Bitcoin Forum

Is there ever a case where the government could legally steal?


The definition of theft is the "illegal taking...". Considering the government may pass any law they want and make it a "legal taking", is there anything the government would ever do that you would consider theft?


This question is more for those who do not believe that taxation is theft.

I was about to say, taxation is theft :P

The government stole people's gold way back when, by passing a law that made it illegal to keep it...

It's like killing and murder.  Only one of those is illegal, but one could argue that it's the same thing.  Because the powers that be said it's okay for them to kill people, as long as it's not considered murder, you've legalized killing.  Just slap a "Hello, I am a terrorist" button on someone and you're good to go.  The same can be applied to anything once illegal, and theft is no different.

I understand this concept. Killing is the action of taking someone's life. It is only murder if the action is deemed illegal.

So what would be the equivalent word for theft?

murder is to theft as killing is to...?

Appropriation, possibly.

If I create a currency, and use it regularly in my household between residents in my household, and I agree to let you stay in my household, and let you use my currency, and i let you own stuff in my household at my discretion, and I charge you a fee based on transactions you engage in using my currency in my household, is that theft?

That's basically what governments do.

What if bitcoin charged you a fee for engaging in transactions using bitcoins? Is that theft?

It's called "Expropriation" when government takes your property with or without offering compensation.

Like only paying you the public evaluation for demolishing your house to make way for an interstate.

Depends; was the household fee clearly stated when I first moved in, or was it created after?  And may I opt out if I decide I no longer want to use said currency or the benefits it entails?

"Legally," yes, they do it all the time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture).

"Justly," on the other hand is a whole different kettle of fish.

And if you encrypt your virtual property, they can throw you in prison for withholding the passwords.

What was stated when you moved in was that the rules can change. Take it or leave it. If you were born in my household, play by my rules or leave. Clear enough?

Even if I'm in your household, I still have to play by the rules set up by government. Therefore, according to your logic, you have no household. Everything belongs to the government.

And if you are unlucky enough to be a US citizen, you belong to your government too, 'cause you have to pay your taxes anywhere you go.

Once more. You have no property. You yourself are a property. Are you OK with this? Are you here to defend this system?

Even if you don't include things like taxes governments find all sorts of ways to steal from you, inflation is the one everyone can all relate to but one thing that particularly pisses off UK people at the moment is the congestion charge ( you actually have to pay money to get into London depending on what type of car you have etc. ) and speeding fines. Now you could argue this is about safety and reducing congestion but the thing that's really devious about these fines and charges is that they charge just enough to make it painful but not enough to actually make any effect on the way people drive.

The way to think about the government indirectly stealing from you is a bit like getting into debt, you'll think you can pay off the first round but then it gets worse and worse the further into debt you get until it becomes uncontrollable.

The government legally steal all the time.

When you are the people who decide what is legal, and what isn't, it becomes a game of semantics!

Easiest example to get point across is that everything Hitler ever did was totally legal by German law.  That includes all everything from Kristallnacht through to Auschwitz! Sorry, if I initiated Godwin's law early! ;) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

The point is that the law is whatever those in charge say is the law - so it gets funny to watch government's break other laws that they have no control over, and how they deal with it.

Stealing is something they tend to justify by calling it something like care or safety or whatever.

Recently there has been a big problem in the UK with the government stealing children!

Read the story, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9683399/Michael-Gove-take-children-into-care-more-quickly.html

Now change the words care for steal and see how it sounds! ;)

I was born free. You will have to force me to "play by your rules", I'm not going anywhere. I'm not some pushover that you can just take advantage of, I am more than capable of defending myself. Clear enough?

I like you :D

( totally meant as a non-homosexual compliment :P )

As FirstAscent has helpfully demonstrated, "government" is just abusive parenting on a societal scale. The only reason we take their claims of legitimacy seriously at all is because so many people were conditioned into automatic obedience to power via authoritarian child rearing.

The state is nothing more than the most successful criminal cartel to operate in a given geographic area. Once a protection racket gets strong enough it can intimidate people into calling them a government instead of a mafia, but there is no real difference between them - it's just a linguistic trick.

One thing I haven't seen mentioned is that many of the laws the government passes to allow them to take others' property are unconstitutional and thus illegal and invalid in themselves. This makes actions done under the letter of these laws illegal. Then there are the times when the government doesn't even abide by the law and just does what it wants anyway just because it's more convenient. This is often the case on a more local, individual scale but occurs at all levels.

In the words of a great man, "Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun."

Isn't it the Brazilian government that tried privatizing water? It made it illegal to even collect rainwater and drink it. If claiming the rain as yours to sell is not stealing, I don't know what is.

