I guess I did miss a few steps after all.

Societal Voting => State => State Definitions => collective coercion => Gang => fear of physical threats = involuntary force = theft = expropriation = plunder = tax = violation of contract = violence = lack of liberty = injustice.

Sorry, the last version was a bit off-the-cuff. This ought to be more or less complete.

I have a neighbor girl who has 50 pieces of gold. I want it. However, I don't want to steal it. I go to my local politician (a legally elected representative) and tell him I want the girl's gold. He passes a law permitting me to abscond with it. It is no longer theft. I take the 50 pieces.

Amazing how my conscience is assuaged. Very interesting concept.

P.S. I also have an idea for an assassination... You wouldn't mind helping me out with that would you?

These following concepts are more or less equivalent or at least progress from one to the next.

Collective coercion = fear of physical threats = involuntary force = theft = expropriation = plunder = tax = violation of contract = violence = lack of liberty = injustice.

That about covers it. I didn't miss anything did I?

So let me get this straight. Plunder = Theft = Tax.

Glad we got that out of the way. Wow that's giving me the chills. [sarcasm] I feel so much better now. Thanks [/sarcasm]

I could take the property of my neighbor and call it love too. It doesn't change the outcome. I'm not going to 'love' my neighbor then, I guess. All I have to do then is call love 'theft', as they would then be equivalent at that point.

Of course, you're going to tell me some poppycock that taxes are voluntary somehow right? Oh, and that I don't have to pay them, except that there are some pretty serious consequences for not doing so.

I can see where this argument is headed.

The real answer isn't so much that you can or can't get good healthcare from government. I'm sure there are many people who have received excellent care, and others who have not.

The real issue is the one that continues to get muddled by the underlying facts. This fact is the method by which government acquires the resources or monies to fund such healthcare. If you look closely enough you'll very soon realize that for government to provide healthcare, they have to seize the assets and monies of others.

For lack of a better word, we call this plunder. It isn't any different than me going to my neighbor and stealing from him to provide for the healthcare of my loved ones. It is no more legal for me to do it than for anybody else to do it. And all of you who say that it merely takes a majority vote, or for that matter, a unanimous vote (excluding the one being plundered) does not make it any more right.

Why should theft have exceptions? Last I checked, just about everybody I talk to, excepting a few criminals wasting away their time behind bars, finds theft unacceptable. Your ivory towers, your well dressed politicians, your auspicious lawyers and your champions of higher society can't get past the ugly fact that theft is the underlying operating function of government-controlled healthcare.

I know there will be some in this forum who will shoot me down. They've done it in the past and they're not going to stop now. At the very least, please address the theft issue. If you have a way around that, then I'm all ears.

But is it not true that legal matters are derived from morality (i.e. mores)? To me there appears to be very little difference.

So we love edge cases do we? Let's try this one on for size:

Let's suppose that you walk up to a bus stop. There is another man standing there. He's holding a rope. The rope is attached to something, but you don't know what it is. He asks you if you'd assist him in holding the rope while he ties his shoe laces. You oblige.

He hands you the rope and tells you that he'll get back to you in a sec. Unbeknownst to you, it's a ruse. However, before he leaves, he reveals to you that the rope you're holding is attaced to a guillotine, there's a man locked in, and the blade is very heavy. Don't let go, he says. He then departs leaving you by yourself. There is no one and nothing else around for miles. The bus stop is not a bus stop, but a mirage. It's just you, the rope, and the man headlocked in the guillotine.

You only have so much strength and stamina. Your only option is to hold the rope or let go. Do you let go of the rope, or hold on as long as you can? If you aren't under any obligation to hold the rope (you've been deceived) can you let go? If you let go, are you legally responsible for the man's death?

Using your logic, we as nations of the world should vote that all suicide bombers and the irish should be exterminated because they're cruel fanatics. I only need a majority of votes...

I love playing numbers games.

I believe you have no right to intervene betwixt me and my clientele unless you know for a certainty, or you have reasonable cause to believe I'm about to bring harm. If you think that there is such a threat: first, inform the potential victim, second, get a search warrant, third, bring charges if any are worthy, and finally prosecute if you think the issue is grave enough. Until then, stay out of my kitchen and my life.


A bomb isn't a bomb without the explosive materials. It's like an automobile without the gas. Sheesh. I'll never give a carte blanche answer unless the question is an obvious one. Using, or threatening use of nuclear weapons is not a simple question.

