Topic: Is there ever a case where the government could legally steal? (Read 3051 times)

The graph is not even about government, it is about what percent of the gdp the government spends.

An there is plenty to say for government. This whole world society is intertwined with governance. We would be incapable of organizing on such a large scale and you propably would not have had a computer to write this on if there were no people getting together on a bigger scale.
So the problem cannot simply be defined in pro vs anti government terms.

I'm just saying the graph is pretty useless in showing that large government spending is the cause of less annual economic growth. It just does not contain that information.
It leaves out all the dynamics that produced these results.
For one, in general you can clearly see that most countries that have the largest spending also have the most complex and developed societies. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending)
The countries that have little government spending per gdp are usually poor coutries.

The truth is that there is a saturation limit because cool societies is increasingly expensive.
The economic growth potential of underdeveloped countries is simply far greater than that of well developed countries.
And what you also can clearly see is that there are a lot of exceptions. In general, tho, big government spending means expensice society.
And expensive societies means there is a limit on growth.
Sure, society can produce evermore fantastic products for me to buy but i can only spend my money once.
If i have food and games and security i'm kindof happy and don't feel the need to make my economic situation any better.
So naturally, in a society where the government spends a lot of money on society (so people have it better) the economic growth will become less and should eventually stop.


Meanwhile the graph doesn't consider basic stuff like

Sounds like theft by people to me.

That's a universal counter-argument. When applied consistently, it leads to solipsism, Kantian things-in-themselves, and all of that metaphysical stuff. Those things are nice to remember, but hardly of any practical use.

Is there any data which is as straightforward as this, and can be considered pro-government, in some interpretation?

Eminent domain laws in the US are theft (in a way).  The government has to pay "fair market value" for private land it wants to buy for roads and stuff, but don't require consent by the private land owner for the sale.

First of all, that graph shows government spendings. That is not the same as government size.
Second of all, correlation does not make a causal relation. So the graph just doesn't show anything like 'X affected Y'.

If you start throwing graphs around you may as well take the time to properly understand them.

So what did the brits think of the US going off on their own?

Legalised bank robbery

Despite your odd requirements in the OP:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/tsa-agent-accused-ipad-theft/story?id=17892885


http://www.app.com/article/20130312/NJNEWS14/303120089/Former-state-investigatorgets-probation-thefts


https://idcuffs.com/blog/police-officers-arrested-for-stealing-identities-from-state-drivers-license-database/


Here are just a few examples of "illegal theft" by the government.

Martial Eeek! Law

From my signature:

Taxation is Theft
War is Murder
Incarceration is Kidnapping
Spanking is Assault
Federal Reserve Notes are Counterfeiting

People in power like to define new words that remove them from responsibility. Theft is evil, but when you wear a blue costume, theft turns into taxation and is no longer evil, but good and necessary. It is pathetic. Ethics has classically been used to constrain the people while providing exceptions for those in power. Look at the wars while we are told to not kill. Look at the pope's fortune while telling the people that money is the root of all evil.

Rule for us -> exception for them. This makes their exception even more profitable. Imagine being a thief in a world where no one had even thought of the idea of stealing before.

If someone makes a moral rule it should apply to everyone, or else it should not exist.

Just call it a tax and it's legal

Ask the citizens of Cyprus.

Umm, no, sorry, not likely at all. Scientific research shows that economic growth (and, therefore, career opportunities) is negatively affected by the size of the government:



Experimental data first, little grey cells afterwards. Your data?

The difference being, in your objections, and reality, is you really don't know how good you have it. You don't really see down and out people complaining about taxes, do you? And besides, if you used all your brain cells (yes I'm insulting you because you really do deserve it), you'd realize that the opportunities afforded you to make money which puts you into a position of being taxed are likely because of the existence of the government.

If you want to complain, please expend your energy complaining about things which will help us all.

Geez, it's always insults with you isn't it?  My experience is that generally people throw out the insults when they don't have an argument.

And as for the you don't know how good you have it, that is an argument that is made many times to justify criminal behaviour.  Hey, we're only taking 25% (or whatever) of your money be thankful that you get to keep the rest.   Think I saw that on a Sopranos episode.

I'm sure when the mafia runs a protection racket in a town, the same kinds of arguments are made.  Hey, this is a great place to live and all you have to do is put up with having your money stole and be told what to do and have the law being constantly changed and expanded on.  "Don't make a fuss, shut up, and be thankful for what you've got."   

Thought that was starting Tuesday?

The government of Cyprus, blessed by EU-IMF, is stealing 9.9% of deposits from all bank accounts right now. Legally. I guess, this explicitly answers the question in the subject.

I agree with your sentiments above, Under the UN citizens of a country have the right to self determination, that is they can vote out of being under control of a certain state or empire right eg British commonwealth?
So does that right of self determination extend to the individual, if I buy a property outright and declare the land I own soveirgn and then hold a vote with those people on my land, and if we vote for sovriegnty and to separated from any national governments, does this not mean I / we would be a newly created sovriegn country and would be able to make our own laws and govern ourselvs??

I am not sure of the following but this is how I imagine the past was ment to be (in Britain we have been "subjects" of various Kings / Queens Bishops, knights and barrons so it rarely worked out this way as feudal times were dominated by serfdom and slavery):


It used to be that man was soviergn, this was a time when common law ruled and courts would be common law courts where local villagers would be summoned to the proceedings to determine the fate of an accused fellow villager. In these times there were no statues, no parliament, no "policy officers aka police" only peace officers that upheld the common law, everyone had the right to make a citizens arrest as anybody could be peace officers.

This was a time before birth certificates, driving licenses and passports all these documents are proof of your enslavement.


In relation to the OP illegal = against statute, Unlawful = against common law (as I understand it), Statue law has infected our court systems it used to be that common law was established by customs and precedents so if you have been regularly squatting on some unclaimed or common land for years then it was your common law right to do so as you have never had objections and were not causing anybody injury or loss, now statue set by the state can say any person squatting is committing an offence and because people fall for it and do not argue it is their right in court then judges rule based on the statute law again and again untill the new precedent is that people don't squat and that right is lost.

So the state can Legally steal (Levy / tax / Commandeer) but it is still unlawful / immoral,


just my .2Btc I could be wrong,

interesting people on the subject: Jordan Maxwell, Rob Menard.

There's plenty of things that will help reduce the power of governments to the point that a private agency can defend against them. One of those things is Bitcoin.

People view the government as legit as crappy as it is. I dont know of many protection agencies with the firepower to keep the US or many other governments from attacking you, and most people lack the resources that governments can command.


I dont say its fair or reasonable but thats just the way things are. Will probably require a zombie apocalypse or something that wipes out the central government before you get what you want.