I wouldn't say that's stealing but more along the lines of what someone who was a controlling sociopath would propose because anyone with an ounce of sanity would know it's impossible to enforce that kind of law, you may as well try laying claim to oxygen.

Compliance is not the goal of laws; punishment is the goal. Those who make laws do so because they want to control and abuse other people and the laws themselves are just a means to that end.

If an abuser can convince the victim that he has somehow done something wrong to deserve the punishment, the victim's willingness to defend himself will be weak or non-existent, so the abuser is subjected to less risk. Thus the most successful abusers seek to gain control of the law, because the population has been trained to obey it and feels guilty if they are told that they have violated it somehow.

Laws that average people must break in order to survive are perfect because the increase the potential victim pool. The level of credulity in the target population is what determines just how outrageous the laws can be before the targets reject the validity of them and do start to defend themselves.

Not Brazil. That little backwater called the USA. http://www.infowars.com/collecting-rainwater-now-illegal-in-many-states-as-big-government-claims-ownership-over-our-water/

(now I feel grubby for linking to that site).

I did not know this.  :-[
If I were a resident of one of those states I would publicly break the law. I may get a fine or something, but it would be worth watching a politician go down in flames as he/she tries to defend that law on TV.

You win bonehead of the year award. Talk about totally missing the point. The household is an analogy. When using analogies, the analogue is something which exists instead of the that which it is analogizing to.

Most of you in this thread suffer from a delusional sense that you are being oppressed by a system that works quite well, instead of a common sense view which acknowledges the utility of it.

'Tis true that those who have it quite well will find something to complain about.

I consider that a toolbox containing several screwdrivers, a hammer and wrenches in different sizes has a lot of utility. Yet no one is forcing one into my hands and making me pay for it.

I deny your utility anyway. Government is almost universally inept and inefficient in everything it does.

I'll take that over a system which is fueled solely by the immediate desires of those who don't understand or acknowledge the long term effects.

Sounds like a problem with the people, and not the system... One solved fairly easily with education, and which is just as prevalent in a top-down hierarchical model, and made much worse in such a system.

Man, this thread is deep.

The original question reminds me of the fact that never in history has treason against any government ever succeeded.

To learn why this is so, ask Sir. John Harington (1561-1612).

To save others the search, this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harington_%28writer%29) is the Sir John to which he was referring. (There are several, all contemporaries, so it can be confusing.)

You sound like those are two different things...

Most apologists for the State do that. They talk about how horrible it would be to not have one by describing the worst characteristics of the State.

When I was born noone asked me if I was OK with all the bullshit rules.
Even if they did, according to their own bullshit rules I couldn't "legally" say yes or no.
Should I sue my parents?

Would be an interesting precedent, if you did.

No point. You'd only get paid in funny money.

Hey, it still spends, for now.

Is anyone here perfectly happy with their government, and paying them taxes (even if it's through withholding), and if so, what country are you from?

It seems funny at first, but living in a desert environment water rights are literally fighting words. I believe the state was Utah that just made it legal to collect a limited amount of rain water for personal use.

Other example are:

• eminent domain
• gold confiscation (a favorite example on bitcoin)
• "drug" money seizure
• safety deposit box seizures - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1222777/The-raid-rocked-Met-Why-gun-drugs-op-6-717-safety-deposit-boxes-cost-taxpayer-fortune.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1222777/The-raid-rocked-Met-Why-gun-drugs-op-6-717-safety-deposit-boxes-cost-taxpayer-fortune.html)
• Many would say, lax environmental practices are stealing from future generations

I'll refrain from saying "anytime they want to", but history has shown the frailness of "laws" when confronted with "a really good reason"

Cheers!

Care to reread my reply instead of throwing insults?

It's a question of how you understand property rights. You are saying, you have property rights in your household, and, therefore, you can set up any rules that you like. I agree.

Now, you are saying that by analogy, government can set up any rules on the territory it is controlling, and on its citizens anywhere in the world. By analogy, I assume that government has property rights on everything that's on its territory, and on its citizens.

The main argument in your analogy is related to private property. You cannot omit this argument when transferring your reasoning from analogy to the thing you are analogizing to. Isomorphism between analogy and what is being analogized to cannot include just the conclusions, it has to include the initial axioms and logical connections as well.

If you agree that you can do anything you want on what you clearly demarcate and defend as your property in a universe where no higher authority has domain over your little corner of the world, then you implicitly agree that in our universe on Earth, a country can do anything it wants on a territory which it clearly demarcates and defends as its own and no higher authority has domain over that nation, then we're on the same page. Congratulations if you understand that.

And be glad that in a world which offers many nations to choose from, some are pretty damn good. So good, in fact, that you would be a fool to complain and wish for something significantly different, as others here in this forum do indeed do.

