The manner in which the Nazis took the property of the Jews was theft. Also the government did not treat the Jews as they would be treated. Two commandments broken.
The State can't morally Steal someone's intoxicants? Or, you are saying that it's not theft if the State outlaws the Property?? Well, if that's the case... when Hitler's storm troopers invaded the Private Property of Germany's Jewish population and turned them out of their shops and homes -- were they just, y'know, enforcing the Civil Law against Jews owning private property??
See answers above.
How could they be violating the Golden Rule?? For after all -- as you say -- it's not theft if the State outlaws the Property??
The Nazis treated the Jews as they would not be treated.
Please explain what you mean by "the manner in which the Nazis took the property of the Jews."
Do you mean, by passing a law outlawing property, they were committing theft? Or do you mean that by removing outlawed property at gunpoint they were committing theft?
But you say, it's not Theft if the State Outlaws the property.
So how was it "theft", if the State had Outlawed the property-ownership in question??
Be specific -- how was it "theft", if the State had Outlawed the Ownership in question??
Also the government did not treat the Jews as they would be treated. Two commandments broken. The Nazis treated the Jews as they would not be treated.
Also, you do not treat those who become intoxicated on Private Property, as you would like to be treated.
For example, a Yemeni Muslim would outlaw your beer, but permit the herbal intoxicant khat, an amphetamine-like euphoriant and stimulant. You would turn the tables, and outlaw khat while permitting beer.
What do you both have in common?
Your both in favor of violating the Golden Rule -- breaking into people's houses and putting a gun to their heads to prevent Private Intoxication.