the death of millions - 10 million in the Congo alone.

"What about the World Wars? Were they not predominantly wars between capitalist nations?

"What about the Holocaust? Was Nazi Germany not capitalist?

"Let's talk about US interventionism that has directly and indirectly killed millions in Korea, Vietnam and most recently, Iraq. What about the dirty wars funded and backed by the US in Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, pretty much most of Latin America? What of the brutality of capitalist regimes like US-backed Suharto in Indonesia that massacred between 0.5-1 million people?

"What about the 7-8 million that have died in the Congo due to the various proxy wars of Western capitalist powers?"

Daily Kos: Death by capitalism

 

[Indeependent]

Such a thing simply isn't possible, which is one reason government should be abolished.

Why not use direct democracy to expropriate all private wealth beyond a certain democratically agreed upon level and fund all elections with public money?

Because I'm opposed to organized plunder. Socialism has never worked and it never will.

Can you please define Socialism.
Even China has people who own private businesses; they simply surrender their voting rights.
You think Germany is so much more of a mess than the US?
The US has more than it's fair amount of Socialism and is not much better or worse off than many other nations.

It's corruption that ruins every system.

 

[ShawnChris13]

The government has been redistributing wealth for several decades. Neither party has done anything to stop the taxation of the masses in order to pay for the poor. Republicans claim to be fiscally conservative, yet every ten years they have a new idea for helping those 'in need'. And of course Democrats just believe money grows out of thin air and blank checks are acceptable. As long as they can steal your rights they're happy to pay a meager salary to the poor, for being poor.

 

[rdean]

The government has been redistributing wealth for several decades. Neither party has done anything to stop the taxation of the masses in order to pay for the poor. Republicans claim to be fiscally conservative, yet every ten years they have a new idea for helping those 'in need'. And of course Democrats just believe money grows out of thin air and blank checks are acceptable. As long as they can steal your rights they're happy to pay a meager salary to the poor, for being poor.

Republicans love to attack the poor as the "problem". Let me say it again:

Redistribution of wealth:

1. Bush tax cuts for the rich

2. Oil Subsidies

3. Farm subsidies

4. Tax write off's for the wealthy

That's the true redistribution of wealth. Get this, the Red States are terrible economic failures and the only thing that keeps them from going bankrupt is the infusion of money from Blue States.

 

[protectionist]

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?

Suppose you work for somebody (not because you want to, but because it's the best job you can find), and the boss pays you far less than the work you are giving him is worth. Suppose you're busting your ass, and even supplying a pretty good skill, and he's still paying you just minimum wage.

So the difference between what he SHOULD be paying you and what he IS paying you, in essence, he is STEALING from you.

So when his taxes are raised, and that wealth is redistributed back to you, that is like if that boss, a thief, grabbed your wallet, ran away with it, you chased after him, tackled him, and took back your wallet > are you stealing from him ? No ? Same thing with redistribution of wealth. He stole from you. You are taking back what was really was YOURS to begin with, which he stole from you, by underpaying you.

 

[bripat9643]

how many millions of people did capitalism kill in the 20th century?

none

Millions.

"Can we talk about the massacre of millions of the native peoples by European settlers in the Americas and other lands such as Australia?

How do you justify attributing that to capitalism?

"What about the brutality of slavery? The millions of lives lost on the journey from Africa and subsequently in horrific conditions in the New World?

Capitalism doesn't require slavery. In fact, it doesn't even function well where slaver is legal. Slavery has been around for 10,000 years, so how did capitalism become responsible for it?

"Let's not forget the brutal colonization of African countries, which caused untold misery and led to the death of millions - 10 million in the Congo alone.

You're confusing imperialism with capitalism. The later doesn't imply the former. Imperialism has existed for thousands of years. The Romans and the Greeks practiced it with efficiency and gusto.

"What about the World Wars? Were they not predominantly wars between capitalist nations?

WWI was, but many of the belligerents in WW II were socialists. Leaving that aside, the fact that a capitalist country goes to war isn't proof that capitalism caused the war. Countries practicing every economic system imaginable have gone to war. Attributing war to capitalism is obviously a stretch.

"What about the Holocaust? Was Nazi Germany not capitalist?

No, it wasn't.

"Let's talk about US interventionism that has directly and indirectly killed millions in Korea, Vietnam and most recently, Iraq. What about the dirty wars funded and backed by the US in Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, pretty much most of Latin America? What of the brutality of capitalist regimes like US-backed Suharto in Indonesia that massacred between 0.5-1 million people?

The Korean war was started by the North Koreans. The Vietnam War was instigated by the North Vietnamese. The so-called "dirty wars" you refer to were instigated by the Soviet Union who funded and armed the communists involved in the squabbles.

"What about the 7-8 million that have died in the Congo due to the various proxy wars of Western capitalist powers?"

The Soviet Union armed and funded the instigators of that war.

 

[ShawnChris13]

The government has been redistributing wealth for several decades. Neither party has done anything to stop the taxation of the masses in order to pay for the poor. Republicans claim to be fiscally conservative, yet every ten years they have a new idea for helping those 'in need'. And of course Democrats just believe money grows out of thin air and blank checks are acceptable. As long as they can steal your rights they're happy to pay a meager salary to the poor, for being poor.