For example, some dimwitted nitwits in these forums start drooling at the notion of life on oil rigs, or life living in rubber tubes on floating icebergs. Imagine the freedoms afforded by such terrific locales! What's next? Life on some mind numbingly cold and lonely rock in the Kuiper Belt? Or how about some ice rock in the Oort Cloud?

Bottom line - you don't know how good you actually have it.

Govt can enable "legal appropriation" (thief) of anything, anytime.. It's just a law being created..
Laws do not solves problems, they just path problems, often in an unfair way !

OK, so I do enjoy that little freedom I have. I moved away from my home country. I am using bitcoins as much as it is reasonable. But I still have significant issues with the status quo.

1. Somebody owns me. And I see no way to set myself free. I can never be sure if a bunch of crazy politicians decide they need to impose their laws on me even when I am abroad. I can never be sure if they decide not to renew my passport. I believe human ownership is wrong, and it has to be stopped. There has to be a way to renounce all citizenship, if needed, and become a citizen of nowhere.
2. I'd like to have private property. Real private property, a place where I can set up my own rules, instead of following the rules set up by the government. The current system does not allow that, mainly for the reason that people are not used to this much freedom, they see it as something alien, and resort to familiar collectivist thinking they have been taught throughout their entire lives.

I am a realist. I realize these two issues are unlikely to be resolved during my lifetime. But I still think that humanity will wake up sooner or later. I'd feel better if I could speed up this awakening as much as possible.

So, would you agree, in principle, that these are real issues? Do you feel comfortable being owned? Do you feel comfortable having no private property? Would you like this to be changed (I am not saying any real changes are possible in our lifetime, just curious)?

The only option at this point is http://www.seasteading.org

You just described the u.s. federal government

To say nothing of the Chinese.

If you weren't paying tax to the current protection racket another one would move in and take the role through invasion and war.

Im sure if the US gov became weak enough someone else would gladly take over for them. Perhaps the russians  :P

I got an idea. Howabout we get a legit protection company to take over, instead? You know, one that doesn't use threats to get their money?

People view the government as legit as crappy as it is. I dont know of many protection agencies with the firepower to keep the US or many other governments from attacking you, and most people lack the resources that governments can command.


I dont say its fair or reasonable but thats just the way things are. Will probably require a zombie apocalypse or something that wipes out the central government before you get what you want.

There's plenty of things that will help reduce the power of governments to the point that a private agency can defend against them. One of those things is Bitcoin.

I agree with your sentiments above, Under the UN citizens of a country have the right to self determination, that is they can vote out of being under control of a certain state or empire right eg British commonwealth?
So does that right of self determination extend to the individual, if I buy a property outright and declare the land I own soveirgn and then hold a vote with those people on my land, and if we vote for sovriegnty and to separated from any national governments, does this not mean I / we would be a newly created sovriegn country and would be able to make our own laws and govern ourselvs??

I am not sure of the following but this is how I imagine the past was ment to be (in Britain we have been "subjects" of various Kings / Queens Bishops, knights and barrons so it rarely worked out this way as feudal times were dominated by serfdom and slavery):


It used to be that man was soviergn, this was a time when common law ruled and courts would be common law courts where local villagers would be summoned to the proceedings to determine the fate of an accused fellow villager. In these times there were no statues, no parliament, no "policy officers aka police" only peace officers that upheld the common law, everyone had the right to make a citizens arrest as anybody could be peace officers.

This was a time before birth certificates, driving licenses and passports all these documents are proof of your enslavement.


In relation to the OP illegal = against statute, Unlawful = against common law (as I understand it), Statue law has infected our court systems it used to be that common law was established by customs and precedents so if you have been regularly squatting on some unclaimed or common land for years then it was your common law right to do so as you have never had objections and were not causing anybody injury or loss, now statue set by the state can say any person squatting is committing an offence and because people fall for it and do not argue it is their right in court then judges rule based on the statute law again and again untill the new precedent is that people don't squat and that right is lost.

So the state can Legally steal (Levy / tax / Commandeer) but it is still unlawful / immoral,


just my .2Btc I could be wrong,

interesting people on the subject: Jordan Maxwell, Rob Menard.

The government of Cyprus, blessed by EU-IMF, is stealing 9.9% of deposits from all bank accounts right now. Legally. I guess, this explicitly answers the question in the subject.

Thought that was starting Tuesday?

Geez, it's always insults with you isn't it?  My experience is that generally people throw out the insults when they don't have an argument.

And as for the you don't know how good you have it, that is an argument that is made many times to justify criminal behaviour.  Hey, we're only taking 25% (or whatever) of your money be thankful that you get to keep the rest.   Think I saw that on a Sopranos episode.

