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

[Little-Acorn]

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?

 

[RightDown]

But for the federal government and US constitution and laws thereof, your farmer has no property rights, no farmland, no apples to sell.

You libertarians occupy a fantasyland where rules, infrastructure and life in general come ready made and are at your disposal for exploitation. You stand on the shoulders of others...of the efforts of others. You are no island. Start showing a little goddam gratitude to the people that made your lifestyle possible.

Article I, Section 8, states:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States."

And the 16th Amendment states:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

 

[Little-Acorn]

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)?

"Income redistribution" is, exactly, theft. It is the direct violation of one of the most fundamental rights man has: The right to possess property he has justly acquired. Without that right, man is no more than an animal.

Someone who seeks to "redistribute" anyone's income other than his own, is merely a common thief.

And a government that seeks to do the same, is equally a thief. Multiplied by the number of people whose income it tries to "redistribute".

 

[RightDown]

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.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Thats OK as long as its for the "common good" .... Lol

 

[Little-Acorn]

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

They must be pretty smart dudes, since it sounds like they agree with me!

So what exactly is government redistributing?

You can find the answer to your question by reading the two examples I gave in the OP.

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?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

 

[bripat9643]

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

They must be pretty smart dudes, since it sounds like they agree with me!

So what exactly is government redistributing?

You can find the answer to your question by reading the two examples I gave in the OP.

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?

The simple fact that government takes your money without your personal consent makes taxation theft. the only valid "authorization" for taking my money is my personal authorization.

 

[Little-Acorn]

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

They must be pretty smart dudes, since it sounds like they agree with me!

So what exactly is government redistributing?

You can find the answer to your question by reading the two examples I gave in the OP.

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?

The simple fact that government takes your money without your personal consent makes taxation theft. the only valid "authorization" for taking my money is my personal authorization.

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.

As I said in the OP, you have the choice of petitioning to have that changed, and/or electing representatives who will work to change it etc.

If you didn't, then you have agreed to it as it is, and it is not theft.

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?

Nice try.

 

[bripat9643]

They must be pretty smart dudes, since it sounds like they agree with me!


You can find the answer to your question by reading the two examples I gave in the OP.

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?

The simple fact that government takes your money without your personal consent makes taxation theft. the only valid "authorization" for taking my money is my personal authorization.

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.

As I said in the OP, you have the choice of petitioning to have that changed, and/or electing representatives who will work to change it etc.

If you didn't, then you have agreed to it as it is, and it is not theft.

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.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You folks who have trouble with this go back read the Constitution and then a basic freshman history book for college.

Let's move along, OK.

 

[RightDown]

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.

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.

 

[RightDown]

The simple fact that government takes your money without your personal consent makes taxation theft. the only valid "authorization" for taking my money is my personal authorization.

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.

As I said in the OP, you have the choice of petitioning to have that changed, and/or electing representatives who will work to change it etc.

If you didn't, then you have agreed to it as it is, and it is not theft.

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.

You are a typical libertarian freeloader. You want all the benefits of US citizenship without paying.

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.

 

[OnePercenter]

I'll throw this in to really piss-off the conservatives.

Redistributing wealth upward - Washington Post

 

[georgephillip]

I'll throw this in to really piss-off the conservatives.

Redistributing wealth upward - Washington Post

"During the past quarter-century, as progressivity was lessened and unions diminished, all productivity gains have gone to the wealthiest 10 percent, according to research published by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

"In 1955, at the height of union strength, the wealthiest 10 percent received 33 percent of the nation’s personal income. In 2007, they received 50 percent, Economic Policy Institute data show."

And then came the Great Recession.

Redistributing wealth upward - Washington Post

 

[Kosh]

You folks who have trouble with this go back read the Constitution and then a basic freshman history book for college.

Let's move along, OK.

Says the far left Obama drone.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

You are a typical libertarian freeloader. You want all the benefits of US citizenship without paying.

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.

Like any typical leftwing asshole who has run out of arguments, you resort to insults and personal attacks.

I haven't consented to any of that, so I'm not obligated to pay for it.

Furthermore, government money is of no benefit to me. It's simply a means for the government to loot everyone through inflation. The Post Office is a bloated inefficient government monopoly. Postal service should be opened to competition from private firms. Likewise for every other government "service" you listed. And FYI, government doesn't provide cell phones or the internet.

You're a fascist moron who isn't worth arguing with.

 

[editec]

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

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

 

[bripat9643]

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

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

I agree 100%. The claim that I consented to be governed by the current gang of criminals in Washington is laughable.

Check out my thread on the definition of "the consent of the governed." You'll find it interesting, I think.

 

[Vox]

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)?

"Income redistribution" is, exactly, theft. It is the direct violation of one of the most fundamental rights man has: The right to possess property he has justly acquired. Without that right, man is no more than an animal.

Someone who seeks to "redistribute" anyone's income other than his own, is merely a common thief.

And a government that seeks to do the same, is equally a thief. Multiplied by the number of people whose income it tries to "redistribute".

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.