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

[Elwar]

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.

[Mike Christ]

I was about to say, taxation is theft

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.

[Elwar]

It's like killing and murder. 

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...?

[Merralea]

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

Appropriation, possibly.

[FirstAscent]

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?

[Luno]

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

Appropriation, possibly.

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.

[Mike Christ]

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?

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?

[myrkul]

"Legally," yes, they do it all the time.

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

[Fuzzy]

"legal stealing" is an oxymoron.

Regardless, the government can take your property from you legally, and with few restrictions. Furthermore, if they want to take your property and they don't have the authority, then they just pass a law that gives them the authority, and then they take it.

This is why people should withhold as much information from the government as possible. It will use that information against you.

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

[FirstAscent]

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?

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?

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?

[MonadTran]

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?

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?

[Lethn]

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.

[nwbitcoin]

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!

[mwag]

If you were born in my household, play by my rules or leave. Clear enough?

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?

[Lethn]

If you were born in my household, play by my rules or leave. Clear enough?

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

( totally meant as a non-homosexual compliment )

[justusranvier]

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.

[Richy_T]

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."

[RodeoX]

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.

[Lethn]

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.

[justusranvier]

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.