I don't comprehend libertarian ideas...

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by NeOmega
We are human.

WTF do you think the answer to the question is, sandman?

[Sandman]

Well, I'd hazard a guess that you'd keep paedophilia illegal, and maintain the institutions that prevent it from happening, but those institutions cost tax money and are also intrusive.

That's what I think you think. Am I right?

[David Floyd]

Floyd, I can't be bothered to parse up your post,

That's really not a surprise.

after each point. You have a rock where your heart should be.

As I told Ben, you might wanna be careful with those accusations.

And in any case, someone who favors stealing in order to live is certainly far worse than someone who would rather die than steal - you might say the first person in that example has the rock in their heart.

[Berzerker]

Laz -

BERZERKER JUST CALLED THE U.S. GOVERNMENT "FREEDOM"!!!!!!

BERZERKER JUST CALLED THE TAX-COLLECTIN', WELFARE PAYIN', IRAQ INVADIN' U.S. ADMINISTRATION "FREEDOM"!!!!

HE'S OUT OF THE CLUB!!!! HE WILL NOT SPEND THE BLESSED HEREAFTER ETERNITY LAPPING AT THE GRIZZLED OLD LOINS OF AYN RAND!!! HE'S A BACKSLIDER!!!! HE'S A TAX PAYIN' WHORE LIKE THE REST OF US AND HE'S GETTIN' A STAR-SPANGLED STIFFIE OUT OF IT!!!! OH SAINTED DAY!!!!

Can you quote me?

Congratulations Berserker! You just won this week's award for not reading the post you answered!

Congratulations Laz, you've just accused me of doing what you just did (see above).

To me the two are interchangeable (that's "interchangeable", Berserker. "Interchangeable". Got that? Good.

Hmm... and interchangeability means incompatability now? You said this in the previous sentence (you know, the sentence I quoted?):

these theoretical libertarian nations or poor, backward 3rd world hellholes.

To which I asked:

3rd world nations are theoretically libertarian?

So now you claim this "interchangeability" means these 3rd world nations are not theoretically libertarian?

Note also the "To me", inevitably used to signpost subjectivity) because I'm convinced their natural tendency would be/is a tendency to slide into becoming nasty, brutish ****-holes.

Obviously it is to you, I wasn't expecting factual evidence, just some rationale. The northern US before the Civil War was not as you describe and it was largely libertarian, much more so than 3rd world dictatorships.

I had a feeling that line would hook you when I wrote it- somehow I got the impression you wouldn't exercise caution and enquire what my opinion meant.

The intricacy of your "trap" is a sight to behold. Your posts are becoming quite shrill, what does that signpost represent?

Well shucks. You convinced me. Libertarianism is about as popular as necrotising fasciitis of the genitals among both able-bodied people and the disabled. We're agreed. I'll hold my hand up and agree with that.

I didn't expect a graceful retraction from you, that would require a sense of dignity. Do you need more federal money to become dignified?

Though I'll still maintain that it's even less popular among the disabled. Going to prove me wrong?

It's your assertion, the burden of proof is on you.

No, Berzerker. Charity fails because people are ill-informed, have conflicting agenda, are overly swayed by sentimentality in favour of cute wickle bummy wabbits, and don't put their money where their mouths are. You missed out several, you see? It's still failure, however. We seem to agree on that point.

If charity fails (and if you read my post, I offered proof to the contrary), it is because liberals won't put their money where their mouths are. Now, why is that?

9-11, by any standards, was hardly typical, and it would be highly disingenous of you to suggest it was. Do CP charities ever have their plight publicised by wall-to-wall TV coverage 24 hours a day over just about every TV station on the planet? Nope.

We have a welfare state so why would the media focus our attention on the needs of welfare recipients? The media does that quite a bit and we already have a welfare system. The fact remains Americans give lots to charity and could afford even more if liberals weren't taxing them to pay for all the crap we find in the budget. If charity fails, prove it. The amount needed to support disabled people who lack support is minsicule compared to the money spent on the welfare state.

