Thou Shall Not Steal! How Government Destroys Moral Character

NewsBoy

News Delivery
"Thou shalt not steal" is a rule as old as human society itself. It must have been, else no complex human society would have proved viable. We are all taught very early to respect what belongs to others: Government as we know it, however, rests entirely on this kind of sociopathy. Rulers take what does not belong to them and dispose of it to suit

More at link...
 
A powerfully Libertarian article...

In some cases, especially in societies with governments that attempt to justify their existence and their actions on "democratic" grounds, many people may be taken in by this ideological sleight of hand. They may actually believe that "we tax ourselves" so that the rulers "we choose" can dispose of the loot in ways that "we voted for," failing to appreciate the gulf that separates this pristine ideological vision from the sordid facts on the ground.

Once this sort of thinking becomes pervasive, however, it serves to sanctify specific forms of predation without any clear limit. People come to believe, or at least they work hard at convincing themselves, that anything the government might stand ready to give them, they thereby have a perfect right to receive. At this point, all contact with genuine morality has been lost, and because a society of sociopaths cannot remain viable in the long haul, the nation that embarks on this course has set sail toward its own ruin.
 
For you to make the case you are making, you need to demonstrate that taxation equates to theft.

Your article doesn't make that case, rather it sneers at the concept that taxation is 'bad'. It states that people believe that democratic government taxation is believed by some to be taxation of ourselves.... and sneers at this but doesn't present the case that it isn't, nor does it produce an ethical case against taxation.

Simply, the article is sneering at the concept of taxation because it finds it distasteful but doesn't provide either the case that it is wrong, or even theft, nor does it provide an alternative to providing the essential services provided by taxation.

It also makes a major balls-up in its rhetoric, essentially arguing that no nation that operates a system of democratic taxation can survive, despite the obvious fact that the UK has been democratically taxing since the 1600's and the US since the 1700's.....

Not a powerful libertarian argument, more like a weak libertarian rant.....
 
Nobody is making a case, Newsboy is a bot.

Anyway, the article clearly explains their definition of theft and how this particular form of taxation is theft.

Just saying, "It doesn't explain that" isn't really an argument against the article.
 
Anyway, the article clearly explains their definition of theft and how this particular form of taxation is theft.

Just saying, "It doesn't explain that" isn't really an argument against the article.

It doesn't explain how it percieves taxation as theft, except by stating that people percieve taxation as taxing yourself and that this is somehow wrong because the individual doesn't have direct control over how that is spent.

 
Anyway, the article clearly explains their definition of theft and how this particular form of taxation is theft.

Just saying, "It doesn't explain that" isn't really an argument against the article.

It doesn't explain how it percieves taxation as theft, except by stating that people percieve taxation as taxing yourself and that this is somehow wrong because the individual doesn't have direct control over how that is spent.

It states directly that taking from somebody to spend elsewhere is theft. If I take your money and use it for what I want I have stolen from you. This is an extention of that argument. It is very clear in the article. The only obscurity is that which you wish to see.
 
But we have accepted and long endorsed a government that does tax us and spend it how it likes. Embezzles from the SSI surplus funds, Sends our boys off to a war that we don't support, etc... But then we elected those who are doing this to us, so why are we whiniing about it ?
 
But we have accepted and long endorsed a government that does tax us and spend it how it likes. Embezzles from the SSI surplus funds, Sends our boys off to a war that we don't support, etc... But then we elected those who are doing this to us, so why are we whiniing about it ?
Read the article, it addresses this issue.
 
It states directly that taking from somebody to spend elsewhere is theft. If I take your money and use it for what I want I have stolen from you. This is an extention of that argument. It is very clear in the article. The only obscurity is that which you wish to see.

That isn't theft, that is my point. They haven't made a case for it. It is only theft if you do you take taxation without the consent of the person paying the tax.

If you don't wish to pay the taxation, you have the option of leaving behind the advantages of society and not paying tax, but few who don't wish to pay tax would prefer to leave the comforts of society behind. Whilst people might bitch and moan about taxation, hermits aren't common.

