Socialized theft

[Whatssnew]

Angry Citizen said:

Because of Obamacare, I get to not die from diabetes - a condition I had no choice in getting. My sympathies to you and your wife, finder, but the kind of practice that lost her her coverage is exactly what Obamacare will end. Stop blaming the government for what private corporations do.

I am truly sorry to hear of your condition, I pray that you do not suffer to much by its unfortunate effects.

I would like to ask you and everyone else listening, this question:

Do you believe that I, (as in me,) should have to pay for your medical treatments weather or not I consent to, and weather or not I can afford it ? Yes or No? If you say yes, then you truly and whole heartedly believe in Socialized medical care. If you answer any way other than yes, then you are just using law in conjunction with sympathies towards such medical conditions to justify theft from others.

Make no mistake, spreading the wealth is theft. If there are ten people in a room, and you hold a vote as to weather or not you should take money from the two wealthiest people in the room and give it too everyone else, and everyone but the two votes in favor, it is still theft even though it is legally supported. You might at this time reflect upon Hitlers approach to stealing from the Jews, (before and while killing them.) Just because the people gave him the power to do so, does not change the fact that he stole their possession, and livelihoods.

For those who are Christians, on this subject you should be thinking of: ”Thou shalt not steal,” and “thou shalt not covet.”

http://www.volconvo.com/forums/polit...ing-off-2.html

[Dodds]

Make no mistake, spreading the wealth is theft.

Also make no mistake that consolidating wealth is theft. If you want an explanation of this just ask.

To answer your question though I would answer yes, yes a thousand times yes. If you would like to know why just ask.

[Jack]

So let's debate the Bible's socialistic statements, the ones conservatives rarely if ever address:

Matthew 19:21 Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

Matthew 6:19-20 "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal.

Luke 12:33 Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys.

Luke 18:22 When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

Acts 2:45 Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.

Acts 4:34-35 There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.

2 Corinthians 8:14 At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. Then there will be equality,

[barts]

Make no mistake, spreading the wealth is theft. If there are ten people in a room, and you hold a vote as to weather or not you should take money from the two wealthiest people in the room and give it too everyone else, and everyone but the two votes in favor, it is still theft even though it is legally supported.

I'm curious as to how far you you'd push this simplistic analogy. Let's assume that one of the ten people in your hypothetical room acquires all the wealth and nothing is left for anyone else. Is it your view, that the nine others should simply accept their fate of misery, lack of opportunity to advance, and servitude to the one wealthy person? Why would they--or should they--do that?

It would seem to me that the social "theft", as you so disparagingly call it, is the only reasonable approach for a social animal like human beings who must live in communities, no matter what an individual's wealth may be.

Social theft is rational. Letting one or two people own and control all the resources is irrational. Indeed, it's suicidal.

[Whatssnew]

Since you answer yes, I believe you are honest, and that I can live with.

I do disagree with you on what is theft. We will have to discuss this later when I have more time.

P.S. Happy Easter :)

[Angry Citizen]

Do you believe that I, (as in me,) should have to pay for your medical treatments weather or not I consent to, and weather or not I can afford it ? Yes or No? If you say yes, then you truly and whole heartedly believe in Socialized medical care. If you answer any way other than yes, then you are just using law in conjunction with sympathies towards such medical conditions to justify theft from others.

Whether you consent or not yes, but whether you can afford it or not no. If you yourself can't afford it, then you'd be the one benefiting from it, not paying for it. The whole point of society is to allow everyone to survive. I frankly don't care if you want a second yacht or something. I'm dying here. Save my life first.

Make no mistake, spreading the wealth is theft.

Do you consider "theft" to be a greater crime than allowing someone to die?

[LetThereBe]

Do you consider "theft" to be a greater crime than allowing someone to die?

Yes.

[Angry Citizen]

Yes.

This is payback for me suggesting it's not immoral to design a critter for the sole purpose of making it suffer, isn't it.

[LetThereBe]

This is payback for me suggesting it's not immoral to design a critter for the sole purpose of making it suffer, isn't it.

Heh, I will stand by that keeping people alive is not a moral obligation.
Besides, just keeping people alive clearly isn't the social goal or we would have a vastly different welfare system. Instead we take quality of life into account, and supply more than just basic needs.

I ask; Why then do we only tax finances and property? I likely am in the wealthiest ten percent of Americans (in part because of my frugality and lack of materialism), but I am definitely in the bottom 1% for sexual intimacy for my age group. This has an incredible negative impact on my quality of life.
Why can't I expect society to tax those with more than their share of physical beauty by sharing it with me?

[Angry Citizen]

I ask; Why then do we only tax finances and property? I likely am in the wealthiest ten percent of Americans (in part because of my frugality and lack of materialism), but I am definitely in the bottom 1% for sexual intimacy for my age group. This has an incredible negative impact on my quality of life.
Why can't I expect society to tax those with more than their share of physical beauty by sharing it with me?

Because beauty isn't a human right. Food, health care, a roof over one's head, and a job that doesn't pay slave wages (or treat you as a slave) - these are human rights. The state has a duty to guard human rights. It just depends on what you define to be "human rights". I don't believe people have a human right to property, at least an inviolable one. The government has already codified this as eminent domain. If the state says your house isn't as important as a highway, the highway wins. in the case of socialized medicine, the government is saying a small portion of your paycheck isn't more important than a human life. I don't disagree.

[crimethinker]

Why can't I expect society to tax those with more than their share of physical beauty by sharing it with me?

In a sense this already occurs because the more attractive you are, the more money you make relative to your unattractive counterparts, and thus the more taxes you pay. Income redistribution, or "theft", can address most forms of inequity and social injustice, if only partially.


Anyway, OP, everything is theft if you're so willing to stretch the definition. You're not going to pull the rug out from under modern society by arguing that taxation is theft.

[LetThereBe]

Because beauty isn't a human right. Food, health care, a roof over one's head, and a job that doesn't pay slave wages (or treat you as a slave) - these are human rights. The state has a duty to guard human rights. It just depends on what you define to be "human rights". I don't believe people have a human right to property, at least an inviolable one. The government has already codified this as eminent domain. If the state says your house isn't as important as a highway, the highway wins. in the case of socialized medicine, the government is saying a small portion of your paycheck isn't more important than a human life. I don't disagree.

I do not consider a good paying job a "human right". It is something you earn. If you are not hard working, creative, or otherwise DESERVING of a good job, then no one has incentive to hire you.
As for the rest, we could easily shelter and feed humans far more efficiently than we do. Why do we give them the luxury of choice with the food they buy on the public's dime? Why can they use what they receive from welfare for anything other than cheap, sustaining groceries, efficient clothing, and rent?