How is the government different from a common thief?

[Riprorin]

Why should the government have the right to confisicate my hard-earned money, essentially at the point of a gun, and give it to someone else?

It should be a person's right to choose if he wants to be philanthropic or not.

In the past, churches, civic organizations, and charities provided a helping hand to get people back on their feet so that they could support themselves.

Now we have generation and generation on the dole.

Just another example of liberal policy gone bad.

 

[IamDavid]

Can't just say its a liberal policy.. Check out how many subsidies go to corporations who contribute to the republicans.. For example check out the recent farm bill. Not even the farmers wanted the damn thing but the politicians passed it to keep the support of huge companies like ADM..

 

[UnatcoAgent]

" I love my country but fear my government "

 

[StageLeft]

Smoke much? If you don't give taxes are you going to suddenly decide to stop using all government services - including roads, fire, police, military, health care, etc.? No you aren't.

 

[Bv3]

Taxes are part of living in a society. It's one of the fundamentals of any civilization.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Smoke much? If you don't give taxes are you going to suddenly decide to stop using all government services - including roads, fire, police, military, health care, etc.? No you aren't.

Protecting it's citizens is a legitimate role of government. Redistribution of wealth isn't, in my opinion.

 

[IamDavid]

Originally posted by: Bv3
Taxes are part of living in a society. It's one of the fundamentals of any civilization.

Taxes are one thing but income tax is a whole different story.. It is absolutely insane anyone having to pay close to half of there income to the government..

 

[iamwiz82]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Smoke much? If you don't give taxes are you going to suddenly decide to stop using all government services - including roads, fire, police, military, health care, etc.? No you aren't.

Protecting it's citizens is a legitimate role of government. Redistribution of wealth isn't, in my opinion.

i agree with this. I dont support the earned income credit, nor welfare.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Smoke much? If you don't give taxes are you going to suddenly decide to stop using all government services - including roads, fire, police, military, health care, etc.? No you aren't.

Protecting it's citizens is a legitimate role of government. Redistribution of wealth isn't, in my opinion.

protecting its citizens redistributes wealth and changes the social landscape from what it would be if the gov't didn't exist or provided a different level of service.

if you don't like it, you can either work to change it through the system, or leave.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Smoke much? If you don't give taxes are you going to suddenly decide to stop using all government services - including roads, fire, police, military, health care, etc.? No you aren't.

Protecting it's citizens is a legitimate role of government. Redistribution of wealth isn't, in my opinion.

protecting its citizens redistributes wealth and changes the social landscape from what it would be if the gov't didn't exist or provided a different level of service.

if you don't like it, you can either work to change it through the system, or leave.

I don't think that he's saying that he doesn't want to pay any taxes at all, I think he's saying that he shouldn't be paying for things like welfare and Social "Security".

ZV

 

[m2kewl]

Originally posted by: Bv3
Taxes are part of living in a society. It's one of the fundamentals of any civilization.

you forgot death and war

 

[Vic]

For once, I agree with Riprorin. The purpose of government should be, in some fashion, to protect the poor from being exploited by the rich however, it should never be involved in forcible wealth redistribtion. That sort of thing harms us all.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Smoke much? If you don't give taxes are you going to suddenly decide to stop using all government services - including roads, fire, police, military, health care, etc.? No you aren't.

Protecting it's citizens is a legitimate role of government. Redistribution of wealth isn't, in my opinion.

protecting its citizens redistributes wealth and changes the social landscape from what it would be if the gov't didn't exist or provided a different level of service.

if you don't like it, you can either work to change it through the system, or leave.

I don't think that he's saying that he doesn't want to pay any taxes at all, I think he's saying that he shouldn't be paying for things like welfare and Social "Security".

ZV

yup, and i'm pointing out that any gov't presence redistributes income and changes the social lancscape from what it would be if the gov't didn't exist.

 

[Vic]

So you're saying that we should just give it up and go full-blown communist?

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Smoke much? If you don't give taxes are you going to suddenly decide to stop using all government services - including roads, fire, police, military, health care, etc.? No you aren't.

Protecting it's citizens is a legitimate role of government. Redistribution of wealth isn't, in my opinion.

protecting its citizens redistributes wealth and changes the social landscape from what it would be if the gov't didn't exist or provided a different level of service.

if you don't like it, you can either work to change it through the system, or leave.

I don't think that he's saying that he doesn't want to pay any taxes at all, I think he's saying that he shouldn't be paying for things like welfare and Social "Security".