Yes I do believe the Nazi plunder should by returned. Because they were stolen. And once again, appropriation is only stealing if it's unlawful. That's the law, baby. We could keep this up for days, you know

Hey Laz, the Nazis stole LEGALLY! They ran the government, they made the laws, and you're being hypocritical... They plundered but your stealing is just fine and dandy...

That would be breaking the law, Berzerker. Why would I want to do that?

Which is just more hypocrisy, jail thieves who have the guts to do their own stealing while you steal from the comfort of the voting booth.

Full story please. I'd love to know how you got by. Don't tell me.....student years? Parental handouts? I feel your pain.

I worked, ever try that?

The answer (God I hate stating the bleeding obvious for those who can't pick up on inferrals) is "no".

You didn't read my previous post on this point accurately and used your mistake to launch into a tirade, so I was just repeating my question to get an answer. You can't even answer a simple question without insulting me? Is this that famous liberal tolerance we hear so much about?

So, you don't accept my proposition. Why did you mention the disabled then when your real agenda is a liberal welfare state? Oh, an appeal to emotion? "Yes, if we don't legalise stealing on a massive scale to fund everything liberals want, then we'll push the disabled out there to shame our opponents." Hey Laz, since you've complained about the disabled who lack support, how am I to know the extent of your vision for a welfare state? Do you want me to put words in your mouth?

Hey Imran! Is that extreme? You want libertarians to compromise with people who won't compromise? How?

Africa is, indeed, my problem- at least partially.

Partially?

I don't know where you got the idea that it wasn't.

Oh I don't know, maybe the fact you spend alot of time sitting behind a computer trying to convince other people stealing is moral if it's legal? Well, except for those dastardly Nazis. Shall we go down a list of governments that plundered wealth from the citizenry which you would call stealing inspite of it being legal?

I'm happy about the portion of my taxes going on overseas development. That's why I feel no particular to make ANOTHER trip to Africa. Thanks for letting me bring that up, incidentally.

Oh, you've gone to Africa to devote your time and money to support the disabled? A portion of your income taxes makes it to Africa? Better take a closer look... The few pennies that might make it there ain't supporting the disabled, it's going into the pockets of politicians, dictators, and bureaucrats who then use your money to buy weapons and soldiers to kill political opponents. Yes, I'm sure African dictators will shove the disabled out in front of them too if those government handouts from the US are threatened. Sorry Laz, but your efforts to hand out money to Africa and other countries has killed millions... Another sad truth...

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by David Floyd

As I told Ben, you might wanna be careful with those accusations.

Why? What are you going to do? Disagree with me?

[/QUOTE]
And in any case, someone who favors stealing in order to live is certainly far worse than someone who would rather die than steal - you might say the first person in that example has the rock in their heart. [/QUOTE]

Damn straight. Fortunately claiming welfare isn't stealing.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Laz -

Can you quote me?

Yup. In fact I already did. Want me to post it again for that Andy Warhol-type effect?

Congratulations Laz, you've just accused me of doing what you just did (see above).

That's the beauty of the internet. With two protagonists building on minor misunderstandings, semantic variances and plain old communication breakdowns, startlingly different interpretations of even apparantly simple statements can result. What's more, both can usually be proved even in the face of the contradictory interpretation held by the other so in the end the winner is just whoever gets bored first. Have a banana.

[QUOTE]
Hmm... and interchangeability means incompatability now? You said this in the previous sentence (you know, the sentence I quoted?):
[QUOTE]

Nope. It still means "interchangeable". Got it? "Interchangeable", you see? They're entirely different words, distinguished by spelling and a host of semantics. Let me know if I can clear up any other sources of confusion.

So now you claim this "interchangeability" means these 3rd world nations are not theoretically libertarian?

