Marxism

And, apparently, overuse of capital letters.

I guess there are some things that even Jesus can't save you from.

Stealing, eh? Whose is this image and superscription?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I was alluding to this book called the Bible, maybe you've heard of it. Welcome to reality.

Because it isn't true.

Project much? It is you, my dear Faith, who has an idiosyncratic definition of "stealing", which, as you can see by reading this thread, is not shared by English-speaking people. It is you who have redefined the word "stealing" to suit your agenda --- everyone else round here is using it normally.In the real world, the question of whether or not the transfer of money from A to B is stealing depends on the manner in which the money is transferred, not on what B is going to spend the money on. No-one ever phoned 911 and said:--- "I think I might have been mugged."--- "What do you mean, you think you might have been mugged? Surely you know whether or not you've been mugged!"--- "Well, you see, a man forcibly took my wallet at knifepoint, but I don't know what he's going to spend my money on."But through the looking-glass in Faithworld, that is apparently what we need to know. If agents of the government take (let us say) $100 from me, then what I need to know in order to find out if they're stealing is not "Was their action lawful?" --- that, it seems, is irrelevant. No, in Faithworld, I need to know what they're going to do with the money. If they're going use it to defray the costs of bombing an Iraqi village, they aren't stealing, but if they're going to buy medicine for a sick child, they are stealing. Either way I'm $100 poorer, but it's only theft if they put it to a use I approve of.This raises some interesting questions. Consider the following two cases:(a) They take the money in order to heal the sick, but then war breaks out so they spend it on bombs instead.(b) They take the money in order to spend on bombs, but peace breaks out so instead they spend it on healing the sick.It seems to me that in Faithworld only one of these is theft, but I can't figure out which.But back in the real world, stealing is the unlawful acquisition of someone else's property, and that's all there is to it.

Quite so. However, here's a tip --- when everyone else around you is laughing at your folly, that could be a clue that you've gone down the rabbit hole. Yes you did. And now you're going to do it again. Watch: See? You don't define stealing by the method of acquiring the money, but by the purpose to which it's applied.Whom do you hope to deceive by pretending otherwise? Thank you for admitting it. And taxation is, of course, legal. Your ravings are amusing, but probably not in the way that you intended.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

The fact that what I said is true does indeed give me an "excuse" for saying it. Why you characterize this as "devious" is puzzling --- did you actually take some sort of oath to be wrong about everything?

Such functions as "the preservation of ... prosperity", "the augmentation of its strength and resources", and "the protection of its citizens in their rights".Incidentally, that's not Webster's definition of politics. That's what Webster's definition of politics was in 1913. It must have taken you a while to find a definition that you could even try to twist into supporting your fantasies.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Well, the top marginal tax rate under Eisenhower was 91-92%. Of course, that's the marginal tax rate, but obviously that means that if you earned enough you'd be paying 90% of your income as taxes.No-one went around screaming about how this was communism, but then, of course, Eisenhower was white.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

You yourself are beginning to find your fantasy world implausible. That's good, that's the first step.Keep thinking about this. How is it that if you're so absolutely right, everyone else thinks that you're trivially and obviously wrong? How is it that if you are (as you keep boasting) such a clear logical thinker, everyone else keeps laughing at your folly?If you keep asking yourself that, then eventually you might hit on the truth. This might give you a hint.

That depends on what example you give. If you give a haddock as an example of a bird, then you are tacitly changing the definition of "bird". In which case, all taxation would be theft, since it involves the government taking my money.But you don't believe that, do you? But you are, in fact, misdefining it. I agree that you did not give a complete definition, but you have made it clear that you think that whether or not taxation is "stealing" depends not on the method by which the money is acquired, but rather on the purpose for which it is spent.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Actually, it was still his definition in 1913. But sure, if you want to insist that you're nearly two centuries out of date, rather than one, feel free. And what politics has become is not what it was in 1828. Various things have happened in between ... the abolition of slavery comes to mind. And I believe that women get to vote nowadays.

You can say to yourself: "Hey, how likely is it that I'm the only person who lives in the real world, and everyone else is delusional? Could it possibly be that it's the other way round?"