If “theft” is when Person A takes something from Person B without Person B’s permission and presumably keeps it for himself, what is it called when Person A does the same thing and gives it to Person C? Civilized people like us know that it’s called… “giving to the needy.” General Motors, J.P. Morgan, Bank of America, Citibank, Monsanto, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Boeing, and masses of “uneducated, poor people” are all in desperate need and are entitled to that
stolen redistribution of wealth, and it’s up to us to ensure that they receive it, no matter what.
People with morals and the ability to see through the sleight-of-hand understand that this is really theft, no matter how many parties are involved, and no matter where the money ends up. Taking something that belongs to another, without their consent, is stealing. “Taxation,” “spreading the wealth around,” “fulfilling our duty to help those in need,” etc. are just euphemisms for stealing, and if someone thinks it’s acceptable under any circumstances, then he is condoning it. We could be told that we’re being taxed to save the “too big to fail,” “those who have fallen on hard times,” “the needy,” or “the starving,” and it could all be true, but it is still theft, and saying that it’s ok is still condoning theft.
Maybe someone likes theft. Maybe the same someone likes murder and thinks it should be legitimized in the eyes of society too. He and his friends could come up with a great story about how the herd must be thinned for the good of the many to spare scare resources, and then they could then turn it all into an entertainment extravaganza.
Maybe they could take a more subtle approach. After all, something like this couldn’t be done all at once, because people would realize how immoral it is. It’d have to be done gradually and given a nice name like “ethnic cleansing”, or the “war on terror,” and they’d have to find a group of people to dehumanize so that the rest of society would go along with it.
What I’m saying, or asking, is: if you support state-sponsored theft, then why not support state-sponsored murder or state-sponsored rape? They could be given a nice names, like “sunset date” and “genetic diversification.” In any case, if you think it’s a necessary trade-off, then you’re saying that the ends justify the means. Then you would have to wonder, is it always true that the ends justify the means? Under which circumstances is it true and under which circumstances is it not true? How does one determine when the ends justify the means and when they do not? Have you honestly considered all options so that you could avoid this concession or do you accept it because it’s mainstream opinion and that’s how things are? Is it right to accept things because that’s how they are?
The problem is that instead of even getting to the point of rational thinking and being courageous enough to stand by their principles and suffer being different or unpopular, good people are bamboozled and complacent, following the crowd, and aren’t breaking through the mental distortion to see that the state is an unnecessary cancer, destructive by its very nature. Even when intended for the purpose of good, it is ultimately a force of evil. We must become fully aware of this and the net goodness of people (or else would humanity still exist?), and opt for liberty and freedom, instead of allowing and using the state to control the actions of others that do not infringe upon anyone’s natural rights.