Should I take advantage of the welfare system

[Jakethehuman]

Hi for the past few months I've been lying about my income to illegally receive welfare payments. my rationale is that there are millions of unproductive leeches who do nothing and receive these benefits, regardless of what I do, and there are millions more willing sheep who happily pay their taxes to support the state, that includes welfare payments. I have no moral obligation to a state I oppose and so see no problem in taking advantage of the system wherever possible for personal gain. 

 

Am i missing something?

[AncapFTW]

So, let me see if I understand. You are commuting fraud to get money from the government, who stole the money to give it to you? There's also the risk of prison, and you aren't even committing a victimless crime or protesting a bad law to get it.

 

Not a very wise idea.

[AnarchoNEET]

Doesn't seem worth the risk, unless you are putting the extra money aside/investing it so if they catch you, you won't have to go in debt to pay it back.

[Alan C.]

Although it frustrates me that so many people exploit the welfare system, I recognize that it's here to stay. However, the more people who use it, the sooner it's going to implode, and that's a good thing.

[NotDarkYet]

Free money hurts people.  Look at people who are IN the welfare state.

[MrCapitalism]

Am i missing something?

The guns?

 

I think you make a valid argument but really...you're going to risk prison over this? If you want to of course that's your choice. That's really just extracting even more resources from the state. But i have to imagine you have better things you could be doing.

[Malej_Pstros]

I don't believe anyone can give you a definite answer on this one and neither will I, but let's break it down a bit:

1. The fact that you're lying to your government has no moral consequences whatsoever

2. The fact that there are other people doing it is also completely irrelevant for determining whether it's ethical

3. Yes, you definitely don't owe the state anything

4. Let's give a big thought to your use of the world "voluntarily", as to me it seems to be the broken core of your rationale:

 

I am talking about the US here, since it's probably the only non-straight-up-publicly-facist country where you can hear this from a significant part of the population (well, definetly the only one I know of)

It is very important right at the beginning to at least try defining the meaning of "paying taxes voluntarily". This should simply mean "paying them as a direct result of a conscious decision, in the absence of coercion". As long as you don't actually get to chose whether you want to pay them, the voluntary payment of taxes is simply impossible and claiming so is about as absurd as triumphantly announcing to your friend that you have finally decided to become subject to gravity and thus tend to fall down when there's nothing beneath you! But I know many people still like to claim that they pay taxes voluntarily. What I believe they are trying to say is that "they would decide to pay taxes even if they wouldn't be violently forced to do so". The really crazy thing about that is that this still doesn't make much sense. You simply cannot say you would decide to do something unless specifying what would you decide to do that over... and there is no narrative to what does a "society with voluntary taxes" look like. So the only possible interpretation seems to be that all those people are actually saying that all other things constant - and thus them still being entitled to the whole "class-B-citizen government-service package" regardless of their decision - they would still decide to give the government, without directly getting anything back, just for the team (and being aware of that if the gubbernment doesn't collect enough cash, he would also get no "goodies" from, just like all the other).

 

Now if that's really the case, the level of awkwardness and absurdity of this whole "I pay taxes voluntarily" thing is just way over the top. I mean... I believe that Warren Buffet would gladly pay his taxes every time and since he's running for president, so would Donald Trump (in the 2015 tax year). And yes, when I think about it, I can imagine that people who pay $50 in taxes every year while receiving $5000 in welfare might also "proudly" give up on their fidy - If you can somehow convince yourself that these fifty bucks make you entitled to all those gubberment monies (because hey, you've paid your fair share! And yes, you happen to be the one netting big time, so what? You play along the rules and so should all others. And of course you're absolutely sure you would feel just as enthusiastically about the whole social safety net even if you'd belong into the 40% tax bracket - because then you would be more fortunate and could easily afford paying your "fair share". It's all about the greater good for the society) or maybe even trick yourself into feeling almost as satisfied as if you would have earned the money yourself (after all you did kind of earn it, by playing the "poor people get free money, if you're rich and don't like to play, you're a sociopathic dick, I swear I'm not in for the money" game), instead of having to deal with a more appropriate emotional reaction (and god, there's obviously nothing wrong about being heavily dependent on welfare, but for any decent or at least humble human being it must be extremely emotionally difficult to handle and accept the reality that, for example, you were not able to provide even for your, and most likely your children's, basic needs and it was only because somebody else, who you've never even met, had to "give" you his own money, that you were able to avoid major starvation. That all this time you were perhaps just one little step away from living in hazardous or even inhumane conditions. And that if the next, or any other, time the rich guy isn't there to save your arse, you are done.) the chances are that (unless you're a person of extreme self-honesty) your subconsciousness is gonna do the job for you. <- I don't have an actual proof of that so please feel free to disagree or even better disprove. My judgement is based on my empathy, the intensity of the social pressure to classify taxes and government as just, the natural human tendency to avoid extreme guilt trips by dummy-blaming and the extreme rarity at which most people (especially very poor) encounter any theory/belief/argument questioning the mainstream narrative.