Absolutely. Not liberatarian in the slightest, except that I think a key feature of both societies would be starvation in the streets.

Obviously it is to you, I wasn't expecting factual evidence, just some rationale. The northern US before the Civil War was not as you describe and it was largely libertarian, much more so than 3rd world dictatorships.

"Largely" libertarian is not "libertarian"- for one thing your subjective criteria means your definition of "largely" may differ from others. Some might consider that the laissez-faire Tory governments of Victorian times had a lot of liberatarian appeal, and that fell a long way short of any society I'd want to live in.

The intricacy of your "trap" is a sight to behold. Your posts are becoming quite shrill, what does that signpost represent?


You can't even answer a simple question without insulting me? Is this that famous liberal tolerance we hear so much about?

I'm sticking those two quotes together because I like the effect. Be a brave soldier, Berzerker. I'm going easy on you, trust me.

I didn't expect a graceful retraction from you, that would require a sense of dignity. Do you need more federal money to become dignified?

It certainly wasn't a graceful retraction. In fact, it wasn't a retraction at all. It was sarcasm.

If charity fails (and if you read my post, I offered proof to the contrary), it is because liberals won't put their money where their mouths are. Now, why is that?

No, Berzerker. Charity fails because people are ill-informed, have conflicting agenda, are overly swayed by sentimentality in favour of cute wickle bummy wabbits, and don't put their money where their mouths are. You missed out several, you see? It's still failure, however. We seem to agree on that point

Astute readers will have noticed that this is an exact, word-for-word repitition of the relevant section from my previous post. If Berzerker's just going to repeat himself I'm buggered if I'm going to do any different.

We have a welfare state so why would the media focus our attention on the needs of welfare recipients? The media does that quite a bit and we already have a welfare system. The fact remains Americans give lots to charity and could afford even more if liberals weren't taxing them to pay for all the crap we find in the budget. If charity fails, prove it. The amount needed to support disabled people who lack support is minsicule compared to the money spent on the welfare state.

Of course. There is the usual inefficiency, bureaucracy and undeserving cases, plus loads of other good causes. Unless you place your shiny penny directly into the recipient's hand, you'll find charities have drains on their funds too. In fact some are bordering on fraudulent.

Hey Laz, the Nazis stole LEGALLY! They ran the government, they made the laws, and you're being hypocritical...

They certainly did! Then laws were passed demanding that the funds be paid back! Welcome to "Fun with Laws" hour!

Which is just more hypocrisy, jail thieves who have the guts to do their own stealing while you steal from the comfort of the voting booth.

Aw, bless. Berzerker thinks I insult him but he's happy to call me a thief because I don't share him marginalised politics.

Deal with it. I say it's not theft. The police say it's not theft. The judges and juries say it's not theft. The government says it's not theft. The theft acts say it's not theft. My parish priest says it's not theft. Ultimately the only people who say it's theft are a small bunch of impotent moaners on the internet. You're entitled to your opinions, but don't expect to have too many people think you're making sense.

I worked, ever try that?

Crap example, wasn't it? "I was homeless yet never claimec welfare! (I was employed, of course)". Come back when you've experienced real hardship and we'll discuss it.

So, you don't accept my proposition. Why did you mention the disabled then when your real agenda is a liberal welfare state? Oh, an appeal to emotion? "Yes, if we don't legalise stealing on a massive scale to fund everything liberals want, then we'll push the disabled out there to shame our opponents."

Yup.

If not wanting to see people such as the disabled reduced to begging in the streets is just emotonal weakness, it's emotional weakness I'm more than comfortable with.

Oh I don't know, maybe the fact you spend alot of time sitting behind a computer trying to convince other people stealing is moral if it's legal? Well, except for those dastardly Nazis. Shall we go down a list of governments that plundered wealth from the citizenry which you would call stealing inspite of it being legal?

Go on then.

Oh, you've gone to Africa to devote your time and money to support the disabled?