ZV

yup, and i'm pointing out that any gov't presence redistributes income and changes the social lancscape from what it would be if the gov't didn't exist.

How is the collecting of tax to support police and military forces constitute redistribution of wealth?

 

[geno]

The gov't runs our country, while a common theif doesn't?

 

[Vic]

How is the collecting of tax to support police and military forces constitute redistribution of wealth?

Because the taxpaying citizens give the police and military forces paying jobs that they would not otherwise have had. The key difference is that the police and military provide a necessary service to the people, something which welfare recipients do not.

edit: gotta love the ads to the left... "Free Government Grants," "Free Government Money" :| TANSTAAFL

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Vic

How is the collecting of tax to support police and military forces constitute redistribution of wealth?

Because the taxpaying citizens give the police and military forces paying jobs that they would not otherwise have had. The key difference is that the police and military provide a necessary service to the people, something which welfare recipients do not.

umm... well theres that but what i meant is the legal structure that allows people to make tons of money and take advantage of the system.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: geno
The gov't runs our country, while a common theif doesn't?

The government takes money that I earned and gives it to someone else.

How is this different from common thievery?

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: geno
The gov't runs our country, while a common theif doesn't?

The government takes money that I earned and gives it to someone else.

How is this different from common thievery?

It's "legal"?

It does annoy me, though...at work (Publix), so many people come in and buy prepared deli food, candy, soda, etc..with food stamps! You would think they should be buying 'real' food if they're that badly off..

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Vic

How is the collecting of tax to support police and military forces constitute redistribution of wealth?

Because the taxpaying citizens give the police and military forces paying jobs that they would not otherwise have had. The key difference is that the police and military provide a necessary service to the people, something which welfare recipients do not.

umm... well theres that but what i meant is the legal structure that allows people to make tons of money and take advantage of the system.

Government is a necessary evil. The idea is not to make it any worse that it has to be. One of the biggest fallacies in government is that people say, "Well, this idea isn't working, so we'll throw money money at it and see if that helps."

btw, I wouldn't say that welfare and Social Security are strictly liberal ideas anymore. If so, why isn't GW doing anything about them? "Tax and Spend" may be the liberal philosophy, but the Reagonite/Bushite philosophy is "Spend and Spend." I don't know which one is worse...

 

[Novgrod]

you, by virtue of being a citizen, have (if not in writing) joined a social contract wherein you agree to abide by certain rules because you know that a jail cell is waiting for you if you don't. in theory if the government breaks its deal and starts whacking you too badly, it's your duty to revolt.

if you're in europe, then you think that government is the institution with a monopoly on violence, so they take your jack because they can.

if you're in america/britain (to some extent), then you've grown up with more of a tradition of political liberty, wherein you sorta entrust the money to the government, that they'll spend it in ways the population deems worthwhile. for the most part--at any rate they won't screw up badly enough to merit being deposed.

interesting note: in england, taxes were literally a gift from the people to the king, so he had to go through parliament to collect them, and this is why england took a while to become a big player in european affairs during the 17th century.

now i'm not saying i don't agree with you on the crappiness of welfare etc but all you have to do is revolt if you don't like it.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: geno
The gov't runs our country, while a common theif doesn't?

The government takes money that I earned and gives it to someone else.

How is this different from common thievery?

It's "legal"?

It does annoy me, though...at work (Publix), so many people come in and buy prepared deli food, candy, soda, etc..with food stamps! You would think they should be buying 'real' food if they're that badly off..

If thievery is illegal for you and me, why should it be legal for the government?

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: geno
The gov't runs our country, while a common theif doesn't?

The government takes money that I earned and gives it to someone else.

How is this different from common thievery?

It's "legal"?

It does annoy me, though...at work (Publix), so many people come in and buy prepared deli food, candy, soda, etc..with food stamps! You would think they should be buying 'real' food if they're that badly off..

If thievery is illegal for you and me, why should it be legal for the government?

Quote me where I said it should be.
I think welfare is okay at times -- if someone loses his/her job and needs unemployment for a few weeks, cool...but I have a problem with people living off the government.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: VicGovernment is a necessary evil. The idea is not to make it any worse that it has to be. One of the biggest fallacies in government is that people say, "Well, this idea isn't working, so we'll throw money money at it and see if that helps."

btw, I wouldn't say that welfare and Social Security are strictly liberal ideas anymore. If so, why isn't GW doing anything about them? "Tax and Spend" may be the liberal philosophy, but the Reagonite/Bushite philosophy is "Spend and Spend." I don't know which one is worse...

so what level of gov't interference is necessary? you'll get an argument over that