 

But I have, and have a strong feeling that it's not only me, almost always heard this cliche from a person neither too rich nor too poor not to care for the money. But rather from people, for whom dodging all sorts of taxes (including those with fancy deceptive names) would result in straight up doubling (or close to doubling) their income. I mean... it's rather obvious that most of the times people say this, what they're really doing is trying to sell a replica of their internalized dogma (one that is being imposed in an extremely aggressive manner, one that upon adoption grants anyone the right to publicly pet himself on the back and brag about how people like him make for an excellent example of how a good American should take personal sacrifices to the government with joy, because he always knows that what seems to be a short-run loss is but a tiny price for "living in the best country in the world" / "all the services America has done to him" / "being able to take a part in something as amazing as this country" etc. And anyone, who publicly shows his disagreement gets automatically classified a tier-2 human, one that does not understand how important it is to loyally serve his country and thus has to accept being singled out from the group - not because anyone would impose that role on him, but simply because a true American's devotion to the country is a mission of such importance that those brave enough to devote their heart of it must always always come first for it is the best for America.) as a virtue. What really shocks me though is the fact that these people never ever got to realize how ridiculous, fake and straight up self-degrading they sound to anyone who takes a minute to actually contemplate the meaning of those words rather than mindlessly rushing to join the "true American hero public masturbation club".

 

A society where a vast majority of people believe that what a living bush allegedly told an an-alphabet several thousands years ago is about the most relevant source for understanding morality out there, has somehow also reached a strong consensus on that it is immoral to pay the government less money than it demands:

To be fair, 90% sounds just way too high to be real. But it should be safe to say that if Americans see paying taxes as their moral responsability and thus BINDING, the federal government could at any day just stop enforcing taxes (removing all forms of punishment for those who don't pay them) and it would still keep getting the checks from at least 80% of the people (which unfortunately doesn't mean it would be raising 80% of today's revenue, since rich people are probably much more likely to be OK with dodging taxes). If anyone could open a Walmart where everything is ~10% cheaper as it would not pay WAT, only a small fraction of Americans would actually ever go there - and I believe that they would have to deal with heavy ostracism, just like those who claim they would stop paying taxes if they got the chance to. Unless of course many Americans would claim to hold moral positions without being internally bound by them.

 

Each time somebody proudly claims his strong commitment to paying his taxes, he could be just really saying this:

 

That's because Americans in general have a very strong commitment to ethics. We are a very virtuous nation, that's why they would never miss a paycheck for the government, no matter whether enforced or not. The enormous social pressure put on anyone questioning the public dogmas/taboos (like that one bears a moral responsibility for killing innocent brown people even though he had a funny costume on and somebody else told him to do it, or that "pick your horse among two political parties that act almost identically when elected and stick with it in better or worse, regardless of how many times they screw us over" is an absolutely idiotic way to approach politics) is a direct result of the nation's deep repulsion by immorality. The last thing that could ever happen to us is the majority losing a capability of making even some of the most basic moral judgments entirely by one's own, independently on the mainstream narrative. Because after all everybody is responsible for maintaining his own moral compass as precise and as just as he can, for each of us feels bound by his responsibility for the consequences of his moral judgments. And let me tell you this: There is no chance whatsoever that by actually facing the tax-paying decision, many would actually for the first time start seriously contemplating the consequences of each option, as opposed to all of the prior choices on this seemingly surreal and irrelevant topic, where it has been made always absolutely clear that choosing one option will result in the crowd's acceptance and approval, while picking the other one would result in others singling one out, openly disrespecting him for not fulfilling their standards of morality and possibly some of them even getting so carried away by his ego/power trip to seriously damaging ones relationships with the group. It should be more than obvious that for the vast majority of people within one of the world's hardest working and consumption-oriented economy would ever ditch a "moral belief" he has never actually consciously formed, but rather unquestionably accepted under peer pressure, just to double his income. But what more, it is scientifically proven that after the first people not only publicly speak up their mind over not paying taxes, but actually DO IT, their close ones won't suddenly appear under huge pressure of any kind. Because it would be absolutely irrelevant that this time there is no space for any scare or bully-him-into-my-position "you're a horrible person, but if you say you changed your mind and join my club, we'll be friends again" tactics (as our society and neither I would ever subject to something as low as using emotional blackmailing to force anyone into chosing whichever option makes me the least dissonant about the way I blindly accepted a strong belief and now am holding it without being able to actually justify it) and the believer would now have to decide whether he really wants to double on a position he has so far most likely only held for convenience, but now would require to morally condemn a close one. Would you even believe that some people seriously think nobody would actually chose to hold a very strong unjustified position once the result of doing so would switch from "strong social approval + saving me from getting bullied" to "work twice as hard for the same reward + Being one of the very few people hating on the majority for reasons I cannot explain"? 

