Is it Moral to steal

[dilloduck]

I believe he means taxes fund the government and Military that uphold our freedoms, the problem is that same government can also take them away.

Exactly---so how does paying taxes uphold my freedom. The government that exists on taxpayer money takes away more freedom than any other entity I can think of other than individuals who simply abdicate their own freedoms by not using them.

 

[Diuretic]

What context exactly?

The context surrounding any action.

 

[ronpaul2008]

Of course it is not moral, this is the height of immorality. Possibly one reason that leftists hate religion so, is that their whole philosophy is about trying to justify thievery. I bet even most burglers feel a little guilty as they are sacking somones house, yet liberals pat themselves on they back as a job well done. Institututing more taxes is actually a feel good exercise for people who are incapable of doing any good themselves. They must force other people to direct their labor towards their pet 'good cause' so they can feel good about themselves. These same people oppose guns in the hands of the people. Of course they don't oppose guns in the hands of the government. That is how they get their evil done. They want the government to utterly dominate the people. To begin forced governmental brainwashing programs for 8 hours a day starting at age 5. Nearly all Americans are slaves to the government. They are living paycheck to paycheck, month to month, year to year working to pay their taxes and with whats left over try to live on. The only way to be free in America these days is to become independantly wealthy. But taxes and inflation is so rampant it is nearly impossible to become rich. This is the point of taxes. To keep you a slave. Taxes are much more then simple theft. It is slavery.

 

[Care4all]

Of course it is not moral, this is the height of immorality. Possibly one reason that leftists hate religion so, is that their whole philosophy is about trying to justify thievery. I bet even most burglers feel a little guilty as they are sacking somones house, yet liberals pat themselves on they back as a job well done. Institututing more taxes is actually a feel good exercise for people who are incapable of doing any good themselves. They must force other people to direct their labor towards their pet 'good cause' so they can feel good about themselves. These same people oppose guns in the hands of the people. Of course they don't oppose guns in the hands of the government. That is how they get their evil done. They want the government to utterly dominate the people. To begin forced governmental brainwashing programs for 8 hours a day starting at age 5. Nearly all Americans are slaves to the government. They are living paycheck to paycheck, month to month, year to year working to pay their taxes and with whats left over try to live on. The only way to be free in America these days is to become independantly wealthy. But taxes and inflation is so rampant it is nearly impossible to become rich. This is the point of taxes. To keep you a slave. Taxes are much more then simple theft. It is slavery.

YOu sound so foolish in your empty diatribe regarding all ills being the cause of Liberals HAVING to raise taxes....only the completely ignorant could give a rant like yours without even mentioning the near 5 trillion dollars that the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress OVER SPENT while in control and ADDED to our national debt their 6 years....doubling the DEBT of our Nation, in just an 8 year time period...hear that...DOUBLING all of the debt we had accumilated during our history as a country, in just 6-8 years, thru the so called "conservative" republican rule....

Sooooooo, you can take your thoughtless post and post the partisan content again and again with the same thoughtless diatribe, or you can learn something, and pass on some truth to others on these type of boards....which is: There is no party in history that has added more to our country's demise regarding our fiscal (non)stability, than this President's policies and his lock, stock, and barrel republican congress that sealed them with a kiss while dicking all of us citizens....the middle class America, in the behind.

IF YOU WERE A TRUE Ron Paul Libertarian, you would know this....and not be mouthin' what you are told to say by the limbaughs and the likes, of the world.

Care

 

[ronpaul2008]

Taking the slavery angle a bit further, I remember researching a bit into slavery wondering how this could have existed for so long without mass opposition from the people when there is mass opposition from the people today for things so minor as wearing a fur coat. The reason is that slavery, like socialism, was sold to the American people as a benevolent system. The africans were obviously not sophisticated enough to set up large scale platations on their own, and so the forced life they lived was much better then their free life. They ate better, had nice clothes, lived in stable houses, and were educated in biblical, craftsmanship, musical, and other skills. Thomas Jefferson in his writings considered freeing his slaves but felt they could not possibly make it and they were best off as slaves and only freed the ones who were educated or had blacksmithing skills as he felt they could make it. Jefferson truly loved his slaves and sold his precious books and other belongings before selling his slaves as finances got rough. And so possibly liberals love the people the way Jefferson loved his slaves and just feel they have to control them out of love, because its better for them, because whisper "they're kind of stupid and we know whats best for them". Slave owners probably often developed philosophies like these which allow them to justify their actions and feel good about what they were doing. And maybe they did not even realize that in one way of looking at it they were just parasites living off others energy. Socialism is a justification for human slavery at a very mass level. And just as most slaves stayed on with their owners in the same roles, many Americans if freed of the government would be desiring to keep things the way they were because thats all they know.

