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?

[aboutime]

ALL OF US who are American citizens are the EMPLOYER of Barack H. Obama.

Which....in reality means. WE THE PEOPLE...are his BOSS.

When it comes to the Obama/Liberal/Democrat Redistribution of Wealth.

WE should make sure Obama becomes the FIRST to feel what that Redistribution is like.

When he is finally out of office. We need Someone with the Courage to Redistribute Obama's wealth to all of those people he Promised payment of their Mortgages, and Health Care.

REDISTRIBUTE ALL DEMOCRAT, and OBAMA WEALTH to the American people HE, and the DEMOCRATS have been Lying to since before his first election.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

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? Yes, a comment. Suppose that group took your money and lied to all your neighbors about you being a thief. Then spied on you for years to build a case on you to put you in prison . Also started stealing from your kids and grandkids and doing the same on them too! Now we are getting much closer to the true picture of big government and how it operates under Obama the socialist traitor. O' almost forgot since they are obviously reading and recording this- ffkk that bastard too and all you anti-American scum that are recording this as well. -Tyr

[fj1200]

Comment?

No. A question. What's your plan to address poverty?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

No. A question. What's your plan to address poverty? Well it sure as hell isn't what Obama is doing. And the deem war on poverty is not exactly a great success after well over 5 trillion dollars tossed at it. What is your plan? You do realize that no nation in history has ever eradicated poverty even within just it's own borders! If it is a nature state of some segment of any population then why must it be addressed with the impossible demand of total eradication? Amore realistic goal is the one set in Capitalism. That is allowing the most people possible the opportunity to raise themselves out of poverty. Redistribution of wealth only serves to lessen the numbers of opportunities for people to work their way out of poverty. In short, it actually increases poverty. As most liberal ideas go they backfire and make matters worse. --Tyr

[fj1200]

What is your plan?

HEY! I ask the questions around here! :poke:

I'm not the one complaining about failed redistributionist policies.... yet.

[Little-Acorn]

No. A question. What's your plan to address poverty?

Please feel free to open a new thread in the appropriate forum to discuss unrelated topics such as that one.

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?

[fj1200]

Please feel free to open a new thread in the appropriate forum to discuss unrelated topics such as that one.

My apologies for attempting to make use of another of your shallow threads but my question is exactly on point. You complain about "redistributionist" policies which have root in attempts to alleviate poverty and then avoid any question in how a society would attempt to alleviate poverty without said policies.

So... do you have a plan to address poverty or were you only looking for us to complain about "lefties." :shakesfist:

http://watchplayread.com/files/2012/03/yellsatcloud-320x240.jpg

[Little-Acorn]

In the OP I described a farmer selling me some apples. I also described a scenario where he then takes more money from me for reasons I never intended to give it to him for. I pointed out that that was simple theft, regardless of his reasons - that my property rights are far more important than whatever reasons he might have for violating them.

Since it is theft for him to do that, why is it not theft for a government to do the same thing?

.

[fj1200]

... why is it not theft for a government to do the same thing?

Social Contract. What is your plan to address poverty, provide for national defense, and maintain roads and infrastructure (among other things)?

[Little-Acorn]

Social Contract. What is your plan to address poverty, provide for national defense, and maintain roads and infrastructure (among other things)?

Please feel free to open a new thread in the appropriate forum to discuss unrelated topics such as those.

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?

[aboutime]

Social Contract. What is your plan to address poverty, provide for national defense, and maintain roads and infrastructure (among other things)?


fj. Why don't you ask someone who has the capacity to actually do something about your Loaded, Patronizing questions...like..THE OBUMMER?

[fj1200]

Please feel free to open a new thread in the appropriate forum to discuss unrelated topics such as those.

:facepalm99: How do you expect to fund government without the government "stealing" it from you?

[Little-Acorn]

:facepalm99: How do you expect to fund government without the government "stealing" it from you?

Didn't even read the OP, did we?

Taxes are not theft.

Wealth transfer is theft.

Please try to keep up.

.

[fj1200]

Didn't even read the OP, did we?

Taxes are not theft.

Wealth transfer is theft.

Please try to keep up.

Oh brother. :rolleyes: Yes I read your self-indulgent exercise. Where has your wealth been redistributed to a poor guy?


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.

You've had some of your stocks and/or bonds given to some poor guy I presume?

[Little-Acorn]

ALL OF US who are American citizens are the EMPLOYER of Barack H. Obama.

Which....in reality means. WE THE PEOPLE...are his BOSS.

When it comes to the Obama/Liberal/Democrat Redistribution of Wealth.

WE should make sure Obama becomes the FIRST to feel what that Redistribution is like.

