Theft

[JohnBirchSociety]

Do I have a right to directly take the money / property that you have earned? No, that is called theft.

Do two people, in concert, have a right to directly take the money / property that you have earned? No, that is called theft.

Do one-hundred people, acting in concert, have a right to directly take the money / property that you have earned? No, that is called theft.

Do one-million people have such a right? No, it is still theft.

Does a nation have such a right? No, it is still theft.

No such right exists at either the individual, group, national, or might I add, global level. It is still theft.

When government does it, without the express consent of the governed,to the direct benefit of the individual / group, it is still theft.

You can couch it in all the terminology you can dream up. It is still theft. It is wrong. It is immoral.

That is what socialism / communism is all about.

The free-market is the opposite of the proposition that anyone individual OR any group, no matter the size, has a right to take the money of another and either keep it for themselves, or give it to another person or group.

The free-market is the opposite of theft.

[FunkyTown]

"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's."

I'm gonna take the Saviour's opinion on this one.

[Elgama]

in my case it ain't theft I gladly hand it over and would pay more, having spent time in countries that pay higher tax and get better public services and having seen the poverty in the countries that pay lower taxes I like Funky Town pleased to give mine to Caeser

-Charley

[JohnBirchSociety]

"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's."

I'm gonna take the Saviour's opinion on this one.

If it is Caesar's to begin with, and remember he did say, "...what is Caesar's", then we're just to return that which already belongs to someone else.

I agree with that.

What I don't agree with, and what Jesus Christ does not agree with, is theft. Theft, whether by the individual or state is NOT sanctioned by Christ.

If Christ does sanction it, then the Doctrine and Covenants is wrong on the matter.

[FunkyTown]

You're absolutely right, JBS! Theft is wrong - Really wrong. Scriptures are clear on that. But taxation is fine. After all, here's the quote:

20And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?

21They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

22When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.

So, I agree - Theft is wrong. Taxation is not theft. In fact, if you're going to look at that scripture, he's -specifically saying- that taxation is okay. SPECIFICALLY. Your interpretation of the Doctrine and Covenants aside, people in Christ's day believed what you were saying. They were wrong. Jesus showed them this. THE SAVIOUR is saying that taxation is different from theft, unless you're saying Jesus sanctions theft.

[JohnBirchSociety]

in my case it ain't theft I gladly hand it over and would pay more, having spent time in countries that pay higher tax and get better public services and having seen the poverty in the countries that pay lower taxes I like Funky Town pleased to give mine to Caeser

-Charley

Wow, where have you lived that pays higher taxes and gets better service than we get in the United States?

I'd love to know. That way I could win the Nobel Prize in economics by soundly refuting the Laffer Curve:

Laffer curve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks!

Oh, by the way, do you support things that have no Constitutional authority in the United States?

[JohnBirchSociety]

You're absolutely right, JBS! Theft is wrong - Really wrong. Scriptures are clear on that. But taxation is fine. After all, here's the quote:

20And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?

21They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

22When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.

So, I agree - Theft is wrong. Taxation is not theft. In fact, if you're going to look at that scripture, he's -specifically saying- that taxation is okay. SPECIFICALLY. Your interpretation of the Doctrine and Covenants aside, people in Christ's day believed what you were saying. They were wrong. Jesus showed them this. THE SAVIOUR is saying that taxation is different from theft, unless you're saying Jesus sanctions theft.

No, you're taking the statement of Christ to the extreme.

Taxation is a necessary function of government. All forms of taxation, by extension, ARE NOT right.

Christ does not sanction all forms of Taxation.

But wait, there is another message in what Christ said. Even if the taxation by Caesar was wrong (probably) to rebel was certain death. In that circumstance, it was better to live.

Of course, the Lord did approve of the rebellion of the States against Britian on the matter, in part, of taxation without representation. So, we cannot logically expand what Christ said about Caesar to include all forms / levels of taxation.

Now, the particulars, especially in the United States, under our divinely inspired Constitution are that taxation is to be used to protect the property rights of the individual (the proper function of Government). That's it. There's no other proper use of tax money allowed by the Constitution. And there is a reason for that. The founders knew that any other use of taxation is theft.

It really is that simple.

[Guest SisterofJared]

Actually it's quite easy to determine which type of taxation is theft or not.

All you have to do is look to the constitution. The Constitution is the agreement of the people to be governed, and it grants powers to the government, and to the people. Whatever tax is constitutional is just and right, and is a tax. Whatever is not granted in the constitution is usurpation and oppression.