 

[ronpaul2008]

Care, I believe Reagan recognized the full threat of socialism and communism and realized it has to be fought here at home as well as abroad. Just the phrase 'tax cuts' implys that any money you legitimatly earn and get to keep is some sort of 'cut' ie gift given to you from the government. IE you are a slave and your output belongs first to your master. This type of system of control must be defeated and must be done away with!

Unfortunately it cannot be done away with, try as we might these democrats are hellbent on taxing the hell out of the people, and teaching these marxist philosophies in our government schools. Some republicans who are against taxes know the only way to break the governments power of us Americans is to bankrupt it so go along with these foolish republican expendutures. Grover Norquist is considered the brains behind the republican movement and said this is the strategy. Word is they will bankrupt the country and try to usher in the North American Union and a unified currency the Amero ala the Euro and the European Union. Soon after will come the South American Union. Then the Asian and Africa will form a union and their will be 5 currencies. Then all will merge into a unified world currency, based on the concept of the federal reserve, where a private group of elite has a full monopoly over the money supply. We need to oppose the union and go back to our roots.

 

[Diuretic]

Slavery is an economic system. It's ancient and it's still practised today. Human beings were captured and transported from their homelands to work for their owners in America. Don't try to make it sound like the slave owners were being beneficial to their slaves. They were simply chattels, necessary for the slave-based economy.

 

[ronpaul2008]

Thats what I meant. Arguably slavery is beneficial for the same reasons socialism is arguably beneficial because people all direct their efforts towards a common cause which allows them to do things they could not do themselves. People can make the logical argument that it is beneficial, for instance the Russians or US probably would never have gone to the moon in the 60's without socialist programs. However I believe it is immoral to instill these programs on other forcefully, whether slavery or socialism. So we should not do it. The world will be better off, we would likely have lots of private companies going to the moon by now if not for taxes.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Slavery is an economic system. It's ancient and it's still practised today. Human beings were captured and transported from their homelands to work for their owners in America. Don't try to make it sound like the slave owners were being beneficial to their slaves. They were simply chattels, necessary for the slave-based economy.

But lets pretend the slaves were not actually captured by blacks and sold into slavery by those blacks, right? You are aware that before the Europeans used black slaves they used white ones? That there was still a system of selling yourself into bondage practiced extensively in America even after no more slaves could be brought into the Country legally? Indians have a more recent claim then this poor put upon blacks that want a hand out. Shall we pay them too? Shall we pay the Chinese that were near slaves on railroad work?

I don't owe ANYTHING to anyone for slavery. And you can bet that if the Government tries to pay this there will be all kind of civil unrest. White Supremest groups will use it to suck in even more dumb ass white people and they will go mainstream.

 

[Diuretic]

Thats what I meant. Arguably slavery is beneficial for the same reasons socialism is arguably beneficial because people all direct their efforts towards a common cause which allows them to do things they could not do themselves. People can make the logical argument that it is beneficial, for instance the Russians or US probably would never have gone to the moon in the 60's without socialist programs. However I believe it is immoral to instill these programs on other forcefully, whether slavery or socialism. So we should not do it. The world will be better off, we would likely have lots of private companies going to the moon by now if not for taxes.

Slavery was and is only beneficial to the owners who use the labour of slaves with only the cost of life maintenance of the slaves. Having slaves means bigger profits.

 

[Diuretic]

But lets pretend the slaves were not actually captured by blacks and sold into slavery by those blacks, right? You are aware that before the Europeans used black slaves they used white ones? That there was still a system of selling yourself into bondage practiced extensively in America even after no more slaves could be brought into the Country legally? Indians have a more recent claim then this poor put upon blacks that want a hand out. Shall we pay them too? Shall we pay the Chinese that were near slaves on railroad work?

I don't owe ANYTHING to anyone for slavery. And you can bet that if the Government tries to pay this there will be all kind of civil unrest. White Supremest groups will use it to suck in even more dumb ass white people and they will go mainstream.

I'm aware that slavery has been (still is) with humans almost from the beginning of humanity. The European-(British mainly I think)-Arab-African slave trade that brought mllions of African slaves to America was a fairly recent phenomenon in human slavery. I know that the English feudal economic system relied on a form of quasi-slavery to make the system work. I'm aware that indentured labour was used in England and in the American colonies.

I didn't mention reparations and I don't intend to get involved in any discussion on it.

 

[editec]

Taking the slavery angle a bit further, I remember researching a bit into slavery wondering how this could have existed for so long without mass opposition from the people when there is mass opposition from the people today for things so minor as wearing a fur coat. The reason is that slavery, like socialism, was sold to the American people as a benevolent system.

Slavery was "sold" the American people?

No, I don't think so.

Slavery was accepted by most people in history as a normal part of the world. they were born into that world and required no marketing campaign to accept it as natural and right.

About one in four American families in the south owned African slaves right before the civil war.

Thomas Jefferson in his writings considered freeing his slaves but felt they could not possibly make it and they were best off as slaves and only freed the ones who were educated or had blacksmithing skills as he felt they could make it.

