How Evil is Libertarianism anyway?

[bripat9643]

By the rule of law you moron.

By which you mean the rule of the people over other people.

How does one person acquire the privilege of ruling over his fellow man?

In the US, by winning more votes than an opponent.

How does that give anyone the right to loot their fellow man?

He keeps saying majority vote gives them the right. Then when I say tyranny of the majority, he says WTF, who said that?

Of course not. If we use the nice name, then no one will know what we're really up to. Left wingers are so slippery that they even fool themselves.

 

[NightFox]

Nice rant, no facts, no evidence, no substance. The first take away is my observation, "I bet you will not address the questions, and have no evidence to support your conclusions" was correct. BTW, your use of the word gub'mint is childish, even an average third grade student would find it so.

LOL, I love it when you pout and stamp your feet, it's part and parcel to what makes you such an entertaining wind up toy.....

Alas, apparently you forgot to get to the part where you justify all the wonderful misery your gub'mint worshiping ideas have wrought upon society and explained why libertarian ideas aren't a better alternative, or are you too busy planning your next bullet point list of unsubstantiated nonsense?

 

[bripat9643]

Exactly, he's referring to the tyranny of the majority. The left only support the minority when it rationalizes the tyranny of the majority

Another moron, but who's counting. In our democratic republic, We the People elect representatives to make laws.

As I said, you're advocating tyranny of the majority. You didn't contradict that. Our laws under the Constitution were designed to prevent tyranny of the majority, which is why you ignore the Constitution

Wow (sarcasm to follow) what a wonderful example of expository writing, you should be so proud of your abilities to produce a cogent argument, punctuated with clear and persuasive examples and sound logic.

In the immortal words of The Dick (Cheney), "go **** yourself". I'm sure taking his advice will give you more pleasure than your preferred activity - mental masturbation.

Seriously, you didn't get it? Now that's stupid I can't make up. It's what you keep saying, the vote justifies the end. Here's a clue, Alfalfa. Read the discussion I quoted ...

Herein is something both you and Nightfox need to peruse, sorry bripat, it is too difficult for someone like you.

What is Expository Writing? - Definition & Examples - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com

Kaz is 100% right. You keep saying "the rule of law" justifies whatever you want to do, and then you deny that it's majority rule that justifies it. In a democracy "the rule of law" is nothing more than majority rule.

 

[kaz]

Exactly, he's referring to the tyranny of the majority. The left only support the minority when it rationalizes the tyranny of the majority

Another moron, but who's counting. In our democratic republic, We the People elect representatives to make laws.

As I said, you're advocating tyranny of the majority. You didn't contradict that. Our laws under the Constitution were designed to prevent tyranny of the majority, which is why you ignore the Constitution

Wow (sarcasm to follow) what a wonderful example of expository writing, you should be so proud of your abilities to produce a cogent argument, punctuated with clear and persuasive examples and sound logic.

In the immortal words of The Dick (Cheney), "go **** yourself". I'm sure taking his advice will give you more pleasure than your preferred activity - mental masturbation.

Seriously, you didn't get it? Now that's stupid I can't make up. It's what you keep saying, the vote justifies the end. Here's a clue, Alfalfa. Read the discussion I quoted ...

Herein is something both you and Nightfox need to peruse, sorry bripat, it is too difficult for someone like you.

What is Expository Writing? - Definition & Examples - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com

I'm referring directly to your post that I quoted. You are seriously a stupid man. Well, except when you're pursuing your love of discussing feelings. Then you're a stupid chick

 

[Wry Catcher]

By the rule of law you moron.

By which you mean the rule of the people over other people.

How does one person acquire the privilege of ruling over his fellow man?

In the US, by winning more votes than an opponent.

How does that give anyone the right to loot their fellow man?

He keeps saying majority vote gives them the right. Then when I say tyranny of the majority, he says WTF, who said that?

