Yes, it is absurd. In fact, it is so absurd it is a straw man.

Where is your logic behind your seemingly unchecked notion that everyone has a right to free property coming from? Who says?

I never said anything about a right to free property. Nowhere at all.

Certainly only those without it. You and others keep spouting "capitalism doesn't work, libertarianism doesn't work," but you say that with the misconceived notion that to 'work' means to make everyone monetarily equal. Where is this notion coming from? You must defend that. I can see no logic behind it.

It's because you choose not to. I say what others and myself have said before: It's got nothing to do with free stuff. The whole point is why does one party have nothing and another have plenty. You seem to believe it is only due to the failure of the party with nothing to produce. I, and others, find fault with this conclusion. At best, it is only partially true, poverty is created as much by the rich exerting their advantage over the poor as it is by inaction. If this is true, redistribution of that wealth is not "stealing" at all, but returning the wealth to it's rightful owner.

Usually, libertarians/objectivists, will tell me that the above is impossible, that the rich have no advantage whatsoever over the poor and that all trades are mutually beneficial. I also find fault with that conclusion. One does not have to look far to find a situation in which a party is to poor to choose anything but a "bad" option or a "worse" option, while the real opportunities are reserved for those who can afford them. Pretending this is not the reality does not make it go away.

Simply because the child was born into a poor family in the United States does not obligate the United States to support that child!

It would if the United States, through it's policies of discrimination and anti-labor efforts, was responsible for their poverty. I say this to emphasize my point that wealth is often gained by way of taking advantage of the less fortunate, and that a returning of that wealth would be appropriate. I'm not for the redistribution of wealth because I'm feeling nice. Calling my argument an argument for "stealing" or the "right to free stuff" is a complete miscategorization.

I'm not convinced there is a permanent answer to the problem y'all are grappling with. It's a constant struggle between tensions: the need to limit the reach and power of government, no matter the type, being that government comprises men and women given to a lust for power, and the propensity of humanity to follow its selfish desires at the expense of all other concerns. What I do know is at any considerable distance from this nebulous center in any direction reside equal perils, and, of course, the Huns at the gate.

Look at 'definition-b.'
Need I connect the dots for you? I believe my case to be rested, do you disagree Alex?

Stephen, this argument is not going to get any more correct no matter how many times you repeat it. By your definition, if I agree to pay you money in exchange for goods or services and then renege on my agreement, and you summon the police to make me pay what I owe, you are "stealing" because you took my property away by force.

What's missing from that scenario? The element of consent - I agreed to pay you in exchange for the goods you provided. And the very same thing is true of society in general, where the social contract mandates that taxes are levied in exchange for the goods and services which society provides its members and which you consent to accept by living there. Taxation is not theft for the same reason payment for goods is not theft.

A better analogy, perhaps, would be membership dues in a club. As long as you keep coming to the club and using its facilities, you're consenting to pay the dues it requires of all its members. If you don't want to pay the dues, you can leave that club and find somewhere else to go. What you're not free to do is petulantly sit in the club and demand that you should be allowed to stay there without paying.

You may wish you lived in a libertarian fantasy world where you could unilaterally withdraw from the social services the state provides, but we don't live in that world. And I'm glad we don't: havoc would ensue if we did. Private landowners would disregard pollution and fire hazard laws, threatening their neighbors with natural disasters that don't respect property lines. Whenever someone called 911 or came to the hospital, emergency workers would have to check whether they were paid up before assisting them (and woe betide the person whose name is missing from the books due to clerical error). Power lines, roads and pipes would have to be routed in a crazy quilt around the property lines of people who refused to participate. People could literally be imprisoned by private property surrounding their houses. The most charitable thing I can say about your plan is that you clearly haven't given any thought to its implications.

http://www.abc.net.au/correspondents/content/2004/s1160665.htm

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/26/buffet_gates_charity/

I still haven't heard an argument as to why it is a moral necessity for them to do so, seeing as they had no choice in whether any of you were born at all, but they did it because they wanted to, without government force... go figure.

