How is Robbing Someone With a Government Morally Superior to Robbing Them With a Gun?

In our society, it is against the law for a poor person to get a gun, break into a rich person's house, and steal their belongings. However, that same poor person is allowed to group together with other poor people and enable the Government to take from rich people and give to them in return for votes. What's the fundamental moral difference between the two? In both cases, you are using force to rob someone against their will.

In the coming decades, when non-whites comprises a larger percentage of the population than they do now, what's to stop them from enacting "wealth taxes" that primarily affect whites? There are a lot of people on welfare right now that are falling further and further behind, and will not be able to save money for retirement and other requirements. What other choice do they have besides taking from people more successful than them?

 

So... you think that poor people control the government.


LOL

 

Is it any different if they are rich and they gang up on the middle class to take their money for corporate welfare in the form of subsidies, transfer payments, and protectionism?

 

Partially I agree with you but there is a problem that jobs are disappering because of automation.

 

Yes. Most of those rich people are White, so it's OK.

 

Ultimately, yes, and that will become even more clear as time goes on and society becomes more polarized on both ends of the wealth spectrum.

- - - Updated - - -

If you want to start a tangential and mostly irrelevant conversation, why not start a thread on it instead of derailing this one?

- - - Updated - - -

How does that relate to the point I was making in the OP? Jobs going over seas is sure to accelerate the differences in wealth between the rich and poor, but the ultimate outcome is the same.

 

There is little difference between me forcing my neighbor at gunpoint to pay for my healthcare, and me lobbying my government to do the exact same thing on my behalf.

 

Complete nonsense. There is no place in this world where poor people have more political power than rich people. You are talking garbage.

 

Jobs are not just going overseas. They are disappearing into nothingness. Its takes less and less people to do the same amount of work. On one hand this is good but on the other a big problem.

 

That's easy to test. How did Obama get reelected when the majority of rich people voted against him? How did taxes get raised on the rich under Obama?

 

It sure feels like the same thing doesn't it?

The difference is one is executing a contract all parties voluntarily entered and the other isn't. You didn't come to any agreement with the people who broke into your house, you didn't give them permission to take the stereo that you legally owned. You did give that permission to the tax collector.

When you asked to come into this country or asked to become a citizen of this country someone put a piece of paper in front of you (or your legal representative), that paper promised that in return you would agree to laws of this country. Tax codes are laws.

If you were born here, we made it easy for you. Anyone born in the united states has the right to enter into in that contract. We make it easy by providing the form at hospitals so parents can immediately request their children be issued a social security number and become an American citizen. It's a pretty attractive offer and most parents, as legal representatives of their children, sign it right on the spot.

I'm not saying all the laws of this country are fair. Income tax certainty isn't. People work the system to place more weight on the shoulders of those who can handle more weight, and work it further to reduce the weight on their own shoulders where they can. I'd like to see our system improved.

But it is a legal system. One that we have each entered into voluntarily, one from which each of us receives significant benefit. And should any of us decide it's no longer worth it, it's a system any of us can choose to exit.





​

 

LOL

LOL

So you think the half billion dollars Obama raised for his 2012 campaign came from poor people? By the time poor people get to cast a vote, the wealthy have already limited their choice.

 

There is nothing voluntary about the hypothetical I proposed in the OP. We have a country being flooded with impoverished 3rd world immigrants who will one day comprise a majority, or at least a plurality of voters, who will decide that they are entitled to the wealth that has been earned by others, whether the people being taken from likes it or not. Being born in a society does not imply agreement with every system taking place within that society, especially when it becomes hijacked by basically a foreign force.

 

Well, I suppose they can kill themselves, as most conservatives obviously think they should.

I doubt very much if they'll vote for the party that says that though

 

Pretty clear her was saying they enable the government.

Groups of poor people can have a very real affect on elections and in turn vote in thieving governments.

Just look at the last two in America.

 

They'll vote for whoever gives them more redistributed wealth that they didn't earn. And that's the problem.

We have a society where the rights of the minority cannot be trampled on by the majority, but what safeguards exist to prevent the poor from simply deciding they want to be able to steal from others, using their majority status in Government as the tool?

 

Being born doesn't mean you agreed to anything (or earned anything). Signing an agreement does mean you agreed to something.

If you think this particular partnership is no longer beneficial -- exit it (or at least focus your efforts on other partnerships that are more profitable).

And race or nation of origin has nothing to do with the problem you fear in this one. Whether a particular citizen was born here or on the other side of a border had no impact on the size of his vote or the unfairness of a law he may support.




​

 

Except every poor person won't vote the same way. The fact that every poor person would have to vote en masses to wrest control from the rich minority proves the ridiculousness of your claim that poor people control the government.

 

It can be done with less than 'every.'




​

 

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Without money, Obama would not have won. Wealth enables the government.

 

Except most poor people don' t vote at all. And when they do, their choices are limited to the candidates that have been deemed ballot worthy. And if there ever was a risk of poor people organizing a revolution at the ballot box, the wealthy would quickly redistrict their votes into being meaningless. Brewskier's claim that the poor control government is nonsense.

 

But votes get the job.
Record black vote..... by a long run.

 

Welfare is the price the "successful" have to pay to prevent the poor from showing up at their doorstep with pitchforks. Instead of whining about it, the "successful" should just accept it as a fact of life of a civil society and move on.

BTW: If you think taxes are theft, you are free to move to another country that doesn't tax. Of course, the choices are limited and not desirable. That's the difference with theft at the point of a gun: You can voluntarily leave.

 

The American people control government. Whether most American's are poor is a value judgement. The only thing that makes someone 'ballot worthy' is having enough people agree he is (and sign his petition to demonstrate that).

... and looking at Obamacare, I'm not sure that revolution hasn't already happened. Or at least isn't in progress.




​

 

so there are only two kinds of people in the USA? rich and poor?

nothing in between?