Why government stealing can't be stopped

email | Craig J. Cantoni

[William Terrell]

You cannot call it stealing.

You can call it "taxation" when the funds collected go to the legitimate expenses of government. When the government gives those funds not to legitimate providers of services and materials for the administration of government but to other individuals to pay their personal expenses of living, you have to call it "theft".

There is simply no other word that describes the process.

[DannyTN]

"IRS cases are conducted in civil court. "

And so nobody tried to prove that the 16th wasn't properly ratified in civil court? Or the judges didn't want to hear? or what?

[DannyTN]

"When the government gives those funds not to legitimate providers of services and materials for the administration of government but to other individuals to pay their personal expenses of living, you have to call it "theft". "

Even when doing so helps protect and stablize the economy? Like following a disaster?

What about Medicare where people have paid in all their life. Shouldn't government honor it's promises there? I know you'll say it's a giant ponzi scheme, and I'd probably agree. But it was our duly elected representatives that voted it in, so we have nobody to blame but ourselves. And how do you propose getting out of it? Cut off the care to people after they have paid in all these years?

[DannyTN]

"You have not established that taxation is not theft you have only established that *you* perceive some taxation to be generally useful and that it upsets your sensibilities when the victims call you a thief. "

Well here's what the Bible says about taxes. It says pay them.

1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. 5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. 6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

[headsonpikes]

As you may have noticed from the tenor of many responses to your various posts, a form of socialism is now the 'default' position of both Rats and Pubbies.

It is automatically presumed that it takes a government to perform any effective societal function whatsoever, essentially on the grounds that any non-universal program will be deficient in equity. Even though individuals and their varied social institutions are perfectly adequate to educate children, tend the ill, help the poor, and etc, most people today take for granted that government should direct ALL of these tasks formerly performed by communities, families, and individuals.

Politically, our side's only hope is that younger voters wake up to the insanity of the unfunded SS and Medicare obligations, and the growing pension burden of retired public sector employees.

At some point, they will say "NO!"


The equity fetish is destroying America through its court system, imo. The courts have become the vanguard element of American-style Socialism. Profiteering lawyers are merely a surface phenomena of this cannibalism of American society.

All IMHO.

[William Terrell]

Even when doing so helps protect and stablize the economy? Like following a disaster?

Disaster relief in terms of use of government services, like the Corps of Engineers, to the states, not individuals. Robbing Peter to pay Paul only appears to help the economy in the sort run, but leads to disaster, like a trillion dollars owed to world financial institutions.

Cut off the care to people after they have paid in all these years?

So, by that reasoning it must continue forever. There will always be those to be hurt with the phasing out of socialist programs. The entire nation will be hurt with the collapse of the socialist programs.

[D Rider]

We did fine without an Income tax before the 16th. If anything you own can be taken from you, if you don't pay your taxes (property , for example.) You are in fact not an owner, but are a renter. Of course, that reality doesn't sit well with our founding documents.

[DannyTN]

"We did fine without an Income tax before the 16th. If anything you own can be taken from you, if you don't pay your taxes (property , for example.) You are in fact not an owner, but are a renter. Of course, that reality doesn't sit well with our founding documents. "

But property taxes existed in the early colonies even before the constitution. And property taxes are state taxes not federal. So that's an invalid argument.

[DannyTN]

"Disaster relief in terms of use of government services, like the Corps of Engineers, to the states, not individuals."

So now your are ok with robbing some states to pay other states, but you aren't ok with taxing the nation to help one part of the nation if it's individuals? I don't see the distinction. It looks to me like you are arbitrarily drawing lines in the sand, because you don't want to pay taxes.

I don't want to pay excessive taxes either, but lets look at the programs and decide whether they are good for the nation or not. Instead of anything that causes ME to be taxed is bad.

[DannyTN]

"Even though individuals and their varied social institutions are perfectly adequate to educate children, tend the ill, help the poor, and etc, most people today take for granted that government should direct ALL of these tasks formerly performed by communities, families, and individuals. "

If you are assuming that government played no role in these matters in the colonies, you would be wrong. It was done at the local and state levels, but it was considered very much a "civil" duty.

[DannyTN]

And actually it didn't work well at the local levels that's why states got involved. Towns became bad about kicking out their poor and sick and orphans or dumping them on the edge of more responsible towns. Eventually the state did get involved on equity grounds and began mandating that certain individuals be cared for by certain towns to even out the load.