Tyranny of the majority is an exception to the rule of law, either you support a law (singular) or you oppose it using reason; as a stand alone phrase - tyranny of the majority - to describe our democratic republic is foolish. The rule of law repeals arbitrary decrees and the genius of COTUS provides checks and balances to protect the rights of the minority.

Maybe you clowns ought to consider taking a course in comparative governments, and while you're at it courses in expository writing and Introductory courses in Psychology and Social Psychology - it would do you and the other clowns a world of good (you might make sense).

 

[kaz]

By the rule of law you moron.

By which you mean the rule of the people over other people.

How does one person acquire the privilege of ruling over his fellow man?

In the US, by winning more votes than an opponent.

How does that give anyone the right to loot their fellow man?

He keeps saying majority vote gives them the right. Then when I say tyranny of the majority, he says WTF, who said that?

Tyranny of the majority is an exception to the rule of law, either you support a law (singular) or you oppose it using reason; as a stand alone phrase - tyranny of the majority - to describe our democratic republic is foolish. The rule of law repeals arbitrary decrees and the genius of COTUS provides checks and balances to protect the rights of the minority.

Maybe you clowns ought to consider taking a course in comparative governments, and while you're at it courses in expository writing and Introductory courses in Psychology and Social Psychology - it would do you and the other clowns a world of good (you might make sense).

What a pompous ass. Throwing out literary terms while swishing on the actual discussion. LOL. You really are impressed by those terms, aren't you? That's funny.

Tyranny of the majority is when majority vote away the rights of the minority. Like taking their money by force and redistributing it. Forcing private businesses to let grown men go into locker rooms where teenage girls are changing and showering, forcing citizens to bake each other cakes, forcing citizens to buy medical policies from corporations, removing the right of business owners and employees to negotiate their own agreements. Everything you people spend all day doing.

And yes, the COTUS provides checks and balances. One of which is that we are NOT a democracy. We are 50 democracies with a Federal government with limited powers. Which is why you ignore the COTUS, it blocks that which you embody, tyranny

 

[Skylar]

So a fine for the violation of public accommodation laws would be an act of aggression. Why?

It would be an INITIATION of aggression, because it would be the first aggressive act committed. Not doing business with someone is not an act of aggression. It is an act of ignoring.

So you completely abandoned your 'tax request' jibberish. Good. That's progress.

Just so that we're clear, State PA laws are completely constitutional, yes? Lets settle that issue first before we move on to your conception of 'aggression'.

 

[Skylar]

Who is the 'they' in your 'why can't they just admit that they're the ones who are committing unethical acts by initiating aggression'?

"They" is those who advocate the initiation of aggression against their fellow man.

Has anyone in this thread done any such thing? Or is this a uselessly hypothetical 'they' with no connection to the board, this thread, or any conversation within it?

The point is that many of the laws people here advocate aren't protecting anyone's rights. They're simply naked mandates and backed by coercion. Which is aggressive.

Now we're getting somewhere. So any mandate backed by coercion that isn't protecting rights.....is aggression.

Would starvation be coercion?

If it were mandated by law, yep.

If someone used starvation as a way to compel someone to do something.....would that be 'coercion'? If not, why not?

It seems that you're claiming that coercion can *only* occur through law. Which would be quite the redefinition of the word.

 

[Skylar]

But what do you mean by 'initiating aggression'? Is more of your 'War of Northern Aggression' nonsense? Or something new?

Robbery, theft by trick, extortion, theft, burglary, murder, fraud, rape, kidnapping, assault, battery.

Who is the 'they' in your 'why can't they just admit that they're the ones who are committing unethical acts by initiating aggression'?

You.

Laughing.....by *typing*? If so, your standard of 'aggression' has a hair trigger and a glass jaw.

 

[Skylar]

By which you mean the rule of the people over other people.

How does one person acquire the privilege of ruling over his fellow man?

In the US, by winning more votes than an opponent.

How does that give anyone the right to loot their fellow man?