Not just the disabled, and I admit that a desire to do some sightseeing played a strong influencing role, but yes.

A portion of your income taxes makes it to Africa? Better take a closer look... The few pennies that might make it there ain't supporting the disabled, it's going into the pockets of politicians, dictators, and bureaucrats who then use your money to buy weapons and soldiers to kill political opponents.

Back that up if you feel like me to take it seriously. Yes, some foreign aid goes astray. I'm realistic about these things. Other funds don't.

I'm impressed by this section. I'm already aware that you think I'm a thief, but I had no idea that the fact that a portion of my taxes go on overseas development means I'm guilty of crimes against humanity too.

Yes, I'm sure African dictators will shove the disabled out in front of them too if those government handouts from the US are threatened. Sorry Laz, but your efforts to hand out money to Africa and other countries has killed millions... Another sad truth...

And genocide too? Where will we go from here?

I think more effort should have been made in your childhood to get you to share your toys.

[Imran Siddiqui]

NO, and someone like Bez is reat proof..he has a very strict moral code, in which the "greater good" is meaningless and in fact, Immoral. MOrality is a code by which individuals in a society should be have..how can "survival" be part of that?

Just think of the phrase "a necessary evil": if everything feel under morality, anything that was necessary to do woul be 'good'. We know that not to be true.

I think the words 'necessary evil' are a misnomer. If someone admits something is necessary, I think that qualifies as being, at the very least, not immoral. I think those that say something is 'immoral, but necessary' aren't really saying the act is immoral at all. If it's necessary, I don't think it can be immoral. Maybe under other circumstances it is immoral, but the necessary action is done under those circumstances which make it not immoral.

If Berz does not believe in the greater good, then that is part of his moral beliefs. Those that do believe in a greater good and incorporate that, do believe it as part of their morality, or at the very least do not consider it immoral (so it's in the limbo area between moral and immoral, and I'd include it in the moral area).

[GePap]

I think the words 'necessary evil' are a misnomer. If someone admits something is necessary, I think that qualifies as being, at the very least, not immoral. I think those that say something is 'immoral, but necessary' aren't really saying the act is immoral at all. If it's necessary, I don't think it can be immoral. Maybe under other circumstances it is immoral, but the necessary action is done under those circumstances which make it not immoral.

Not immoral is not the same as moral. At best, they are amoral, at a point at which morality is meaningless. Morality is based on values, some of which can be irrational, opr highly inpractical. under such condition, you do what you can.

If Berz does not believe in the greater good, then that is part of his moral beliefs. Those that do believe in a greater good and incorporate that, do believe it as part of their morality, or at the very least do not consider it immoral (so it's in the limbo area between moral and immoral, and I'd include it in the moral area).

Again, while there is moral and immoral, there is also Amoral. Most of the world lies well beyond human morality, even most of the human world..I mean, what is the moral significant of taking a shower? To most people it is an act devoid of meaning..though out there are the people for whom cleanliness is next to Godliness. The realm of politics and policy and war are full of Amoral acts, many viewed as immoral acts, made necessary by circumstance.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Not immoral is not the same as moral. At best, they are amoral, at a point at which morality is meaningless. Morality is based on values, some of which can be irrational, opr highly inpractical. under such condition, you do what you can.

I think that's my difference with you. I think that there the 'amoral' sphere in morality is much smaller.

In taking a shower example, remember morality is also a system which says what is right. I'm sure many people would say it is not right to stop taking showers for a span of, say, a week. It may be different for different people, but I think most people would have an opinion of whether it is right or wrong.

Only those things that people have no opinion if it is right or wrong is 'amoral'. Hygene is always subjected to standards of 'right'. People make decision if a hygenic practice is right and wrong. What is right is moral, what is wrong is immoral. That area where people don't care is amoral, but I think that area is very narrow.

Any 'necessary evil' basically ends with saying we were RIGHT because he had to do it.

