Quote Originally Posted by Brenngun View Post
An interesting read but a little absurd. Most of your commentary has been based on the potential belief that collecting taxes (or a portion or as yet to be determined amount) is stealing which is an illegal act. This articles discusses the morality of what is essentially one person or a group forcing (without legal standing) another individual or group to hand over their money (stealing). The ultimate use of those funds is not what determines the legality of the act.

Morality is a subjective concept but legality is objective. Laws are conceived with a moral component but once implemented allow no adjustments based on any specific individual's moral beliefs. Laws can be changed however to suit a new morality agreed upon by the majority. I believe you already understand that process.

If I have represented your potential belief with respect to tax collection correctly you then have to support the position that tax collection an illegal activity. This has yet to be proven by any of your previous comments.

With respect to the moral component of this current discussion let me ask. If people in need were not assisted with the combined resources collected from everyone what would be their fate? If that fate was something you would not want for yourself or your family would it be "morally" correct to allow it to happen to someone else anyway? How would you justify that decision?
I'm stepping back in only (well maybe not) to comment that you have completely misrepresented my argument. I thought I was fairly, if not completely, clear. I never said that tax collection is an illegal activity. In fact I corrected myself in terms of clarifying the difference between legitimacy/ legality and morality. Yes, a tax may be legal, but is it ultimately moral? I think I've made the point clear with the definition of theft and it's relation to the practice of redistribution. Also, the article I submitted by Williams further clarifies, as well as mirrors, my view quite well. Yes, morality is subjective and may change per your perspective. As this thread has demonstrated, any view point can be rationalized. But certain acts, such as theft (legitimized or not - how's that for rationalization), have stood the test of time regarding the issue of morality. You may have a different view point, but you may find yourself on the wrong side of history. Also, at no time have I even remotely suggested, as your straw man attempts to, that "people in need" should not be assisted. But to assist one by harming another is a zero sum game where everyone loses. The poor are not poor for lack of money, but for lack of ability to create and maintain wealth. Throwing money at them does nothing to solve the root cause of their poverty. Taking wealth from those who generate it, without compensation in turn, is a crime. So if need is the only justification to change the terms of morality to allow any means necessary to meet the needs (a la - "To each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities"), you've opened the door for an arbitrary, anything goes society that can basically do anything it wants anytime it wants. It's only a matter of time until "what goes around, comes around."

Now I'm done with this thread.