lockedup

While I appreciate both of your views/arguments neither of you has as of yet attacked my arguments but have instead presented me with other arguments. While I have a sense that I might be wrong, I would also like to know for sure what exactly about my arguments is wrong. Yes taking benefits may cause the government to become insolvent but it may also cause an increase in taxation. And would you not say that immoral means never justify moral ends? I was not trying to make a special case, rather, I was trying to provide an example so as to clarify my idea. Can it not be possible that it is immoral to use some things that are a result of taxation but not others, why does it have to be black and white? I think that because of my arguments using both a post office or a library can be immoral (depending on the use though). For example if a certain book at a library gets borrowed often enough the library might consider buying a second copy (which will be done with tax money), therefore borrowing books from the library is immoral. Same thing with a post office, the more people using the service, the more likely the business is to expand. I think the same thing might be said about roads though to be honest I hesitate to admit it (it sounds weird to say using a road is immoral). But I am still waiting to hear a rebuttal to my arguments.

Is it immoral to take redistributed money from government entities or use their services? Say for example a person who takes a disability check from the government because he suffers from a "mental illness". In my opinion it is and I will present my case. But I might be wrong and would like to hear other peoples opinions. Molyneux once said (I don't remember exactly if he was talking specifically about disability) that since the money has already been stolen and taken away via taxation and since the service will be provided regardless, one might as well take advantage of it. This assumes that the amount of money that this service requires will never increase due to an increase in demand for the service. But if there is more demand for the service the government may act accordingly and generate more supply which would lead to increased taxation. So for example: the more people relying on a disability handout or using X service, the more likely the governmental entity will be to request an increase in taxation to cover for this service. In a similar manner, if everyone stops relying on welfare the programs might be terminated and therefore there might be a reduction in taxation. So, as far as I can tell, everyone who is using the service is partly responsible for governmental theft.