He keeps saying majority vote gives them the right. Then when I say tyranny of the majority, he says WTF, who said that?

Tyranny of the majority is an exception to the rule of law, either you support a law (singular) or you oppose it using reason; as a stand alone phrase - tyranny of the majority - to describe our democratic republic is foolish. The rule of law repeals arbitrary decrees and the genius of COTUS provides checks and balances to protect the rights of the minority.

Maybe you clowns ought to consider taking a course in comparative governments, and while you're at it courses in expository writing and Introductory courses in Psychology and Social Psychology - it would do you and the other clowns a world of good (you might make sense).

What a pompous ass. Throwing out literary terms while swishing on the actual discussion. LOL. You really are impressed by those terms, aren't you? That's funny.

Tyranny of the majority is when majority vote away the rights of the minority. Like taking their money by force and redistributing it.

You do realize that when tax money is collected its no longer owned by the person who paid, right?

Thus its not 'their' money that is 'redistributed'. Its the people's money. Your entire argument is predicated on the original tax payer maintaining unique ownership of the tax money they've paid. Which, of course, they aren't.

How then is taxation 'theft'? It isn't. How then is the representative's of the people choosing to spend the people's money 'theft'? It isn't.

And 'plop'. Your entire argument leaves a brown streak on the bowl as its flushed down.

Forcing private businesses to let grown men go into locker rooms where teenage girls are changing and showering, forcing citizens to bake each other cakes, forcing citizens to buy medical policies from corporations, removing the right of business owners and employees to negotiate their own agreements. Everything you people spend all day doing.

The regulation of intrastate commerce is the authority of the State. If the people of a State decide against 'white only lunch counters', why would they lack the authority to make this rule?

Commerce is within the public sphere.

 

[kaz]

So a fine for the violation of public accommodation laws would be an act of aggression. Why?

It would be an INITIATION of aggression, because it would be the first aggressive act committed. Not doing business with someone is not an act of aggression. It is an act of ignoring.

So you completely abandoned your 'tax request' jibberish. Good. That's progress.

Just so that we're clear, State PA laws are completely constitutional, yes? Lets settle that issue first before we move on to your conception of 'aggression'.

Government forcing you to bake cakes and photograph phag weddings is a gross violation of the fifth amendment which protects your liberty and property without due process of law. Opening a business isn't a crime, government has no right to force you into servitude or to use your property to serve other citizens or the Imperial State

 

[Wry Catcher]

By which you mean the rule of the people over other people.

How does one person acquire the privilege of ruling over his fellow man?

In the US, by winning more votes than an opponent.

How does that give anyone the right to loot their fellow man?

He keeps saying majority vote gives them the right. Then when I say tyranny of the majority, he says WTF, who said that?

Tyranny of the majority is an exception to the rule of law, either you support a law (singular) or you oppose it using reason; as a stand alone phrase - tyranny of the majority - to describe our democratic republic is foolish. The rule of law repeals arbitrary decrees and the genius of COTUS provides checks and balances to protect the rights of the minority.

Maybe you clowns ought to consider taking a course in comparative governments, and while you're at it courses in expository writing and Introductory courses in Psychology and Social Psychology - it would do you and the other clowns a world of good (you might make sense).

What a pompous ass. Throwing out literary terms while swishing on the actual discussion. LOL. You really are impressed by those terms, aren't you? That's funny.

Tyranny of the majority is when majority vote away the rights of the minority. Like taking their money by force and redistributing it. Forcing private businesses to let grown men go into locker rooms where teenage girls are changing and showering, forcing citizens to bake each other cakes, forcing citizens to buy medical policies from corporations, removing the right of business owners and employees to negotiate their own agreements. Everything you people spend all day doing.