I would greatly appreciate it, that if "we" meaning "you" are done with the food safety issue, to please refrain from misquoting or misrepresenting me. I never implied that just "anybody" has the freedom to sell tainted food (at least not without proper disclosure). It is nearly impossible to prevent everybody from accidentally or intentionally selling tainted food. You'll have to give up on that possibility. I don't like your world and I don't feel very welcomed, hence my argument for suggesting it change, preferably for the better.

I think it's very difficult for anybody to produce a functioning nuclear weapon, so I'm not worried about it too much. However, considering the type of weapon and the edge case you're implying, I would like to think that measuring the potential threat to life would be an interesting topic, and the first place to start forming a theory. The theory is one of imminent threat -an interesting concept in and of itself.

Nope. I never included anywhere in my response that suicide bombers should have nuclear bombs. If they are suicide bombers, then they should be in prison, no? If they're in prison, I'm pretty sure they're not going to have any kind of weapon. Duh!

EDIT: I forgot. The same goes for food preparers who have injured a customer due to food poisoning. You either sue or imprison the proprietor depending on the evidence produced. Wait for it...wait for it... Duh!

They aren't free market institutions if they carry the mark of "legal tender" currency. I'm not opposed to anybody producing currencies based on whatever they want (i.e. hard money such as gold and silver, or paper money like fiat currencies we have today). Good money will almost always drive out bad money. The problem is when you use the force of law to prop up one over the other. It distorts the ability of the free market to respond in a timely and efficient way.


I wouldn't encourage anybody to use weapons of any kind unless it was in the process of self defense. It would seem obvious to me that if you were going to use a nuclear weapon you'd better be careful of the fallout as that collateral damage you would have to pay for should innocents get hurt. Reciprocity comes to mind.


Of course they form governments. An individual can join a society, a collective if you will, to protect themselves from the seedier more dangerous individuals they might encounter. The only distinction one has to make here is that the joining and leaving of this "institution" should be unconstrained and of a contractual nature. Admittedly, there is the issue of the free rider problem, but I've heard of some interesting work-arounds for that.


The positions I've read, thus far, aren't contradictory, just different from what you believe. At the most, they may be incomplete descriptions/solutions, but who has the time to give a multi-page dissertation every time you claim a contradiction occurs?

Are we going to play a numbers game again? As if more people do it, the better it becomes.

Let's see here.

Individual theft: The taking of property without the consent of the owner by a single individual. This is extra legal theft.

Gang theft: The taking of property without the consent of the owner by a group of individuals. This is also extra legal theft.

State theft: The taking of property without the consent of the owner by a bloc of voters supported by a legislative body and executive enforcement. This is not extra legal theft, as it is sanctioned by a majority or by the ruling class.

What's the distinction? Not much, except the numbers and some words on a piece of parchement that indicates your intentions.

I guess next time I want to steal from somebody all I have to do is write my "manifesto of plunder" on a piece of paper, serve it to my victim and I'm good to go. Yeahhh... that ought to make it so much better. Of course, it would probably sound that much more convincing if I have my neighbors to back me up, a few guns, and the title of politician.

Potentially less ownership.

EDIT: To "remove" means to enforce to some extent (you probably meant lacking). Your word came back to bite you

Moral doesn't necessarily imply God either. See the following:

mor·al (môrl, mr-)
adj.
1. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
3. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
4. Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
5. Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.
6. Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.


Good, bad, own, property, right, wrong and moral, among others, are all concepts that describe things or are attitudes towards things which include descriptions other than their physical material characteristics (i.e. electrical, mechanical, magnetic, etc.).

Actually, both statements "might makes right" and "ownership" imply moral concepts. Determining which concept is the more moral of the two is in question.

Consider that logical fallacy your last as far as I'm concerned. I am at this point, no longer interested in correcting you on your logic.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Ciao.

My beliefs or the implementations thereof do not directly result in the deaths of other people. That's a non sequitur. It's also a strawman argument.

A good example of intervening to prevent a death would be equivalent to a man who has drawn his gun and is about to shoot another. Sure, go ahead and intercede. Hopefully, nobody dies. Can the same be said for food poisoning? That appears to be a little more difficult to effectuate it seems, but that doesn't give you the right to make food regulations to possibly, maybe, or hopefully prevent an accidental poisoning death.

Were that the case, it would logically follow that you could insert yourself and your "do-gooders" into my home and inspect and regulate all of the ways I prepare my food in my own home. Are you going there? Because if you are, I will oppose you with every fiber of my being.

Your commentary is a bit laughable. When did I ever say it was OK if people die? I invite you to find anything remotely close to that sort of rubbish. The process does matter, which is why I made a suggestion. What don't you get from what I wrote?

These conversations are deteriorating into childish rants it seems. I'm trying my best to be logical and your comeback is that I want people to die. Stupid.