Almost everything our government does today is unconstitutional. We are ruled by gadianton robbers, who do what they want, turning a blind eye to corruption, in fact, embracing it. The stinking bail out is one example.... no where does the constitution grant the government the right to tax people and give that money to private corporations. But they have done so and will continue to do so. The statesmen who founded our government would have yelled in outrage. We bleat like sheep and ante up.

Sister of Jared

[Kirajo]

I'm sure you will single handedly take care of each one of the governmental issues by writing tiny blogs about them.

[ztodd]

I'm sure you will single handedly take care of each one of the governmental issues by writing tiny blogs about them.

By small and simple things, great things can come to pass. Every little bit helps. It can all add up to something great, if only more people believed it.

[Guest SisterofJared]

Further clarification:

The difference is.... rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesars.... in a government that is a monarchy, the people are subject to the king. We have self government in this country, and we have a set of guidelines by which we agree to be government. Specific powers are outlined. The government MUST stay within those guidelines. If they do not limit themselves to the powers we the people have granted them, then they are grabbing power out of thin air, and this is tyranny.

What right does the government have? Well, our rights come from God. They are born with. They are not a gift from government, but are a gift from God. Our rights most specifically are the right to life, liberty and property. And the right to protect our life, liberty and property. Ezra Taft Benson explained the proper role of government by using an analogy of the old west. Rancher A builds a ranch up, he is raising cattle and things are going well. Same thing with Rancher B and Rancher C. They are all busy, working hard and providing for their families. Then some cattle rustlers come along and begin to steal cattle. Rancher A has to quit working to chase the bad guys. Same thing happens to Rancher B and C. So they get together and hire a sheriff to help them protect their cattle. The power that the sheriff has is only the power than the Rancher's themselves have. The Sheriff can protect the rancher's cattle in the name of the ranchers. God gave them the right to protect their property, and the sheriff acts in their name. The sheriff has NO other power than that granted by the ranchers. If he decides to tell Rancher D that he can't raise sheep instead of cows, the Sheriff is acting illegally. He only has power granted by the ranchers, and they can only give him power that has been granted to them by God. All other power siezed is usurped out of thin air, not rightful power, and is the act of tyranny.

Since we the people have not granted our government many of the powers it has taken upon itself.... these taxations and other actions... the Rico law, etc... are acts of tyranny.

I would recommend the study of a talk by Ezra Taft Benson. It is called The Proper Role of Government. A fine piece to educate on government, sound understanding for everyone, latter day saint or not.

Find it here:

The Proper Role of Government by Ezra Taft Benson

Sister of Jared

[checkerboy]

I'm sure you will single handedly take care of each one of the governmental issues by writing tiny blogs about them.

Sorry you know I love you Kira but this is where it starts. Ever read Common Sense by Thomas Paine, you could liken that to a tiny blog. Helped to start a revolution. It is in the grassroots that things get accomplished. Nothing is gonna change unless people start talking about what needs to change. People have become so lazy. Look how long schmucks like Ted Kennedy have remained in power. Because people don't care anymore.

If we really cared about our country we would do something about it rather then sit here and complain that things suck. When was the last time any of you voted for someone based on their principles and not the R or D after their name. I am not pointing a finger at everyone but it just seems to me that we have become complacent. So yeah let's talk about this on tiny blogs and maybe people will start to listen.

[Elgama]

Wow, where have you lived that pays higher taxes and gets better service than we get in the United States?

I'd love to know. That way I could win the Nobel Prize in economics by soundly refuting the Laffer Curve:

Laffer curve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks!

Oh, by the way, do you support things that have no Constitutional authority in the United States?

the UK and spent a couple of months in Norway - as a British person I am aware of poverty in my country but couldn't get over the grinding poverty in the US even amongst people who here with equivelent jobs would be OK. I know my Auntie who had dealt with poverty here as a nurse before the welfare state visited the US with my Uncle for his special scholarship and stated the poverty was the like it was here before the welfare state began,

Its no coincidence we have a fire brigade that is in great demand, and the rest of our academics find it easy obtaining work in the US

-Charley

Edited October 23, 2008 by Elgama

[Elgama]

Further clarification:

The difference is.... rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesars.... in a government that is a monarchy, the people are subject to the king. We have self government in this country, and we have a set of guidelines by which we agree to be government. Specific powers are outlined. The government MUST stay within those guidelines. If they do not limit themselves to the powers we the people have granted them, then they are grabbing power out of thin air, and this is tyranny.