Jefferson was a bankrupt much of his life. He bought and sold slaves his whole life, too.

By 1815, he couldn't just free his slaves, because if he had his creditors would have demanded that he pay them FIRST.

 

[LOki]

The context surrounding any action.

Allright. You really have no desire (more likely ability) to elaborate on your bullshit assetion.

Thanks for nothing.

 

[Diuretic]

Allright. You really have no desire (more likely ability) to elaborate on your bullshit assetion.

Thanks for nothing.

Any action is taken within a context. Let me give you an example.

Let's say there's a particular skill that someone has to be able to master. And the skill is to be able to fit a metal plate against a surface and to ensure that the metal plate is secured and it doesn't damage the surface that it lies against. What type of person might need to master that skill?

1. A joiner who has to ensure that a hinge is fitted in exactly the right place so that the door that it's fitted to actualy works.

2. An orthopaedic surgeon who has to fit a plate against bone.

Context is everything.

 

[LOki]

Any action is taken within a context. Let me give you an example.

Let's say there's a particular skill that someone has to be able to master. And the skill is to be able to fit a metal plate against a surface and to ensure that the metal plate is secured and it doesn't damage the surface that it lies against. What type of person might need to master that skill?

1. A joiner who has to ensure that a hinge is fitted in exactly the right place so that the door that it's fitted to actualy works.

2. An orthopaedic surgeon who has to fit a plate against bone.

Context is everything.

Ok then.

Is it Moral to steal one mans property to give to another man? - It depends.

On what?

You say, "context." What context, exactly?

Is it Moral to take MORE of one man's property because he has more, than another man's property for the common good? - It depends.

On what?

You say, "context." What context, exactly?

 

[Wow]

It's moral to steal, if you are willing to leave with lead in your head.

 

[Diuretic]

It would take me a fairly long essay to put out my views. That's why I said "it depends".

Is it moral to "steal" someone else's property to give it to someone else? Presumably this is about taxation

It depends.

Given that we're in the realms of ethics here and not simply criminal law that allows a bit of leeway. The classic exammple is a man who has no money for his wife's medicine but who needs to get the medicine which is wife needs.

Is it moral for him to steal it from the pharmacy?

It depends.

Is it Moral to take MORE of one man's property because he has more, than another man's property for the common good?

If there is an increased capacity to pay should that be ignored?

 

[Care4all]

Bottom Line imho:

If you are stealing to save someone's life or to save them from starving, from someone who has plenty to share, while not harming him or his family, then it is NOT IMMORAL....

All other conditions of Stealing (for own personal profit) would be immoral in my opinion.

Care

 

[LOki]

It would take me a fairly long essay to put out my views. That's why I said "it depends".

I suspect that the real reason you say "it depends" has less to do with the length of your essay justifying theft for some, while denying to others, and more to do with you reluctance to face the conclusion that independent of context, theft is wrong.

Is it moral to "steal" someone else's property to give it tosomeone else? Presumably this is about taxation

It depends.

Whether it's taxation or not, is not particularly relevent--the question is theft.

Unless you're asserting that theft is moral so long as it is called taxation; in which case I am pefectly willing to take issue with you, and it won't require an essay of any particularly significant length.

Given that we're in the realms of ethics here and not simply criminal law that allows a bit of leeway.

Says you. Theft is wrong; period.

The classic exammple is a man who has no money for his wife's medicine but who needs to get the medicine which is wife needs.

Need does not mean entitlement. His need does not confer a right, particularly a right to the life product of another.

Is it moral for him to steal it from the pharmacy?

Absolutely not.

It depends.

On what, EXACTLY?

If there is an increased capacity to pay should that be ignored?

Yes. We al have equal capacity to consume value; those with greater capacity to produce value should not be penalized for that capacity and are in no way obligated to those with lesser capacities, beyond those obligations which they freely agree to mutually.

 

[Zoomie1980]

Wingnuts like RGS use words and concepts out of their proper context in order to support their simplistic view of living in modern society. Stealing is always wrong but borrowing in a pinch is morally Ok. But that is not our favorite wingnuts' point in this thread, eventually he gets there, and mentions his real nemesis, taxes.

Taxes provide for our freedoms and our standard of living, the small amount that goes to a family in need is just that, a small amount. I personally think it is our duty as moral beings to support those in need, so calling this stealing is off the wall and just another example of the social darwinist people we have become in this nation under republican voodoo economics.


"Freedom depends on how men actually do behave, not upon how they are allowed to behave. It is a matter of character, not of foolproof constitutional devices. For fools are paramount in politics, and there is nothing which they are unable to destroy." p 156 The Liberal Mind Kenneth Minogue
Online Library of Liberty - Titles

Charity comes from the soul of the individual. You cannot morally FORCE someone to be "charitable". The poor got along fine in this country before we had income taxes. People simply took care of those in need on their own.

The collective has absolutely NO value to anyone.