Where is your logic behind your seemingly unchecked notion that everyone has a right to free property coming from? Who says? Certainly only those without it. You and others keep spouting "capitalism doesn't work, libertarianism doesn't work," but you say that with the misconceived notion that to 'work' means to make everyone monetarily equal. Where is this notion coming from? You must defend that. I can see no logic behind it. Simply because the child was born into a poor family in the United States does not obligate the United States to support that child! What if the child was born to a jungle family with no one else to mooch off of? The only people inherently responsible for life are those that cause that life to exist (the mother and the father), if they don't take care of him those who wish to are welcome, but no one can be morally responsible but the parents. A society exists to provide opportunity by way of not physically interfering with the lives of others, it is not their to redistribute everyone else's property.

Leum

I wouldn't ever argue that in the current structure of society in order to take advantage of publicly funded institutions such as schools, libraries and healthcare one must pay his taxes. I will also submit that education, as a concept, is beneficial, as are libraries, roads, and healthcare. My hold-up resides in using people's money who are against those institutions to support them with the threat of imprisonment if they choose not to (as opposed to him simply being denied access to those institutions, which, according to all the logic I have been able to gather, would be fare). Does that make sense?

If someone is taking advantage of public education, he owes taxes to the government that supports it. If he is paying his taxes, he owes nothing further. If he sees no direct benefit in public education, he should be allowed to opt out. My Step-mom home-school's NINE KIDS because she does not agree with the public education system! Yet she is still required to pay public education taxes! So I will agree that many public institutions are beneficial at face value, but not at the expense of forcing those against it with a gun, it's a violation of freedom of thought and the freedom to make ones own value judgments.

Your other logic, benefit by association (the example you gave that I would benefit by having an 'educated employee') does not work because of this: Imagine My father taught me good money practices as well as a good work ethic. That could technically be a great value to a future boss.... would the boss then owe money to my dad because he benefited from my education? Do you get my point? (thanks for the clarification, btw, of your word choice).

Alex Weaver

Let me try and explain:
There are two ways to obtain property from someone else, either by mutual (unforced) agreement, or by stealing (forced). The former, all parties are satisfied and still retain either equal or greater value than they had before (usually the latter). The former is only possible in a society that allows individual freedom of choice. The latter method means only a percentage (one of two people in a two-person transaction) receives value and can only take place with a threat of force. This can only be legal in a country where the government (i.e. the majority of the people in a 'people's government') have the right to inflict their values on you (in other words, a government that could be run by the church if that was the majority population... which it is... I believe most of you are fighting against that, aren't you?)
The webster definition of "to steal" is:

1 a: to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully (stole a car) b: to take away by force or unjust means (they've stolen our liberty) c: to take surreptitiously or without permission (steal a kiss) d: to appropriate to oneself or beyond one's proper share : make oneself the focus of (steal the show)

Look at 'definition-b.'
Need I connect the dots for you? I believe my case to be rested, do you disagree Alex?

To everyone else

Are you merely trying to create a monopoly on who has the power to say who has sex with who and how I am to use my money? Are you fighting for a separation of church and state so you (a secularist) now have the power to run into the capital building and make moral decisions for all of America instead of Jesus? If so you are missing the point. Separation of church and state could easily be read as "Separation of those who wish to run people's lives from those who only wish to protect their freedoms."

Again, case rests.

I suspect that by blending these systems, each of which appeals to a different aspect of human nature (greed, compassion, and empathy)it is possible to create a system that, while flawed, will create greater equality of wealth and opportunity. All I need now is a nifty name for this new system - and I'll be really disappointed if such a system is already in place.

This may not be what you were thinking of, but Libertarian Socialism has aspects that could appeal to both Libertarians and "bleeding heart liberals."

Any other method involves stealing.

You have not demonstrated that taxation to support society is in any meaningful sense "stealing," and I do not accept it as an axiom.

Even if you don't owe society (that really was a poor word choice on my part), I hope you realize that you benefit from the existence of social programs. Of course, I understand if you dislike being required to pay for them, but I don't agree that that makes taxes paid towards social programs theft (I don't think my taxes paid towards the war in Iraq are theft, despite thinking that the war there is immoral and unconstitutional).

I think ex machina put it best: You could say that the winners deserve to win, but you have to understand that the losers, in the real world, live in poverty, sickness, and death. That's just not good enough when a small sliver of the winner's wealth (gained by their advantage over the losers) could give them a life of dignity.

We don't want the wealthy sunk into poverty, just that they give up some of their money in order to soften the hardships of those less fortunate.

I'd love to live in a meritocracy in which happiness was the goal, but instead I live in a place where only reputation and money are important.