The Proper Role of Government by Ezra Taft Benson

Sister of Jared

Then don't vote or start voting for third parties or start your own - moment you vote for someone, you give them the power to govern and in order to that for over a 1000 years they have needed money,. And I have noticed especially with Presidents and maybe I am wrong- in the US they are seen as special and leaders whereas the anger when ours act in appropriately is caused by the fact they are is voted to represent us.

Also if you don't pay the taxes required of you then using a road, using a toilet, running water, calling a police officer or fireman, using a public school, dustbin whilst out, public library, park etc would that not truly be theft? You haven't paid your share and you certainly can't say you support your country's soldiers as you wouldn't even be helping to pay their wages, arm them, let alone help fly the bodies back. You can't complain about immigration or the increase of drugs into the country, the beggars in the street, if you go abroad don't bother with the embassy, if your child goes missing don't call the FBI, and there would certainly be no way your government could hope to do anything about the financial crisis facing them etc

Just like I appreciate the blessings for paying my tithing - I also appreciate the blessings I receive for paying my taxes which are many.

-Charley

Edited October 23, 2008 by Elgama

[Guest SisterofJared]

You're missing the point, Charley.... not ALL taxes are wrong. Some of them are wrong. Don't worry, I didn't use the public school, I home taught my kids, especially wouldn't want them in public schools now when they are taught out of books like "Heather Has Two Mommies." Public education stinks.

When I or anyone else in the US votes for someone, we are giving them LIMITED powers... the power that is detailed in the US Constitution is ALL they can lawfully have. Do you not understand that? If there were 5 kids playing marbles, and they say, "let's get someone to hold all the marbles for us" and they vote and choose Johnny, and what they voted for was for Johnny to hold the marbles and count them at the end of the game and give them all equally to the 5 players, then Johnny decided to give half of the marbles to some kids in exchange for a baseball, then Johny would be a THIEF, because he is doing that which was not agreed upon. When our Constitution was ratified, the 'government' was NOT granted such vast powers of taxation... it can't vote to give itself more and more money, because the constititution REGULATES what can be done. Just like Johnny, our congress is breaking faith with Americans by doing that which we did not outline in the Constitution... in fact, it is forbidden in the constitution.

If you have no objection to that, just hang your head and bleat. You are a sheep being lead to the slaughter. But NOT like Joseph Smith... he himself knew and testified as to the corruptions of our government.

Sister of Jared

[Elgama]

You're missing the point, Charley.... not ALL taxes are wrong. Some of them are wrong. Don't worry, I didn't use the public school, I home taught my kids, especially wouldn't want them in public schools now when they are taught out of books like "Heather Has Two Mommies." Public education stinks.

I also home educate but for very different reasons I have no issues with the content of the education system here because we pay higher taxes we get a better education system, So what makes a tax wrong and one right? Which ones are stealing and which ones aren't? And you don't feel its theft to not pay taxes then flush your toilet and drive down the road (I am guessing you drive and use the bathroom) -

When I or anyone else in the US votes for someone, we are giving them LIMITED powers... the power that is detailed in the US Constitution is ALL they can lawfully have. Do you not understand that? If there were 5 kids playing marbles, and they say, "let's get someone to ht ld all the marbles for us" and they vote and choose Johnny, and what they voted for was for Johnny to hold the marbles and count them at the end of the game and give them all equally to the 5 players, then Johnny decided to give half of the marbles to some kids in exchange for a baseball, then Johny would be a THIEF, because he is doing that which was not agreed upon. When our Constitution was ratified, the 'government' was NOT granted such vast powers of taxation... it can't vote to give itself more and more money, because the constititution REGULATES what can be done. Just like Johnny, our congress is breaking faith with Americans by doing that which we did not outline in the Constitution... in fact, it is forbidden in the constitution.

If you don't like what they do with constitution do you vote for a party? if you do you give them support?

So if one kid doesn't want his marbles back, or some of them become damaged and dangerous or someone else leaves - Johnny just has to stay and hold the marbles and make no decisions based on the circumstances? Sorry but I want my country's leaders to be able to take decisions and do what they believe is best at the time. If we had stuck entirely to the Magna Carta the same arguement you use could have been used about the fire service, a regular army, sanitation, national education etc

If you have no objection to that, just hang your head and bleat. You are a sheep being lead to the slaughter. But NOT like Joseph Smith... he himself knew and testified as to the corruptions of our government.