And yes, the COTUS provides checks and balances. One of which is that we are NOT a democracy. We are 50 democracies with a Federal government with limited powers. Which is why you ignore the COTUS, it blocks that which you embody, tyranny

We elect our representatives to do the work of governance. We elect electors to elect POTUS, who, along with the Senators we elect, appoint Supreme Court Justices, we elect the members of the H. of Rep., the Governors of each state and the legislative bodies all of which are examples of democratic republic.

Stop being an ass, your arguments border on absurdity, your ideology does not deal with things sensibly and realistically, in a way that is based on the practical rather than theoretical / ideological considerations. Claiming we are not a democracy is once again a lie by omission. We are a democratic republic no matter what your handlers want you to believe.

 

[kaz]

In the US, by winning more votes than an opponent.

How does that give anyone the right to loot their fellow man?

He keeps saying majority vote gives them the right. Then when I say tyranny of the majority, he says WTF, who said that?

Tyranny of the majority is an exception to the rule of law, either you support a law (singular) or you oppose it using reason; as a stand alone phrase - tyranny of the majority - to describe our democratic republic is foolish. The rule of law repeals arbitrary decrees and the genius of COTUS provides checks and balances to protect the rights of the minority.

Maybe you clowns ought to consider taking a course in comparative governments, and while you're at it courses in expository writing and Introductory courses in Psychology and Social Psychology - it would do you and the other clowns a world of good (you might make sense).

What a pompous ass. Throwing out literary terms while swishing on the actual discussion. LOL. You really are impressed by those terms, aren't you? That's funny.

Tyranny of the majority is when majority vote away the rights of the minority. Like taking their money by force and redistributing it.

You do realize that when tax money is collected its no longer owned by the person who paid, right?

Thus its not 'their' money that is 'redistributed'. Its the people's money. Your entire argument is predicated on the original tax payer maintaining unique ownership of the tax money they've paid. Which, of course, they aren't.

How then is taxation 'theft'? It isn't. How then is the representative's of the people choosing to spend the people's money 'theft'? It isn't.

And 'plop'. Your entire argument leaves a brown streak on the bowl as its flushed down.

Forcing private businesses to let grown men go into locker rooms where teenage girls are changing and showering, forcing citizens to bake each other cakes, forcing citizens to buy medical policies from corporations, removing the right of business owners and employees to negotiate their own agreements. Everything you people spend all day doing.

The regulation of intrastate commerce is the authority of the State. If the people of a State decide against 'white only lunch counters', why would they lack the authority to make this rule?

Commerce is within the public sphere.

So just to be clear, taxes are not to fund government programs, they are just to give the government money. That is your standard

 

[Skylar]

So a fine for the violation of public accommodation laws would be an act of aggression. Why?

It would be an INITIATION of aggression, because it would be the first aggressive act committed. Not doing business with someone is not an act of aggression. It is an act of ignoring.

So you completely abandoned your 'tax request' jibberish. Good. That's progress.

Just so that we're clear, State PA laws are completely constitutional, yes? Lets settle that issue first before we move on to your conception of 'aggression'.

Government forcing you to bake cakes and photograph phag weddings is a gross violation of the fifth amendment which protects your liberty and property without due process of law.

Except that it isn't. As due process of law was instituted through PA laws and performed through legal institutions established by those laws. In the case of the 'sweet cakes' case, hearings were adjudicated by an administrative law judge for the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries.

That you ignore this and pretend there was no hearing, law, nor due process doesn't magically make it so.

Opening a business isn't a crime, government has no right to force you into servitude or to use your property to serve other citizens or the Imperial State

The State does have the authority to create minimum standards of conduct for conducting commerce in that State. If you don't meet those standards, you can be subject to fines and civil penalties. Depending on how serverely you violate them, even criminal ones.

That's due process. And its fully constitutional. Both in the power exercised and the rights of the individual.

You disagree. Um....so what?

 

[Skylar]

How does that give anyone the right to loot their fellow man?

He keeps saying majority vote gives them the right. Then when I say tyranny of the majority, he says WTF, who said that?