When he is finally out of office. We need Someone with the Courage to Redistribute Obama's wealth to all of those people he Promised payment of their Mortgages, and Health Care.

REDISTRIBUTE ALL DEMOCRAT, and OBAMA WEALTH to the American people HE, and the DEMOCRATS have been Lying to since before his first election.

A little extreme, but you might have a kernel of truth here.

If Congress put a clause into Obamacare saying that people who did not vote for Congressmen (or a President) who supported it, were exempt from its rules and restrictions; and that only the people who voted for Congresscritters or the President who backed it were subject to the mandate and the restrictions on the policies they sign up for...

THEN would it be considered theft?

If you agreed to the wealth distribution, then I suggest that that wealth distribution, if enforced only on YOU, is not theft.

You may have something there.

[aboutime]

A little extreme, but you might have a kernel of truth here.

If Congress put a clause into Obamacare saying that people who did not vote for Congressmen (or a President) who supported it, were exempt from its rules and restrictions; and that only the people who voted for Congresscritters or the President who backed it were subject to the mandate and the restrictions on the policies they sign up for...

THEN would it be considered theft?

If you agreed to the wealth distribution, then I suggest that that wealth distribution, if enforced only on YOU, is not theft.

You may have something there.



Little-Acorn. More than a Kernel. So far. Obama has broken his OWN law with the ACA...better known as the RACIST - OBAMACARE, and he has been breaking the law by granting extentions, and waivers for everything HE, and the DEMOCRATS demand...IS THE LAW OF THE LAND.

Obama's declaration, within Obamacare/ACA forcing people to purchase Health Insurance, or be fined by the IRS is THEFT by extortion. The SCOTUS called it a TAX to make the EXTORTION legal...to limits that Obama has already broken.

[fj1200]

In other news; Back to your regularly scheduled echo chamber. :dunno:

[Arbo]

In other news; Back to your regularly scheduled echo chamber. :dunno:

I believe redistribution as it is abused by our government, doesn't work. This can be seen by the loads and loads of money spent fighting poverty, only to have more poverty now than when the 'war' on it started.

I think the history of just about every lottery teaches us that those that are poor, and 'get' money, end up poor pretty rapidly. It's not always the lack of money flowing in, it's a lack of skills to manage one's money and a lack of priorities (big screen over paying due bills). A good financial education from a young age, as well as accountability for one's irresponsible actions, are the only way to get someone to learn to get out of poverty.

All that being said, I think you had a valid question, and that some refuse to answer speaks not to the questioner, but to those that ignore an uncomfortable question.

[fj1200]

I believe redistribution as it is abused by our government, doesn't work. This can be seen by the loads and loads of money spent fighting poverty, only to have more poverty now than when the 'war' on it started.

I think the history of just about every lottery teaches us that those that are poor, and 'get' money, end up poor pretty rapidly. It's not always the lack of money flowing in, it's a lack of skills to manage one's money and a lack of priorities (big screen over paying due bills). A good financial education from a young age, as well as accountability for one's irresponsible actions, are the only way to get someone to learn to get out of poverty.

All that being said, I think you had a valid question, and that some refuse to answer speaks not to the questioner, but to those that ignore an uncomfortable question.

If I remember that stats correctly there was a sharp downturn in poverty after the WoP but has grown marginally since then but essentially a static poverty rate for 40? years. It's essentially not hard to fight poverty, simply giving somebody $50 has them $50 closer to being out of poverty but it's the disincentives inherent in how we "fight" poverty is what makes it a long-term situation.

Some stats here:
https://courseworks.columbia.edu/access/content/group/c5a1ef92-c03c-4d88-0018-ea43dd3cc5db/Working%20Papers%20for%20website/Anchored%20SPM.December7.pdf

It's sad. There are entire generations of families lost to the WoP.

[Little-Acorn]

If I remember that stats correctly there was a sharp downturn in poverty after the WoP

You don't remember the stats correctly. (Why am I not surprised?)

Poverty was falling rapidly through the 1950s and early 1960s. Then the so-called "War on Poverty" started to take hold in the late 1960s, and the rapid fall in poverty came to an abrupt halt.

After untold $trillions have been spent on this so-called "War on Poverty", the percentage of Americans in poverty remains the same today, as it was when the "WoP" started.

It's the largest single waste of the people's tax money the nation has ever experienced.

http://www.little-acorn.com/pics/poverty_02v.jpg

[fj1200]

You don't remember the stats correctly. (Why am I not surprised?)

... the percentage of Americans in poverty remains the same today, as it was when the "WoP" started.

So what you're saying is that I essentially remember the stats correctly?


... but essentially a static poverty rate for 40? years.

Awesome.