I can honestly say I have never voted or supported a party that is taxing me illegally or against my will. Plenty of LDS do otherwise Utah wouldn't be Republican. Joseph Smith put his money where his mouth is and planned to stand as President under a independent ticket.

-Charley

[FunkyTown]

Now, the particulars, especially in the United States, under our divinely inspired Constitution are that taxation is to be used to protect the property rights of the individual (the proper function of Government). That's it. There's no other proper use of tax money allowed by the Constitution. And there is a reason for that. The founders knew that any other use of taxation is theft.

It really is that simple.

Hmm... This is interesting. Taxation can only be used to protect the property rights of another individual? So let's see what that means:

1) No government created infrastructure - Roads, bridges, sea ports, lighthouses, airports and the like - They simply do not exist, except so far as private individuals have paid for and sanctioned their creation. This means most roads are now dirt roads, barring those exceptional places where a rich person/corporation has decided to pave a road.

2) A stripped down, nearly non-existent military - With few external enemies, the only purpose of the military is to defend the US from potential invaders Canada and Mexico. They are armed with guerilla style weaponry like the founding fathers as nothing else is necessary in defense of the nation. Perhaps they have armor piercing mines and a few rocket launchers as well in case armor comes in, though without infrastructure that would most likely not be a huge concern considering they would find it difficult to get around.

3) The Civil War was an illegal war - Stopping a state from seceding is an illegal action, since it has nothing to do with protection of property. In fact, the exact opposite could be true as it pushed to -end- slavery, which were considered property by their owners.

4) World War II was an illegal war - No American property was threatened by this war, not that it would have mattered as the US military would not have been the juggernaut it was because of previous cases.

5) (Insert every war the US has ever had except the War of Independence) was an illegal action, for the same reasons.

I'm not sure how I feel about this take on it. To be honest, I can definitely see a plus side to this. It certainly does maintain an old west -feel- to it. Let's ignore the horrid treatment of the Natives and the fact that the US would have to be on whatever soil the natives hadn't claimed and we'll say that this inspired document allowed a much more holistic integration with the natives. Since it didn't happen, we don't know what -would- have happened. I had a big write-up claiming that California would not be part of the US, nor most of the North East, but I'm not a prophet and can't say for sure.

When I put it down on paper the -definite- consequences, it sounds like it would make for a nation that had vast tracts of very simple living, punctuated by small cities of intense wealth. It does make me have a few questions, though:

1) How do you handle companies that use the lack of regulation to exploit the market? Look up the Sarnia Blob and see how many chemicals the plants dumped in our waters. In fact, now those same companies are keeping the plants open unto perpetuity with a skeleton staff simply because it's cheaper than closing down and having to pay for clean-up. If the government can't fine you(Because that's taking away property) and the government would be required to put down a group of disgruntled people trying to run chemical companies out of town(Since they're trying to deprive a private individual of property), how would that be dealt with?

2) How would you handle companies that exploited workers? Saying that workers don't have to work there is simplistic. People died developing the railroads, children as young as 7 were maimed in factories and the mines and many people out of desperation for work agreed to labour for -credit-, which meant that they were plunged deeper and deeper in debt for every day of work. That's a simple, undeniable fact and it happened in the US prior to regulation stopping it.

3) Since printing money is unconstitutional(There are costs to print money that can only be gathered through taxation, and the printing of money is not required to protect property), do you see any issues coming about because only private, corporate sponsored scrip would be printed?

4) How would you handle a hospital that turned away a man who was beaten and robbed and left for dead because they had no money(After all, they were just robbed)? You can't fine them(It's unconstitutional) and you can't force them to treat the patient(Ditto)? Is that simply one of the costs of doing business in the land of the free?

From what I can see, Unions seem to be the answer to poor workplace conditions. Since the government attempted to put down Unions(Unconstitutionally) early on in their life, I could see that the union would have far more power since there would be no government regulation. There may be a normalization. All those other things - The crushing poverty compared to today, lack of infrastructure and the like - Would you consider the benefits to outweigh the losses?

[MarginOfError]

When I or anyone else in the US votes for someone, we are giving them LIMITED powers... the power that is detailed in the US Constitution is ALL they can lawfully have. ...When our Constitution was ratified, the 'government' was NOT granted such vast powers of taxation... it can't vote to give itself more and more money, because the constititution REGULATES what can be done. Just like Johnny, our congress is breaking faith with Americans by doing that which we did not outline in the Constitution... in fact, it is forbidden in the constitution.