Tyranny of the majority is an exception to the rule of law, either you support a law (singular) or you oppose it using reason; as a stand alone phrase - tyranny of the majority - to describe our democratic republic is foolish. The rule of law repeals arbitrary decrees and the genius of COTUS provides checks and balances to protect the rights of the minority.

Maybe you clowns ought to consider taking a course in comparative governments, and while you're at it courses in expository writing and Introductory courses in Psychology and Social Psychology - it would do you and the other clowns a world of good (you might make sense).

What a pompous ass. Throwing out literary terms while swishing on the actual discussion. LOL. You really are impressed by those terms, aren't you? That's funny.

Tyranny of the majority is when majority vote away the rights of the minority. Like taking their money by force and redistributing it.

You do realize that when tax money is collected its no longer owned by the person who paid, right?

Thus its not 'their' money that is 'redistributed'. Its the people's money. Your entire argument is predicated on the original tax payer maintaining unique ownership of the tax money they've paid. Which, of course, they aren't.

How then is taxation 'theft'? It isn't. How then is the representative's of the people choosing to spend the people's money 'theft'? It isn't.

And 'plop'. Your entire argument leaves a brown streak on the bowl as its flushed down.

Forcing private businesses to let grown men go into locker rooms where teenage girls are changing and showering, forcing citizens to bake each other cakes, forcing citizens to buy medical policies from corporations, removing the right of business owners and employees to negotiate their own agreements. Everything you people spend all day doing.

The regulation of intrastate commerce is the authority of the State. If the people of a State decide against 'white only lunch counters', why would they lack the authority to make this rule?

Commerce is within the public sphere.

So just to be clear, taxes are not to fund government programs, they are just to give the government money. That is your standard

To be clear, taxes are collected for what programs the people have chosen through their representatives. And upon payment, the tax money no longer belongs to the tax payer.

Your argument is predicated on the absurd assumption that the money is still the unique property of the tax payer who paid their taxes.

It isn't. Obviously so.

Oh, and you never did answer my question:

If the people of a State decide against 'white only lunch counters', why would they lack the authority to make this rule?

 

[kaz]

In the US, by winning more votes than an opponent.

How does that give anyone the right to loot their fellow man?

He keeps saying majority vote gives them the right. Then when I say tyranny of the majority, he says WTF, who said that?

Tyranny of the majority is an exception to the rule of law, either you support a law (singular) or you oppose it using reason; as a stand alone phrase - tyranny of the majority - to describe our democratic republic is foolish. The rule of law repeals arbitrary decrees and the genius of COTUS provides checks and balances to protect the rights of the minority.

Maybe you clowns ought to consider taking a course in comparative governments, and while you're at it courses in expository writing and Introductory courses in Psychology and Social Psychology - it would do you and the other clowns a world of good (you might make sense).

What a pompous ass. Throwing out literary terms while swishing on the actual discussion. LOL. You really are impressed by those terms, aren't you? That's funny.

Tyranny of the majority is when majority vote away the rights of the minority. Like taking their money by force and redistributing it. Forcing private businesses to let grown men go into locker rooms where teenage girls are changing and showering, forcing citizens to bake each other cakes, forcing citizens to buy medical policies from corporations, removing the right of business owners and employees to negotiate their own agreements. Everything you people spend all day doing.

And yes, the COTUS provides checks and balances. One of which is that we are NOT a democracy. We are 50 democracies with a Federal government with limited powers. Which is why you ignore the COTUS, it blocks that which you embody, tyranny

We elect our representatives to do the work of governance. We elect electors to elect POTUS, who, along with the Senators we elect, appoint Supreme Court Justices, we elect the members of the H. of Rep., the Governors of each state and the legislative bodies all of which are examples of democratic republic.

Stop being an ass, your arguments border on absurdity, your ideology does not deal with things sensibly and realistically, in a way that is based on the practical rather than theoretical / ideological considerations. Claiming we are not a democracy is once again a lie by omission. We are a democratic republic no matter what your handlers want you to believe.