Republicans love to attack the poor as the "problem". Let me say it again:



Redistribution of wealth:



1. Bush tax cuts for the rich



2. Oil Subsidies



3. Farm subsidies



4. Tax write off's for the wealthy



That's the true redistribution of wealth. Get this, the Red States are terrible economic failures and the only thing that keeps them from going bankrupt is the infusion of money from Blue States.

Woah there, guy. Not a Republican. But if you want to say California is doing better than Texas then I'm afraid you are sadly mistaken. Just do a google search or something. And read my post next time before you copy and paste meaningless drivel.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

Suppose you work for somebody (not because you want to, but because it's the best job you can find), and the boss pays you far less than the work you are giving him is worth. Suppose you're busting your ass, and even supplying a pretty good skill, and he's still paying you just minimum wage.

So the difference between what he SHOULD be paying you and what he IS paying you, in essence, he is STEALING from you.

So when his taxes are raised, and that wealth is redistributed back to you, that is like if that boss, a thief, grabbed your wallet, ran away with it, you chased after him, tackled him, and took back your wallet > are you stealing from him ? No ? Same thing with redistribution of wealth. He stole from you. You are taking back what was really was YOURS to begin with, which he stole from you, by underpaying you.

First you would have to demonstrate that your work is worth more than what your boss is paying you. If it was, you could easily get a better paying job elsewhere. The fact that you can't indicates that you're getting paid pretty close to what you're worth. Even if you weren't, that's the amount you agreed to. That isn't stealing.

The wealthy haven't stolen a thing from anyone, so your theory is pure horseshit.

 

[ShawnChris13]

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?

Suppose you work for somebody (not because you want to, but because it's the best job you can find), and the boss pays you far less than the work you are giving him is worth. Suppose you're busting your ass, and even supplying a pretty good skill, and he's still paying you just minimum wage.

So the difference between what he SHOULD be paying you and what he IS paying you, in essence, he is STEALING from you.

So when his taxes are raised, and that wealth is redistributed back to you, that is like if that boss, a thief, grabbed your wallet, ran away with it, you chased after him, tackled him, and took back your wallet > are you stealing from him ? No ? Same thing with redistribution of wealth. He stole from you. You are taking back what was really was YOURS to begin with, which he stole from you, by underpaying you.

It's safe to assume that the majority of workers are paid what they're worth.

 

[Indeependent]

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?

Suppose you work for somebody (not because you want to, but because it's the best job you can find), and the boss pays you far less than the work you are giving him is worth. Suppose you're busting your ass, and even supplying a pretty good skill, and he's still paying you just minimum wage.

So the difference between what he SHOULD be paying you and what he IS paying you, in essence, he is STEALING from you.

So when his taxes are raised, and that wealth is redistributed back to you, that is like if that boss, a thief, grabbed your wallet, ran away with it, you chased after him, tackled him, and took back your wallet > are you stealing from him ? No ? Same thing with redistribution of wealth. He stole from you. You are taking back what was really was YOURS to begin with, which he stole from you, by underpaying you.

First you would have to demonstrate that your work is worth more than what your boss is paying you. If it was, you could easily get a better paying job elsewhere. The fact that you can't indicates that you're getting paid pretty close to what you're worth. Even if you weren't, that's the amount you agreed to. That isn't stealing.

The wealthy haven't stolen a thing from anyone, so your theory is pure horseshit.

What one is worth and what the market is willing to pay are two different things.

 

[protectionist]

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?

Suppose you work for somebody (not because you want to, but because it's the best job you can find), and the boss pays you far less than the work you are giving him is worth. Suppose you're busting your ass, and even supplying a pretty good skill, and he's still paying you just minimum wage.

So the difference between what he SHOULD be paying you and what he IS paying you, in essence, he is STEALING from you.

So when his taxes are raised, and that wealth is redistributed back to you, that is like if that boss, a thief, grabbed your wallet, ran away with it, you chased after him, tackled him, and took back your wallet > are you stealing from him ? No ? Same thing with redistribution of wealth. He stole from you. You are taking back what was really was YOURS to begin with, which he stole from you, by underpaying you.

First you would have to demonstrate that your work is worth more than what your boss is paying you. If it was, you could easily get a better paying job elsewhere. The fact that you can't indicates that you're getting paid pretty close to what you're worth. Even if you weren't, that's the amount you agreed to. That isn't stealing.

The wealthy haven't stolen a thing from anyone, so your theory is pure horseshit.

1. Of course, you have to demonstrate, and that is understood as a GIVEN in a hypothetical case. Get it ?

2. No you may NOT easily get a job anywhere. The economy is bad. White males face constant affirmative action discrimination, and in a bad job market, often, you have to know somebody to get a job. Also, many employers hire foreign immigrants to have cheap labor. You could also be discriminated against because of a low credit score, or any number of other very dumb reasons.

Your theory has a hole in it the size of Texas.