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

[zeroday]

Legalised bank robbery

[mobodick]

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).

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

[mobodick]

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.

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:



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

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.

[evolve]

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.

[MonadTran]

Second of all, correlation does not make a causal relation.

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?

[FirstAscent]

Despite your odd requirements in the OP:

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

Another TSA Agent Accused of iPad Theft

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

Former state investigator gets probation for thefts

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

Police Officers Arrested for Stealing Identities from State Driver’s License Database

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

Sounds like theft by people to me.

[mobodick]

Second of all, correlation does not make a causal relation.

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?

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)
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