I said the States are democracies, the Federal government isn't. Power divided is power checked. Power divided between the States and the Federal government is a check and balance. The whole concept of the Federal government checking it's own power is illogical and impractical, and that's why it doesn't work.

And nothing you said again refutes your flagrant rationalization that you support the tyranny of the majority.

You do crack me up though that you think my view that I can best take care of myself is an "ideology" while your view politicians and bureaucrats can take better care of us than we can ourselves is just practical and reasonable. You're a sheep leading yourself to slaughter

 

[rightwinger]

How does that give anyone the right to loot their fellow man?

He keeps saying majority vote gives them the right. Then when I say tyranny of the majority, he says WTF, who said that?

Tyranny of the majority is an exception to the rule of law, either you support a law (singular) or you oppose it using reason; as a stand alone phrase - tyranny of the majority - to describe our democratic republic is foolish. The rule of law repeals arbitrary decrees and the genius of COTUS provides checks and balances to protect the rights of the minority.

Maybe you clowns ought to consider taking a course in comparative governments, and while you're at it courses in expository writing and Introductory courses in Psychology and Social Psychology - it would do you and the other clowns a world of good (you might make sense).

What a pompous ass. Throwing out literary terms while swishing on the actual discussion. LOL. You really are impressed by those terms, aren't you? That's funny.

Tyranny of the majority is when majority vote away the rights of the minority. Like taking their money by force and redistributing it.

You do realize that when tax money is collected its no longer owned by the person who paid, right?

Thus its not 'their' money that is 'redistributed'. Its the people's money. Your entire argument is predicated on the original tax payer maintaining unique ownership of the tax money they've paid. Which, of course, they aren't.

How then is taxation 'theft'? It isn't. How then is the representative's of the people choosing to spend the people's money 'theft'? It isn't.

And 'plop'. Your entire argument leaves a brown streak on the bowl as its flushed down.

Forcing private businesses to let grown men go into locker rooms where teenage girls are changing and showering, forcing citizens to bake each other cakes, forcing citizens to buy medical policies from corporations, removing the right of business owners and employees to negotiate their own agreements. Everything you people spend all day doing.

The regulation of intrastate commerce is the authority of the State. If the people of a State decide against 'white only lunch counters', why would they lack the authority to make this rule?

Commerce is within the public sphere.

So just to be clear, taxes are not to fund government programs, they are just to give the government money. That is your standard

You are getting closer
You pay a state tax and a federal tax as well as local governments

As a member of "We the People" you get to elect representatives who decide how it will be spent

 

[rightwinger]

How does that give anyone the right to loot their fellow man?

He keeps saying majority vote gives them the right. Then when I say tyranny of the majority, he says WTF, who said that?

Tyranny of the majority is an exception to the rule of law, either you support a law (singular) or you oppose it using reason; as a stand alone phrase - tyranny of the majority - to describe our democratic republic is foolish. The rule of law repeals arbitrary decrees and the genius of COTUS provides checks and balances to protect the rights of the minority.

Maybe you clowns ought to consider taking a course in comparative governments, and while you're at it courses in expository writing and Introductory courses in Psychology and Social Psychology - it would do you and the other clowns a world of good (you might make sense).

What a pompous ass. Throwing out literary terms while swishing on the actual discussion. LOL. You really are impressed by those terms, aren't you? That's funny.

Tyranny of the majority is when majority vote away the rights of the minority. Like taking their money by force and redistributing it. Forcing private businesses to let grown men go into locker rooms where teenage girls are changing and showering, forcing citizens to bake each other cakes, forcing citizens to buy medical policies from corporations, removing the right of business owners and employees to negotiate their own agreements. Everything you people spend all day doing.

