Thread: The world I would love to live in.

How about this fact:

A crime is usually defined as an act (actus rea) coupled with intent (mens rea).

Definition of Theft: The felonious, or unlawful taking/ removal, of personal property with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of the property.

The intent of redistribution is absolutely to deprive the rightful owner of his/ her property and to give that property to others for whatever reasons deemed appropriate.

You could argue that "legalizing" the act of taking property for the purposes of redistribution changes the act such that it is no longer an "unlawful" act. But changing the legal status of the act does not change the moral status of the act (Remember our discussion about slavery? It was legal, but not moral). Taking is still taking.

Apparently there are those who prefer to ignore morality in favor of gain, which was the argument of the slave owner. And some of you seem to agree with the reasoning of the slave owner. Morality seems to be your whole argument against the Constitution (the 3/5's clause/ slavery), but in the case of redistribution, acting immoral is just fine. Very inconsistent.