Which is probably the same reason the Feds got involved in it, to keep irresponsible states from dumping their responsibilities on the more responsible states.

The real question is, what is an civil responsibility and what crosses the line over into socialism? I think we all agree that if Government started nationalizing all of the workplaces, that's clearly socialism. But are poor houses socialism? Is care for the poor socialism? Is care for the sick socialism? Is care for orphans socialism?

Or has socialism become just a label that we attach to any responsibility that might cause us to be taxed?

[DannyTN]

"Yes, I was making a veiled reference to this little thing: Amendment X "

While I agree that is an important thing. You have admendment XV1 to deal with. And you haven't established that any of the spending is not covered under the things delegated.

[headsonpikes]

...what crosses the line over into socialism?

I would say that one crosses that line when one thinks that the primary job of government is the 'care' of its citizenery.

It's not so much the effects of a single state intrusion into civil society, but the habit of mind that sees all inequities as somehow reparable by the state. Indeed, the creation of a 'just' social order becomes the prime purpose of government.

This is the core of the utopian, or socialist world-view, imo.

[hosepipe]

#6..[ But the answer isn't to resort to non-democratic means to force our will on others. If you want to talk about a dangerous slippery slope, let's talk about government without consent ]

Spoken like an true ex-democrat....or worse a current one

...democracy: 3 wolves and one sheep deciding what's for dinner.....

A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.-Thomas Jefferson

[monkeywrench]

Regarding #44. Read those verses again, keeping in mind, that 'we the people' are the "rulers", here, not some govt. servant. The "servants" have run amok and are stealing from their masters. Read what Jesus had to say about lousy servants.

[hosepipe]

[ Politics trumps economics, property rights, your own "right to life", and mine as well. Not much can be done about it, although it is worth while to do what is possible. ]

Seems like you have no idea of why the American Cconstitution is so special... The American Constitution has at its base rights given BY GOD and not by gov't... because rights given by gov't are MERELY permission(s) or privledges granted by the gov't... God given rights can not be taken away except by God... and surely NOT by any gov't...

THAT is the difference... But in a country where God is being deported instead of illegal aliens it becomes OBVIOUS that the base(God) of constitutional RIGHTS has been long since been eroded... and what I stated above is an anachronism... and as the founders stated and recommended there is only one remedy for such a case... REVOLUTION...

[DannyTN]

"The "servants" have run amok and are stealing from their masters. "

Are the elections not free or fair? If the politicians are putting the money in their back pocket, then I would agree that is stealing.

But if they are implementing laws that they believe is in the best interest of the nation as a whole. Then that is not stealing.

Chances are most of them are doing nothing other than what they said they would do when they ran for office.

I agree that we the people are the ruler here. But we have fair elections and delegate authority to those representatives. Most of them are probably doing what they promised in the campaign. Bush certainly is when he promised a drug benefit.

I agree if the servants are lousy, there should be judgement and we should vote them out.

But before you go considering that all entitlements are unjust, you better consider what God told kings about the poor. Because if it applied to Kings in the old days, then it applies to "we the people" who are the rulers today.

[DannyTN]

"I would say that one crosses that line when one thinks that the primary job of government is the 'care' of its citizenery.

"It's not so much the effects of a single state intrusion into civil society, but the habit of mind that sees all inequities as somehow reparable by the state. Indeed, the creation of a 'just' social order becomes the prime purpose of government.

I agree with the second statement. I do not agree with the first. Justice does not demand that all inequities be addressed. Nor should government attempt to address all inequities. Rather they should focus on making sure that the rules are fair and that the citizenry abide by the rules.

However, to say that the government has no obligation to "care" for it's citizenry is also wrong. That government had an obligation was recognized by every one of the colonial states.

[William Terrell]

So now your are ok with robbing some states to pay other states, but you aren't ok with taxing the nation to help one part of the nation if it's individuals?

Disaster relief at the state level is for the good of all the population. It is supposed to be what people pay taxes for. Relief to an individual helps only that individual.

The action of taking from others, against their will and over their objections, for the profit and gain of another is called "theft". There is no other word for it, besides maybe a euphremism or two.

[DannyTN]

"Disaster relief at the state level is for the good of all the population. It is supposed to be what people pay taxes for. Relief to an individual helps only that individual. "

It's the same thing, just a different scale. Helping individuals recover helps the state as a whole, just as helping a state recover helps the nation as a whole.