- Eugene McCarthy, Time magazine, Feb. 12, 1979

I hope that bitch will receive similar “education” in a near future.

The bureaucrats “love” the homeless, which is to say they want them to be as numerous as possible and must fight against anything that might reduce their numbers.

Nowhere is this more tragically evident than in government schools. And as you demonstrate in your comment, (national) government control of education was a 20th Century phenomenon in America. It is obvious the early Americans abhorred national control of education.

Well, I’m certainly not willing to after the various governments that claim dominion over me have finished taking their 40% haircut.

And so what? Even if people weren’t willing to support the causes you think they should, that justifies mugging them for it?

As for why most forms of taxation is theft, well:
Government should be charging fees for the services it provides — gas tax for road upkeep, fees for using parks, etc. — those fees should cover the full costs of providing the service including the salaries of those government employees and contractors who provide the service.

But the taking of people’s income for various payroll taxes and the IRS, and the charge of yearly rent on land one ostensibly “owns”, all taken at the point of a gun (just try not paying and see what happens, if you don’t think it is at the point of a gun) is theft, regardless if “the people voted for it”, especially if it is for any “charitable purposes”, but for ANYTHING government has no Constitutional authority to do. It is just as much theft when a group uses the power of government to steal money from my income for their special interest as it is for an individual on the street to stick a gun in my back and demand the money from my wallet so he can feed his family.

There were many discussions about this in the early years of our nation in private and in congress you should read Davey Crockett’s speech to congress on this subject (among others). The Constitution limits the power of government to do most of the things it does with our tax dollars, and those early members of congress knew and understood that, and they prevented it, later congress didn’t stop it, and things really got out of hand in the 20th century. Really read the Declaration, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and the debates in congress from the early years and learn what our government is REALLY allowed to do and what it is not.

The bureaucrat would argue that fairness dictates equal application of the law regardless of circumstance. What of the other sidewalk vendors who are already buckling under the regulatory burden? How would they feel if the homeless guy got a pass?

The bureaucrat might further argue that by imposing a monetary burden on the homeless vendor, that would encourage him to earn more money and thus the experience makes him a better competitor in the “market.”

Last, the bureaucrat would say that by living up to his statutory obligations, the homeless vendor can be proud to be living within the “law” and is a good, “law”-abiding citizen with a clear conscience who pays his debts to society.

See, even though I am a radical anti-statist, I can argue either side. That’s the beauty of the State, force justifies anything.

If I came up to you and put a gun in your face and demanded $100, it is a crime.

If the government does the same, somehow it is all excused under some hocus-pocus called the “social contract,” “democracy,” or some other rank bullshit.

Even if the stolen money (taxation) is used to cure cancer, it is still theft. The purpose of the theft is irrelevant. It is the involuntary nature of the exchange that is relevant.

Any transfer of property without BOTH just compensation and the permission of the owner is theft, which is a crime.

This is not hard to understand — I put it at about the 4-year-old level, maybe younger. In fact, one can support taxation as necessary and still admit that it is theft (the human condition is such that theft by society at large from the individual is essential for society’s survival, Holmes’ famous dictum that taxes are the price we pay for civilization, or “in order to save the village we had to destroy it.”).

It is those that try to deny reality that are the true enablers of the State. Look, if you’re going to hold me up at gunpoint and take my money, at least leave me the dignity of admitting that you’re a criminal instead of telling me it’s for my own good. Sheesh.

#30
I don’t see how it’s stealing in any constitutional or legal sense.

It’s not stealing in the constitutional or legal sense. That would be extremely confusing, because taxation is created and enforced by the government, making it by definition legal. “Legal” means what the government says it means.

But you will find some here (including myself) who say taxation is stealing in a moral sense. The reasoning is really very simple. The government says I either give them a huge stack of money every year, or my home (among other things) will be taken from me, and/or I’ll be locked in a cage, or I’ll be shot if I object to either of those two aforementioned outcomes. A thief is one who takes other people’s stuff by force or by threat of force, and what the government does is exactly that.

Some will say it matters what the government does with the money after I begrudgingly hand it over to avoid a messy end. I’ll admit that I’m less upset about the government spending my money on, say, fire departments than hiring additional thieves like the one in the article. In the end, however, it doesn’t matter whether a thief spends his ill-gotten gains on luxury yachts, feeding orphans, or even fruit baskets delivered back to the victim, a thief is still a thief.

And obviously a lot of people disagree with you about the bad policy too.

What’s legal may depend (somewhat) on the opinion of the masses, but what’s moral does not.

Closing the circle. Where did the incentive to have six kids come from except from government? Then, government grants itself the authority to free the kids. Very nice. Really justifies everything.

Government is the ultimate crack dealer — the first taste is not only free, they pay you to take it!

It’s not a line-item menu, folks — when there’s government, you get all the putrescence along with the “security” and “protection.”

Of course, since newspapers are going broke, the government will own them soon enough and you’ll be required to buy them. That way they can ensure that the news you read is about how the government saved us from the dangers of an improper shoe shine from an unlicensed vendor.

Just think of all the new jobs that can be created and the resulting drop in unemployment!!!!! The gentleman in this story could get one of those jobs… if he wasn’t guilty of shining shoes without a license.

Although, now that I think of it, I’ve met quite a few and bureaucracy (both public and private) is their domain.