[Berzerker]

Laz -

Yup. In fact I already did. Want me to post it again for that Andy Warhol-type effect?

No, you didn't quote me saying any of the following:

BERZERKER JUST CALLED THE U.S. GOVERNMENT "FREEDOM"!!!!!!

BERZERKER JUST CALLED THE TAX-COLLECTIN', WELFARE PAYIN', IRAQ INVADIN' U.S. ADMINISTRATION "FREEDOM"!!!!

HE'S OUT OF THE CLUB!!!! HE WILL NOT SPEND THE BLESSED HEREAFTER ETERNITY LAPPING AT THE GRIZZLED OLD LOINS OF AYN RAND!!! HE'S A BACKSLIDER!!!! HE'S A TAX PAYIN' WHORE LIKE THE REST OF US AND HE'S GETTIN' A STAR-SPANGLED STIFFIE OUT OF IT!!!! OH SAINTED DAY!!!!

When you referred to "your government" I thought you were referring to the libertarian government I want, not the current US government. We are not free under the current US government, but of course some aspects of the US government are useful... That is not an endorsement of the government inspite of your "interpretation".

That's the beauty of the internet. With two protagonists building on minor misunderstandings, semantic variances and plain old communication breakdowns, startlingly different interpretations of even apparantly simple statements can result. What's more, both can usually be proved even in the face of the contradictory interpretation held by the other so in the end the winner is just whoever gets bored first. Have a banana.

All of which didn't stop you from claiming I support the US government. Don't try to talk with a banana stuffed in your mouth, you won't make much sense.

Nope. It still means "interchangeable". Got it? "Interchangeable", you see? They're entirely different words, distinguished by spelling and a host of semantics. Let me know if I can clear up any other sources of confusion.

"Nope"? Does that mean "interchangeability" means one can be replaced by that which is "interchangeable" or does it mean they are in fact incompatable? The confusion was created by your unsupported assertion that 3rd world hell holes are theoretically libertarian followed by the claim 3rd world hell holes are interchangeable with libertarianism only to deny making that equation because "interchangeable" doesn't really mean "interchangeable".

Absolutely. Not liberatarian in the slightest, except that I think a key feature of both societies would be starvation in the streets.

So 3rd world hell holes are not theoretically libertarian in the slightest but they are interchangeable nonetheless? Starvation in 3rd world hell holes is usually caused by warring political factions using food as a weapon - the resulting starvation is man made, not because of libertarianism. Was there starvation in the northern US prior to the Civil War? Instead of just making stuff up, try offering some evidence.

"Largely" libertarian is not "libertarian"- for one thing your subjective criteria means your definition of "largely" may differ from others.

The only reason I don't claim the north was libertarian is because there were some restrictions on personal freedom like homosexuality. The north did not have a welfare state and you claim not having a welfare state - the applicable part of libertarianism we are debating - results in a brutish hell hole where people starve. So you need to explain why the largely libertarian north did not have starvation without a welfare state.

Some might consider that the laissez-faire Tory governments of Victorian times had a lot of liberatarian appeal, and that fell a long way short of any society I'd want to live in.

Do you have proof those Victorian governments were laissez faire? The last thing I'd call Britain then or at any other time is laissez faire. That Victorian period got it's name from the queen in charge, and that ain't freedom.

I'm sticking those two quotes together because I like the effect. Be a brave soldier, Berzerker. I'm going easy on you, trust me.

So throwing around insults in ~half your posts is "going easy" on me? I like the effect too, your shrillness is also a sight to behold for all who believe in "liberal tolerance". Unlike you, I don't devote half (or more) of my responses to insults.

It certainly wasn't a graceful retraction. In fact, it wasn't a retraction at all. It was sarcasm.

Ah, so you stand behind your mistakes even when they are shown to be mistakes. But while you didn't "retract" your claim, you did acknowledge your claim was wrong.

