JWC wrote:
From wiki:
Quote:
In common usage, theft is the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.
Legal definition:
Quote:
theft n. the generic term for all crimes in which a person intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use (including potential sale).
Am I really the one 'mangling' the language here, or are you just in denial of the fact that it meets the definition?
Yes, yes you are.
First--"the generic term fo all
crimes," in order to be properly described as theft, the action must, by definition, be criminal. In Common Law jurisdictions there are only two means whereby a crime can be created: by Common Law (a court recognizing that an action is inherently criminal) or by statute. Even if taxation were theft at common law, it is trite law that when statute and common law are in conflict, statute prevails. So when the legislature authorizes government to collect money from citizens, that authorization legitimates the action.
Second--"in which a person intentionally and
fraudulently." Fraud has a very specific definition in equity: a person must make a statement that the person knows or ought properly to know is false; the statement is relied upon by another party; and the other party suffers a loss as a result of the reliance." Indeed your definition is completely incorrect, for a person who takes your wallet and removes the money from it commits no fraud at all.
The correct definition of theft, at Common Law is, "the conversion of personal property to one's own use without colour of right."
And the last time I read the United States' constitution, Congress was provided with full and ample authority to levy taxes. Government has colour of right, and theft is not made out.
quod erat demonstrandum.
_________________
--James
05 Jul 2012, 3:15 pm