Actually, the taxation you claim to be forbidden in the Constitution is quite permissible in the Constitution. The Sixteenth Amendment granted the government the ability to tax wages and incomes. The Amendment was ratified by 42 of 48 states (87.5%).

[a-train]

Bottom line: If the U.S. government could exist and provide protection for the people from enemies both foreign and domestic without an income tax, wouldn't we be idiots not to pursue such a system?

-a-train

[FunkyTown]

Bottom line: If the U.S. government could exist and provide protection for the people from enemies both foreign and domestic without an income tax, wouldn't we be idiots not to pursue such a system?

-a-train

Bottom line? If that were the only thing to consider, then yes. Since infrastructure, schooling and medicine also depend upon those same tax dollars, the only way to give it up is to give up public schooling, roads and available medicine.

[Elgama]

Actually, the taxation you claim to be forbidden in the Constitution is quite permissible in the Constitution. The Sixteenth Amendment granted the government the ability to tax wages and incomes. The Amendment was ratified by 42 of 48 states (87.5%).

yes I asked my husband he says its Amendment 16 -

-Charley

[JohnBirchSociety]

Actually, the taxation you claim to be forbidden in the Constitution is quite permissible in the Constitution. The Sixteenth Amendment granted the government the ability to tax wages and incomes. The Amendment was ratified by 42 of 48 states (87.5%).

First, I must preface my remarks. Pay your income taxes as directed by the IRS. No person has EVER won a case against the IRS on the basis of what I'm about to discuss, EVER.

On to the major problem.

Only 36 States were needed for ratification of the proposed 16th Amendment.

Phillander Knox, Secretary of State, was the person responsible for verification and confirmation of the State's ratification's. Secretary Knox claimed that 38 (not 42 as you claim) of the State's ratified the Amendment.

There is a problem with this claim. At least four of the State's listed by Secretary Knox did NOT ratify the proposed Amendment. In fact, one of them (California) has no record of ever voting on any such proposed Amendment.

Here are the four problem State's:

1) The California legislative assembly never recorded any vote upon any proposal to adopt the proposed amendment proposed by Congress.

2) The Kentucky Senate voted upon the resolution, but rejected it by a vote of 9 in favor and 22 opposed.

3) The Oklahoma Senate amended the language of the proposed 16th Amendment to have a precisely opposite meaning.

4) The State of Minnesota sent nothing to the Secretary of State in Washington.

This leaves 34 State's of the list of 38 posited by Secretary Knox as having ratified the proposed amendment. Thirty-six (36) were required.

The proposed amendment was not ratified.

If anybody is interested in discussing the ratification process, I'll start a thread on it.

What I won't discuss is the non-payment of Income Tax, for two reasons:

1) The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints says to pay income tax.

2) No person, or group has ever won a case in court on the basis of the non-ratification of the proposed 16th Amendment.

[JohnBirchSociety]

Hmm... This is interesting. Taxation can only be used to protect the property rights of another individual? So let's see what that means:

1) No government created infrastructure - Roads, bridges, sea ports, lighthouses, airports and the like - They simply do not exist, except so far as private individuals have paid for and sanctioned their creation. This means most roads are now dirt roads, barring those exceptional places where a rich person/corporation has decided to pave a road.

2) A stripped down, nearly non-existent military - With few external enemies, the only purpose of the military is to defend the US from potential invaders Canada and Mexico. They are armed with guerilla style weaponry like the founding fathers as nothing else is necessary in defense of the nation. Perhaps they have armor piercing mines and a few rocket launchers as well in case armor comes in, though without infrastructure that would most likely not be a huge concern considering they would find it difficult to get around.

3) The Civil War was an illegal war - Stopping a state from seceding is an illegal action, since it has nothing to do with protection of property. In fact, the exact opposite could be true as it pushed to -end- slavery, which were considered property by their owners.

4) World War II was an illegal war - No American property was threatened by this war, not that it would have mattered as the US military would not have been the juggernaut it was because of previous cases.

5) (Insert every war the US has ever had except the War of Independence) was an illegal action, for the same reasons.