No, Berzerker. Charity fails because people are ill-informed, have conflicting agenda, are overly swayed by sentimentality in favour of cute wickle bummy wabbits, and don't put their money where their mouths are. You missed out several, you see? It's still failure, however. We seem to agree on that point

So the reason liberals won't put their money where their mouths are is because they are ill-informed, have conflicting agendas, and so on? Did charity fail on 9/11? Oops, you already said charity was a success there.

Astute readers will have noticed that this is an exact, word-for-word repitition of the relevant section from my previous post. If Berzerker's just going to repeat himself I'm buggered if I'm going to do any different.

Astute readers will have noticed you not only contradicted yourself by acknowledging charity was a success for 9/11, they'll notice you didn't answer my question.

Of course. There is the usual inefficiency, bureaucracy and undeserving cases, plus loads of other good causes. Unless you place your shiny penny directly into the recipient's hand, you'll find charities have drains on their funds too. In fact some are bordering on fraudulent.

As opposed to all the fraud in the government's welfare system? That's quite a double standard there, Laz. That's right, the best system for charity is the most direct, the worst is the most indirect and most bureaucratic - i.e., government.

They certainly did! Then laws were passed demanding that the funds be paid back! Welcome to "Fun with Laws" hour!

But the stealing was legal and you called it plunder. But you also claim stealing isn't stealing if it's legal. So the continues...

Aw, bless. Berzerker thinks I insult him but he's happy to call me a thief because I don't share him marginalised politics.

I won't refrain from insulting people who insult me first, but I'm not insulting you Laz, by your own standard wrt the Nazis, it is possible for stealing to be legal and still call it stealing as you've just shown. If a thief steals, they are by definition a thief. That isn't an insult, it's just a fact. My goal is to get people to think about what they're doing by putting their actions into simple terms, not to insult people. Jesus was not insulting the adulteress when he told her to sin no more.

Deal with it. I say it's not theft. The police say it's not theft. The judges and juries say it's not theft. The government says it's not theft. The theft acts say it's not theft. My parish priest says it's not theft.

Then the Nazis didn't steal either, but you say they did steal.

Ultimately the only people who say it's theft are a small bunch of impotent moaners on the internet. You're entitled to your opinions, but don't expect to have too many people think you're making sense.

Yes, the opinions of the victims of theft dont count, just the opinions of the thieves.

Crap example, wasn't it? "I was homeless yet never claimec welfare! (I was employed, of course)". Come back when you've experienced real hardship and we'll discuss it.

Being homeless doesn't count as a hardship? I'll have to remember that one. I was homeless and I got out of that hardship by getting a job and working. You apparently would get out of that hardship by demanding politicians hand you other people's money. Which is harder, working your way out of the hardship or sticking your hand out and whining like a baby?

Yup.

If not wanting to see people such as the disabled reduced to begging in the streets is just emotonal weakness, it's emotional weakness I'm more than comfortable with.

But you are using them to "justify" a massive welfare state. If they were really your concern, you'd focus on their needs and not on your own. And why would they be begging in the streets? Even with your beloved welfare state we see many private organisations serving the needs of people and we'd see many more if people weren't led into the "I pay taxes for that" mentality. Does the fact many people are literally taxed into poverty enter into the equation?

Not just the disabled, and I admit that a desire to do some sightseeing played a strong influencing role, but yes.

I'll quote you, "back that up if you feel like me to take it seriously".

Back that up if you feel like me to take it seriously. Yes, some foreign aid goes astray. I'm realistic about these things. Other funds don't.

My God Laz, didn't you know the reason for those 3rd world hell holes in Africa is because most African countries were (or still are) run by brutal thugs who use "aid" to get rich and kill people? Somalia and Liberia were perhaps the worst examples, but you get the picture.

I'm impressed by this section. I'm already aware that you think I'm a thief, but I had no idea that the fact that a portion of my taxes go on overseas development means I'm guilty of crimes against humanity too.