When you add the democratic process to that, that the citizen has a say on how it is spent, the argument evaporates.
 
But the title says the govt destroys moral character, we ourselves with an elected representative government have done and are doing this to ourselves. An elected government is the reflection of it's voters.
 
When you add the democratic process to that, that the citizen has a say on how it is spent, the argument evaporates.
//

There you Go Any, my point that I was trying to make.
 
It states directly that taking from somebody to spend elsewhere is theft. If I take your money and use it for what I want I have stolen from you. This is an extention of that argument. It is very clear in the article. The only obscurity is that which you wish to see.

That isn't theft, that is my point. They haven't made a case for it. It is only theft if you do you take taxation without the consent of the person paying the tax.

If you don't wish to pay the taxation, you have the option of leaving behind the advantages of society and not paying tax, but few who don't wish to pay tax would prefer to leave the comforts of society behind. Whilst people might bitch and moan about taxation, hermits aren't common.

When you add the democratic process to that, that the citizen has a say on how it is spent, the argument evaporates.
You have not that option. If you choose not to pay the tax you have the option of prison. That is force and that is theft. This is a rubbish argument. Nobody has the option to "leave society behind" in that manner in a place where every piece of land is owned by a government.
 
When you add the democratic process to that, that the citizen has a say on how it is spent, the argument evaporates.
//

There you Go Any, my point that I was trying to make.
This isn't true either. This means that the majority can force and therefore steal from the minority.

The article covered this argument well. This makes society itself the thief.
 
This isn't true either. This means that the majority can force and therefore steal from the minority.

The article covered this argument well. This makes society itself the thief.
I think it is pretty stupid to whine about our governemnt in this way when we have made it what it is. Lets just quit whinning and fix it. It will take about 15-20 years to fix it too, but it took us a longer time to get it in this mess.
 
This means that the majority can force and therefore steal from the minority.
//

the only alternative I know of to this is True communism Damo.
 
I think it is pretty stupid to whine about our governemnt in this way when we have made it what it is. Lets just quit whinning and fix it. It will take about 15-20 years to fix it too, but it took us a longer time to get it in this mess.
I'm not whining, nor do I agree 100% with the article. I did however actually read it, and it does speak directly to this argument. When the majority realizes it can take from the minority to spend on themselves...

Much like that saying, "When the populace realizes it can vote itself largesse"...
 
I'm not whining, nor do I agree 100% with the article. I did however actually read it, and it does speak directly to this argument. When the majority realizes it can take from the minority to spend on themselves...

Much like that saying, "When the populace realizes it can vote itself largesse"...

Isn't that an inevitable result of our type of government ?
 
#12 Today, 10:39 AM
Damocles
He comes...
JPP Staff Join Date: Jul 2006
Userid: 2
Location: Colorado
My location
Posts: 4,105




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnyOldIron
It states directly that taking from somebody to spend elsewhere is theft. If I take your money and use it for what I want I have stolen from you. This is an extention of that argument. It is very clear in the article. The only obscurity is that which you wish to see.

That isn't theft, that is my point. They haven't made a case for it. It is only theft if you do you take taxation without the consent of the person paying the tax.

If you don't wish to pay the taxation, you have the option of leaving behind the advantages of society and not paying tax, but few who don't wish to pay tax would prefer to leave the comforts of society behind. Whilst people might bitch and moan about taxation, hermits aren't common.

When you add the democratic process to that, that the citizen has a say on how it is spent, the argument evaporates.

You have not that option. If you choose not to pay the tax you have the option of prison. That is force and that is theft. This is a rubbish argument. Nobody has the option to "leave society behind" in that manner in a place where every piece of land is owned by a government.


There are plenty of wild places you could become a hermit. You could also buy a piece of land to become a hermit on.

It is simply the fact that living in society is so comfortable, so much easier, that those who protest against taxation don't have sufficient courage of their convictions to do it.

If people want to return to natural freedoms, they should have the bollocks to do it....
 
When the majority realizes it can take from the minority to spend on themselves...

That is why we operate representative government and not democracy a la Rousseau's general will.....
 
Back
Top