One of the greatest mysteries of today is whether a pirate is good or bad.
When the individual does the stealing, it's is called piracy. When governments do the same thing, its called policing, military intervention, or taxation.
Of course I don't know of too many bridges built by pirates, or fire departments they fund or many of the thousands of other useful things that governments do. Sure governments and beuracracies are wasteful, and should be held to task for that, but to equate taxation with theft is such simple-minded thinking that it's laughable.
No, it's really not. It doesn't matter what a thief does with the money, if he takes it without permission it's theft.
That's what the government does, under the flimsy justification of a "social contract" that nobody alive today has signed, and which they break regularly and with impugnity.
No simple-mindedness, the government takes your money by threat of force. They don't even do it equitably, just like a common theif, the more you have, the more they take. The wealthiest half of the US population p
It doesn't matter what a thief does with the money, if he takes it without permission it's theft.
If you eat dinner at a restaurant, and try to leave without paying the bill, and the restaurant uses force (say, by getting a cop to hold you until you pay) to make you pay, is that theft? Nope. You owed a debt, the money was no longer yours. Defining what's "yours" and what's "mine" and what's "his" is far from trivial.
If you - directly or indirectly - enjoy the benefit of various public goods, you incur
That argument would work if taxes were payed in proportion to the government services that are rendered, but they're not.
If you eat dinner at a restaurant, and when you're done the manager comes over and says "I couldn't help but notice that you make quite a bit of money... The folks over at table 30 don't make very much, so you'll be paying for their meal as well as yours", then when you refuse they hold you down and take the money out of your pocket, yes, that would be theft.
That policy was written on the door when you came in, Helter. They even wrote down a nice scale on the door showing exactly how much someone at your income level would have to pay. Even if you happened to go in without having the chance to read the scale and the policy, they have it written on the placemat and the waiter reads it to you before you order. Just because this restauraunt has the best food and the cleanest dishes doesn't mean you can't go right across the street to another one.
Ok, so you're basically saying "put up with inequality in the system or get the hell out?"
Gee, do you think that's what black people should have done too? Should they have just moved to another country that was more "black friendly?" Was it any less oppression because it was codified? That's pretty much what your argument comes down too... "you know that it's happening, therefore it's not theft". Huh? how does that work?
Sorry, but "you can always go somewhere else" doesn't fly as an argument. It's equivalent to me saying "well you didn't have to buy that nice car" as a justification for carjacking you, it completley ignores the fact that it's your car and you have every right to it. Well guess what, I'm a citizen and have every right to live in this country without having my income molested by the *majority*. The people at large don't own the US, the land is privately held. Nor to the people at large have a claim to the privately held wealth of it's citizens. Certain services are neccesary for the security and functioning of the country, and they should be paid by all who are capable. However, when people vote for taxes that they will not have to pay, they're voting for theivery. They're ordering food at a restaurant and then deciding that someone else should pay for it.
That's why it was expressly forbidden in the constitution.
It?s a matter of semantics (Score:1, Insightful)
When the individual does the stealing, it's is called piracy. When governments do the same thing, its called policing, military intervention, or taxation.
Re:It?s a matter of semantics (Score:1)
Of course I don't know of too many bridges built by pirates, or fire departments they fund or many of the thousands of other useful things that governments do. Sure governments and beuracracies are wasteful, and should be held to task for that, but to equate taxation with theft is such simple-minded thinking that it's laughable.
Re:It?s a matter of semantics (Score:2)
That's what the government does, under the flimsy justification of a "social contract" that nobody alive today has signed, and which they break regularly and with impugnity.
No simple-mindedness, the government takes your money by threat of force. They don't even do it equitably, just like a common theif, the more you have, the more they take. The wealthiest half of the US population p
Re:It?s a matter of semantics (Score:1)
If you eat dinner at a restaurant, and try to leave without paying the bill, and the restaurant uses force (say, by getting a cop to hold you until you pay) to make you pay, is that theft? Nope. You owed a debt, the money was no longer yours. Defining what's "yours" and what's "mine" and what's "his" is far from trivial.
If you - directly or indirectly - enjoy the benefit of various public goods, you incur
Re:It?s a matter of semantics (Score:2)
If you eat dinner at a restaurant, and when you're done the manager comes over and says "I couldn't help but notice that you make quite a bit of money... The folks over at table 30 don't make very much, so you'll be paying for their meal as well as yours", then when you refuse they hold you down and take the money out of your pocket, yes, that would be theft.
I'm not arguing for the el
Re:It?s a matter of semantics (Score:2)
You might find
Re:It?s a matter of semantics (Score:2)
Gee, do you think that's what black people should have done too? Should they have just moved to another country that was more "black friendly?" Was it any less oppression because it was codified? That's pretty much what your argument comes down too... "you know that it's happening, therefore it's not theft". Huh? how does that work?
Sorry, but "you can always go somewhere else" doesn't fly as an argument. It's equivalent to me saying "well you didn't have to buy that nice car" as a justification for carjacking you, it completley ignores the fact that it's your car and you have every right to it. Well guess what, I'm a citizen and have every right to live in this country without having my income molested by the *majority*. The people at large don't own the US, the land is privately held. Nor to the people at large have a claim to the privately held wealth of it's citizens. Certain services are neccesary for the security and functioning of the country, and they should be paid by all who are capable. However, when people vote for taxes that they will not have to pay, they're voting for theivery. They're ordering food at a restaurant and then deciding that someone else should pay for it.
That's why it was expressly forbidden in the constitution.