You didn't commit the crimes, you merely helped fund the criminals and forced others to help fund them thru taxes.

And genocide too? Where will we go from here?

Is there a worse place?

I think more effort should have been made in your childhood to get you to share your toys.

I was never the one to get mad and take my ball home in the middle of a game. But I'm not surprised to see you confuse a desire to not help others steal with a desire to not share your own property. But in your world, maybe stealing is a euphemism for sharing. And if you want to insult my parents, do it to my face so I can share my knuckles with your teeth. Part of the welfare state involves funding of abortions, do you agree with that?

[David Floyd]

Why? What are you going to do? Disagree with me?

Let's put it this way...if you needed a couple hundred bucks, I'd probably offer to send it to you.

Damn straight. Fortunately claiming welfare isn't stealing.

Maybe, but supporting the existence of welfare, and voting to start or retain it, certainly is. Seeing as how you support the existence of the welfare state, you have no point.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by David Floyd

Let's put it this way...if you needed a couple hundred bucks, I'd probably offer to send it to you.

Don't bother. Ever. If you're going to call me a thief you can stick your charity up your arse. Let's both reap what we sow and see who's more comfortable with it.

Maybe, but supporting the existence of welfare, and voting to start or retain it, certainly is. Seeing as how you support the existence of the welfare state, you have no point.

Supporting the existance of a welfare state = theft?

Nope. Fails under Common Law as there's no mens rea. Fails under statutory law as there's no statute. The only place it's considered theft is between the ears of Libertarians. Unless it's for funding armies, of course....

That's the point. The fact that you dislike it doesn't make it theft.

[David Floyd]

Don't bother. Ever. If you're going to call me a thief you can stick your charity up your arse. Let's both reap what we sow and see who's more comfortable with it.

Fine, I won't bother. But now that the offer is there - and it is, by the way, serious - you can't accuse me of being a heartless bastard anymore.

Or, you could say that I am selfish, in that I am only giving money to prove a point - that is, giving for my own self interest. If this is true, then, acting in our own self interest - acting selfishly - can often times result in a benefit to others.

So which is it? Am I unselfish, or is being selfish not such a bad thing after all?

Nope. Fails under Common Law as there's no mens rea

MENS REA: The state of mind indicating culpability which is required by statute as an element of a crime. See, e.g. Staples v. United States, 511 US 600 (1994).

So, actually, there IS mens rea, as your state of mind indicates that you support the act, and, by voting, in a way commit the act, of depriving me of my money against my will.

Fails under statutory law as there's no statute.

This is silly, as Berzerker has already pointed out to you. The Nazis stole, even if there was no "statute" against their theft.

The only place it's considered theft is between the ears of Libertarians.

What we object to is taking our money without our consent. You're saying you don't object to this?

Oh, I see, it's OK for the government to do it, as long as it's legal. But you've already admitted that what the Nazis did was theft.

So maybe it's not theft, as long as it is going to "help" people. Is that how you're choosing to define "theft"?

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Damn straight. Fortunately claiming welfare isn't stealing.


Maybe, but supporting the existence of welfare, and voting to start or retain it, certainly is. Seeing as how you support the existence of the welfare state, you have no point.

You've justified this is two different ways DF over the last week or two. Either welfare and public education and the dole is theft, or it is a moral way to recoup the money stolen from you. (although i dont see how two wrongs make a right) Which one is it?

[David Floyd]

LoA:

I did not justify it two different ways. If you are forced to pay into the welfare system, I'm not sure that I see anything morally wrong with utilizing the welfare system to recoup your losses. However, there IS something wrong with supporting such a system in the first place.

The existence of the welfare system is stealing. Utilizing the system to take your money back is not stealing (although a bad idea for other reasons).

Short answer? If you are forced to pay into social services, by all means, find a way to recoup your money - it's only stealing if you actually support and/or vote for the existence of such a system.