And yes, the COTUS provides checks and balances. One of which is that we are NOT a democracy. We are 50 democracies with a Federal government with limited powers. Which is why you ignore the COTUS, it blocks that which you embody, tyranny

We elect our representatives to do the work of governance. We elect electors to elect POTUS, who, along with the Senators we elect, appoint Supreme Court Justices, we elect the members of the H. of Rep., the Governors of each state and the legislative bodies all of which are examples of democratic republic.

Stop being an ass, your arguments border on absurdity, your ideology does not deal with things sensibly and realistically, in a way that is based on the practical rather than theoretical / ideological considerations. Claiming we are not a democracy is once again a lie by omission. We are a democratic republic no matter what your handlers want you to believe.

I said the States are democracies, the Federal government isn't. Power divided is power checked. Power divided between the States and the Federal government is a check and balance. The whole concept of the Federal government checking it's own power is illogical and impractical, and that's why it doesn't work.

And nothing you said again refutes your flagrant rationalization that you support the tyranny of the majority.

You do crack me up though that you think my view that I can best take care of myself is an "ideology" while your view politicians and bureaucrats can take better care of us than we can ourselves is just practical and reasonable. You're a sheep leading yourself to slaughter

There is no tyranny of the majority

We have a Constitution to ensure that

 

[kaz]

As due process of law was instituted through PA laws and performed through legal institutions established by those laws

Government educations are just sad. What you are doing is taking "due process of law" and guessing what it means as a general English definition of the words words used. The Constitution is using them for the specific meaning of that term in a legal system. The legislature isn't involved in "due process of law" by definition. Do some internet self learning and come back

 

[kaz]

He keeps saying majority vote gives them the right. Then when I say tyranny of the majority, he says WTF, who said that?

Tyranny of the majority is an exception to the rule of law, either you support a law (singular) or you oppose it using reason; as a stand alone phrase - tyranny of the majority - to describe our democratic republic is foolish. The rule of law repeals arbitrary decrees and the genius of COTUS provides checks and balances to protect the rights of the minority.

Maybe you clowns ought to consider taking a course in comparative governments, and while you're at it courses in expository writing and Introductory courses in Psychology and Social Psychology - it would do you and the other clowns a world of good (you might make sense).

What a pompous ass. Throwing out literary terms while swishing on the actual discussion. LOL. You really are impressed by those terms, aren't you? That's funny.

Tyranny of the majority is when majority vote away the rights of the minority. Like taking their money by force and redistributing it.

You do realize that when tax money is collected its no longer owned by the person who paid, right?

Thus its not 'their' money that is 'redistributed'. Its the people's money. Your entire argument is predicated on the original tax payer maintaining unique ownership of the tax money they've paid. Which, of course, they aren't.

How then is taxation 'theft'? It isn't. How then is the representative's of the people choosing to spend the people's money 'theft'? It isn't.

And 'plop'. Your entire argument leaves a brown streak on the bowl as its flushed down.

Forcing private businesses to let grown men go into locker rooms where teenage girls are changing and showering, forcing citizens to bake each other cakes, forcing citizens to buy medical policies from corporations, removing the right of business owners and employees to negotiate their own agreements. Everything you people spend all day doing.

The regulation of intrastate commerce is the authority of the State. If the people of a State decide against 'white only lunch counters', why would they lack the authority to make this rule?

Commerce is within the public sphere.

So just to be clear, taxes are not to fund government programs, they are just to give the government money. That is your standard

To be clear, taxes are collected for what programs the people have chosen through their representatives. And upon payment, the tax money no longer belongs to the tax payer.

Your argument is predicated on the absurd assumption that the money is still the unique property of the tax payer who paid their taxes.

It isn't. Obviously so.

Oh, and you never did answer my question:

If the people of a State decide against 'white only lunch counters', why would they lack the authority to make this rule?

No, my argument is predicated on that government sets up a program to give someone government money, then they go to someone else and take it by force to give it to them. The rest is just you word parsing. Government is taking money from one citizen and giving it to another. You can't word parse your way out of that