Hmm, haven’t posted on this forum in a while—but I saw this thread, which is a continuation of a conversation some of us recently had in person in Grafton, so I thought I’d jump in.
Been hearing forever that "We all paid in so we should all try to get back what we can."
Please tell me some other reasons if you can. I forget most of them.
In resent times "libertarians" started saying they wanted to take stolen stuff to "help collaps the system."
You won’t ever collapse the system this way. The only thing that more people using government services will do is convince the bureaucrats that they should provide us with more
I've thought about it long enough and have made up my mind. I have ZERO interest in (even looking at) whatever numbers the evil fedgov says I'm “entitled” to.
I WAS entitled to resist their stealing from me, but I didn't very effectively resist. I paid - non-stop - for well over 30 years.
I am NOT now entitled to have them start stealing from others for me.
I think we all know there is ZERO money in any so-called “trust funds.” EVERYTHING that was stolen from us has been spent.
NEWS FLASH: There is NOTHING LEFT! There is no surplus. They have a deficit.
Whatever is stolen from us today is already spent.
Whatever is doled out today (on credit) will be stolen from others in the future, and stolen through inflation today.
How does a thief spending the loot alter the victim’s right to restitution? If a person spends money that they stole before the victim has a chance to attempt recovery, are you saying that the victim just loses
his money, and that’s it? That further attempts at extracting restitution are now immoral for some reason?
How does the fact that a thief will steal again, ostensibly to cover you recovering your stolen money, affect your right to make such recovery? Is a person not entirely
responsible for their own actions? If the thief chooses
to steal from a third person to cover your recovery, is the thief himself not entirely responsible
for his choice to steal again? To say that you are responsible for the thief’s continued theft is to deny the idea of total absolute personal responsibility—and by extension, absolute self-ownership—is it not?