I'm sure when the mafia runs a protection racket in a town, the same kinds of arguments are made.  Hey, this is a great place to live and all you have to do is put up with having your money stole and be told what to do and have the law being constantly changed and expanded on.  "Don't make a fuss, shut up, and be thankful for what you've got."   

The difference being, in your objections, and reality, is you really don't know how good you have it. You don't really see down and out people complaining about taxes, do you? And besides, if you used all your brain cells (yes I'm insulting you because you really do deserve it), you'd realize that the opportunities afforded you to make money which puts you into a position of being taxed are likely because of the existence of the government.

If you want to complain, please expend your energy complaining about things which will help us all.

Umm, no, sorry, not likely at all. Scientific research shows that economic growth (and, therefore, career opportunities) is negatively affected by the size of the government:

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/5b1Q8-DY67OnOKPOBnvRhk3c_CBweqvHfoqytv_qeTQ2Cj58hgfESKvOJq56osUsKGa_c_54-je7G0-qu6tFg4_KydPq3akeTNQ6jSr_S0u0WumsPOw

Experimental data first, little grey cells afterwards. Your data?

Ask the citizens of Cyprus.

Just call it a tax and it's legal ;D

From my signature:

Taxation is Theft
War is Murder
Incarceration is Kidnapping
Spanking is Assault
Federal Reserve Notes are Counterfeiting

People in power like to define new words that remove them from responsibility. Theft is evil, but when you wear a blue costume, theft turns into taxation and is no longer evil, but good and necessary. It is pathetic. Ethics has classically been used to constrain the people while providing exceptions for those in power. Look at the wars while we are told to not kill. Look at the pope's fortune while telling the people that money is the root of all evil.

Rule for us -> exception for them. This makes their exception even more profitable. Imagine being a thief in a world where no one had even thought of the idea of stealing before.

If someone makes a moral rule it should apply to everyone, or else it should not exist.

Martial Eeek! Law

Despite your odd requirements in the OP:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/tsa-agent-accused-ipad-theft/story?id=17892885 (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/tsa-agent-accused-ipad-theft/story?id=17892885)


http://www.app.com/article/20130312/NJNEWS14/303120089/Former-state-investigatorgets-probation-thefts (http://www.app.com/article/20130312/NJNEWS14/303120089/Former-state-investigatorgets-probation-thefts)


https://idcuffs.com/blog/police-officers-arrested-for-stealing-identities-from-state-drivers-license-database/ (https://idcuffs.com/blog/police-officers-arrested-for-stealing-identities-from-state-drivers-license-database/)


Here are just a few examples of "illegal theft" by the government.

Legalised bank robbery (http://www.breakingviews.com/hugo-dixon-cyprus-deposit-grab-sets-bad-precedent/21074399.article)

So what did the brits think of the US going off on their own?

First of all, that graph shows government spendings. That is not the same as government size.
Second of all, correlation does not make a causal relation. So the graph just doesn't show anything like 'X affected Y'.

If you start throwing graphs around you may as well take the time to properly understand them.

Eminent domain laws in the US are theft (in a way).  The government has to pay "fair market value" for private land it wants to buy for roads and stuff, but don't require consent by the private land owner for the sale.

That's a universal counter-argument. When applied consistently, it leads to solipsism, Kantian things-in-themselves, and all of that metaphysical stuff. Those things are nice to remember, but hardly of any practical use.

Is there any data which is as straightforward as this, and can be considered pro-government, in some interpretation?

Sounds like theft by people to me.

The graph is not even about government, it is about what percent of the gdp the government spends.

An there is plenty to say for government. This whole world society is intertwined with governance. We would be incapable of organizing on such a large scale and you propably would not have had a computer to write this on if there were no people getting together on a bigger scale.
So the problem cannot simply be defined in pro vs anti government terms.

I'm just saying the graph is pretty useless in showing that large government spending is the cause of less annual economic growth. It just does not contain that information.
It leaves out all the dynamics that produced these results.
For one, in general you can clearly see that most countries that have the largest spending also have the most complex and developed societies. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending))
The countries that have little government spending per gdp are usually poor coutries.

The truth is that there is a saturation limit because cool societies is increasingly expensive.
The economic growth potential of underdeveloped countries is simply far greater than that of well developed countries.
And what you also can clearly see is that there are a lot of exceptions. In general, tho, big government spending means expensice society.
And expensive societies means there is a limit on growth.
Sure, society can produce evermore fantastic products for me to buy but i can only spend my money once.
If i have food and games and security i'm kindof happy and don't feel the need to make my economic situation any better.
So naturally, in a society where the government spends a lot of money on society (so people have it better) the economic growth will become less and should eventually stop.


Meanwhile the graph doesn't consider basic stuff like