Page 3 of 5 [ 68 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,128
Location: Vancouver, BC

05 Jul 2012, 3:15 pm

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


JWC
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 740
Location: Macondo Wellhead

05 Jul 2012, 3:28 pm

visagrunt wrote:
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.


First of all, in the context of my statements the common usage is more applicable.

Second, legality does not equal morality.

Third:

Quote:
"Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal." - Martin Luther King Jr.



AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,774
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

05 Jul 2012, 3:40 pm

ruveyn wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
If taxation is theft, then is imprisonment kidnapping?


If it is done by a private party without the sanction of law.

ruveyn
And yet you consider taxation theft. You are one hell of a walking contradiction.

JWC wrote:
First of all, in the context of my statements the common usage is more applicable.

Second, legality does not equal morality.
I haven't gotten a straight answer to my question yet out of all times I've asked this. Would you care to be the first?



JWC
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 740
Location: Macondo Wellhead

05 Jul 2012, 3:49 pm

AceOfSpades wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
If taxation is theft, then is imprisonment kidnapping?


If it is done by a private party without the sanction of law.

ruveyn
And yet you consider taxation theft. You are one hell of a walking contradiction.


Apples and oranges.

Imprisonment for the punishment of a crime is an example of retaliatory force. The criminal initiates the use of force upon his/her victims, hence it is justifiable to use force in retaliation. In the case of taxation, the gov't is the initiator of the use of force, therefore it's actions are not just.



AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,774
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

05 Jul 2012, 3:54 pm

JWC wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
If taxation is theft, then is imprisonment kidnapping?


If it is done by a private party without the sanction of law.

ruveyn
And yet you consider taxation theft. You are one hell of a walking contradiction.


Apples and oranges.

Imprisonment for the punishment of a crime is an example of retaliatory force. The criminal initiates the use of force upon his/her victims, hence it is justifiable to use force in retaliation. In the case of taxation, the gov't is the initiator of the use of force, therefore it's actions are not just.
Makes sense, but your logic gets circular when it comes to the government initiating force for taxation. Retaliatory force is the most basic role of Government, and yet the Government has to initiate force to get funding for its use of force. How does that work?



Last edited by AceOfSpades on 05 Jul 2012, 3:58 pm, edited 2 times in total.

AspieOtaku
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,212
Location: San Jose

05 Jul 2012, 3:55 pm

probably 75% government control?


_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList


JWC
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 740
Location: Macondo Wellhead

05 Jul 2012, 3:59 pm

AceOfSpades wrote:
JWC wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
If taxation is theft, then is imprisonment kidnapping?


If it is done by a private party without the sanction of law.

ruveyn
And yet you consider taxation theft. You are one hell of a walking contradiction.


Apples and oranges.

Imprisonment for the punishment of a crime is an example of retaliatory force. The criminal initiates the use of force upon his/her victims, hence it is justifiable to use force in retaliation. In the case of taxation, the gov't is the initiator of the use of force, therefore it's actions are not just.
Makes sense, but your logic gets circular when it comes to the government initiating force for taxation. Retaliatory force is the most basic role of Government, and yet the Government has to initiate force to get funding for its use of force. How does that work?


It must be limited to whatever funds it can acquire through voluntary means, just like the rest of us.



AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,774
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

05 Jul 2012, 4:02 pm

Oh ok so you're anarcho-capitalist. I always thought you were minarchist for some reason. It makes perfect sense then.



JWC
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 740
Location: Macondo Wellhead

05 Jul 2012, 4:06 pm

AceOfSpades wrote:
Oh ok so you're anarcho-capitalist. I always thought you were minarchist for some reason. It makes perfect sense then.


No, I support a gov't limited to military, courts and police. Nothing more. Anarchy can only lead to chaos and mob rule.



AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,774
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

05 Jul 2012, 4:07 pm

:?

Never mind then, I just can't wrap my head around it.



JWC
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 740
Location: Macondo Wellhead

05 Jul 2012, 4:14 pm

AceOfSpades wrote:
:?

Never mind then, I just can't wrap my head around it.


Don't give up. You're perfectly capable of understanding. Perhaps focusing less on the labels and more on the concepts would help. Apathy certainly won't help you understand.



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,128
Location: Vancouver, BC

05 Jul 2012, 4:16 pm

JWC wrote:
No, I support a gov't limited to military, courts and police. Nothing more. Anarchy can only lead to chaos and mob rule.


Then you are a hypocrite at best, and a liar at worst.

You cannot support a government limited to military, courts and police unless you support the means by which that government can be financed.

No government in human history has been financed through voluntary means--all governments tax.


_________________
--James


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,726
Location: New Jersey

05 Jul 2012, 4:20 pm

visagrunt wrote:
JWC wrote:
No, I support a gov't limited to military, courts and police. Nothing more. Anarchy can only lead to chaos and mob rule.


Then you are a hypocrite at best, and a liar at worst.



Beware of personal insults. Do not confuse your opinions with fact.

ruveyn



Delphiki
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2012
Age: 177
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,415
Location: My own version of reality

05 Jul 2012, 4:24 pm

ruveyn wrote:
visagrunt wrote:
JWC wrote:
No, I support a gov't limited to military, courts and police. Nothing more. Anarchy can only lead to chaos and mob rule.


Then you are a hypocrite at best, and a liar at worst.



Beware of personal insults. Do not confuse your opinions with fact.

ruveyn
He explained why he felt that way, which you did not quote.


_________________
Well you can go with that if you want.


JWC
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 740
Location: Macondo Wellhead

05 Jul 2012, 4:25 pm

visagrunt wrote:
JWC wrote:
No, I support a gov't limited to military, courts and police. Nothing more. Anarchy can only lead to chaos and mob rule.


Then you are a hypocrite at best, and a liar at worst.

You cannot support a government limited to military, courts and police unless you support the means by which that government can be financed.

I do support any voluntary means of financing the gov't.

No government in human history has been financed through voluntary means--all governments tax.


Just because it hasn't been done before, doesn't mean it's not possible. Before the US was formed, there had never been a constitutionally limited republic. Did that stop the Founding Fathers?