I'm not sure how I feel about this take on it. To be honest, I can definitely see a plus side to this. It certainly does maintain an old west -feel- to it. Let's ignore the horrid treatment of the Natives and the fact that the US would have to be on whatever soil the natives hadn't claimed and we'll say that this inspired document allowed a much more holistic integration with the natives. Since it didn't happen, we don't know what -would- have happened. I had a big write-up claiming that California would not be part of the US, nor most of the North East, but I'm not a prophet and can't say for sure.

When I put it down on paper the -definite- consequences, it sounds like it would make for a nation that had vast tracts of very simple living, punctuated by small cities of intense wealth. It does make me have a few questions, though:

1) How do you handle companies that use the lack of regulation to exploit the market? Look up the Sarnia Blob and see how many chemicals the plants dumped in our waters. In fact, now those same companies are keeping the plants open unto perpetuity with a skeleton staff simply because it's cheaper than closing down and having to pay for clean-up. If the government can't fine you(Because that's taking away property) and the government would be required to put down a group of disgruntled people trying to run chemical companies out of town(Since they're trying to deprive a private individual of property), how would that be dealt with?

2) How would you handle companies that exploited workers? Saying that workers don't have to work there is simplistic. People died developing the railroads, children as young as 7 were maimed in factories and the mines and many people out of desperation for work agreed to labour for -credit-, which meant that they were plunged deeper and deeper in debt for every day of work. That's a simple, undeniable fact and it happened in the US prior to regulation stopping it.

3) Since printing money is unconstitutional(There are costs to print money that can only be gathered through taxation, and the printing of money is not required to protect property), do you see any issues coming about because only private, corporate sponsored scrip would be printed?

4) How would you handle a hospital that turned away a man who was beaten and robbed and left for dead because they had no money(After all, they were just robbed)? You can't fine them(It's unconstitutional) and you can't force them to treat the patient(Ditto)? Is that simply one of the costs of doing business in the land of the free?

From what I can see, Unions seem to be the answer to poor workplace conditions. Since the government attempted to put down Unions(Unconstitutionally) early on in their life, I could see that the union would have far more power since there would be no government regulation. There may be a normalization. All those other things - The crushing poverty compared to today, lack of infrastructure and the like - Would you consider the benefits to outweigh the losses?

The protection of property right's includes the exercise of, or use of property. This is a very important fact.

1) Infrastructure is an appropriate function of Government in the protection of property rights (which includes the use of property).

2) Military is a very appropriate function of Government in the protection of property rights. This is fundamentally an aspect of the proper function of Government. I've made no statement to the effect of having a weak military.

3) The maintenance of the Union that is best suited to the protection of property rights is appropriate. It is clear that a failure of the American experiment would be devastating to any formation of a proper Government. The Union action in the Civil War was appropriate, though I'd argue a bit about the execution of the War.

4) WWII was appropriate to the function of Government. We were facing a unified global attack on our freedom. In fact, the Empire of Japan did attack us and threaten property rights. Germany most likely would have, given the chance.

5) Any constitutionally declared war was appropriate, the last one being WWII.

and....

1) Uh, if a company pollutes then it is infringing upon other's property. That would be an appropriate function of government to regulate. Government certainly can fine as a tool in the protection of property rights.

2) The exploitation of people is contrary to property rights. Therefore, it is appropriate for Government to intervene.

3) First, you cannot print money. It is impossible, because it falls outside the definition of money. Secondly, constitutionally Congress COINS money. That is an appropriate function of government in the facilitation of the exercise of proper by the citizen.

4) Fines, again, are not unconstitutional. Secondly, I've not been able to find an instance of a hospital refusing immediately necessary life-saving care to any individual where such facilities exist. If they did, it would be morally wrong because it interfere's with the greater principle of right to life to a certain degree. This may be an instance where the force of government can be properly used to insure life at the cost of property. Life being superior to property.

Private Unions absent the force of government are fine with me. They represent a contractural agreement between two groups. That's okay. Government should have no place in Unions (other than enforcement of contract, which is a proper function of Government).

I don't know what America you've studied. There have always been poor, probably always will be until the Lord comes back. However, the greatest growth in human prosperity for all involved occured during the first 100 years of American history (even with the devastating Civil War). That is a fact.

In appropriate Government action outside of its' proper role in the defense of the right of property or life, never results in a improvement in the human condition. It is theft.

[RachelleDrew]

"I'm sure you will single handedly take care of each one of the governmental issues by writing tiny blogs about them."

ROFL!

You have just won my heart.

[YoungMormonRoyalist]

Would it be alright to fine a hosptial for not providing preventative health care?