 

Well, to wrap it up:

     - Nobody is paying taxes voluntarily as it is impossible by definition for as long as taxes get enforced.

     - You may perhaps believe that there are people who would pay taxes even without the gun at their head, but I really cannot see how could you ever know for sure, let alone rely on it into such an           extent to derive moral implications from it

     - Even people claiming they would keep paying for your welfare despite suddenly not having to have probably never even seriously considered the whole issue and you simply couldn't even enforce that once taxation would become voluntary, let alone force into giving you their consent with paying them in the present

     - Voluntary tax payers simply can't exist in a government that forces people to buy services they don't want

     - And finally: Once you would give people the option to chose what they want to fund, it's not very likely that people would chose to turn to the government in order to give you cash if you need to fake your way to reach it in the current system. Your only option would be to try tricking taxpayers into giving you the cash by lying to them directly, but this would beyond any doubt be a classical example of FRAUD, which is strictly unethical 

 

 

So my conclusion is more than clear from the list above: If your rationale is that people pay taxes voluntarily, I would argue you  have an absolutely terrible rationale! 

 

That doe sn't mean that what you're doing is either right or wrong, it simply means that you probably haven't really put much thought into justifying your position

[Jakethehuman]

 

I don't believe anyone can give you a definite answer on this one and neither will I, but let's break it down a bit:

1. The fact that you're lying to your government has no moral consequences whatsoever

2. The fact that there are other people doing it is also completely irrelevant for determining whether it's ethical

3. Yes, you definitely don't owe the state anything

4. Let's give a big thought to your use of the world "voluntarily", as to me it seems to be the broken core of your rationale:

 

I am talking about the US here, since it's probably the only non-straight-up-publicly-facist country where you can hear this from a significant part of the population (well, definetly the only one I know of)

It is very important right at the beginning to at least try defining the meaning of "paying taxes voluntarily". This should simply mean "paying them as a direct result of a conscious decision, in the absence of coercion". As long as you don't actually get to chose whether you want to pay them, the voluntary payment of taxes is simply impossible and claiming so is about as absurd as triumphantly announcing to your friend that you have finally decided to become subject to gravity and thus tend to fall down when there's nothing beneath you! But I know many people still like to claim that they pay taxes voluntarily. What I believe they are trying to say is that "they would decide to pay taxes even if they wouldn't be violently forced to do so". The really crazy thing about that is that this still doesn't make much sense. You simply cannot say you would decide to do something unless specifying what would you decide to do that over... and there is no narrative to what does a "society with voluntary taxes" look like. So the only possible interpretation seems to be that all those people are actually saying that all other things constant - and thus them still being entitled to the whole "class-B-citizen government-service package" regardless of their decision - they would still decide to give the government, without directly getting anything back, just for the team (and being aware of that if the gubbernment doesn't collect enough cash, he would also get no "goodies" from, just like all the other).

 

Now if that's really the case, the level of awkwardness and absurdity of this whole "I pay taxes voluntarily" thing is just way over the top. I mean... I believe that Warren Buffet would gladly pay his taxes every time and since he's running for president, so would Donald Trump (in the 2015 tax year). And yes, when I think about it, I can imagine that people who pay $50 in taxes every year while receiving $5000 in welfare might also "proudly" give up on their fidy - If you can somehow convince yourself that these fifty bucks make you entitled to all those gubberment monies (because hey, you've paid your fair share! And yes, you happen to be the one netting big time, so what? You play along the rules and so should all others. And of course you're absolutely sure you would feel just as enthusiastically about the whole social safety net even if you'd belong into the 40% tax bracket - because then you would be more fortunate and could easily afford paying your "fair share". It's all about the greater good for the society) or maybe even trick yourself into feeling almost as satisfied as if you would have earned the money yourself (after all you did kind of earn it, by playing the "poor people get free money, if you're rich and don't like to play, you're a sociopathic dick, I swear I'm not in for the money" game), instead of having to deal with a more appropriate emotional reaction (and god, there's obviously nothing wrong about being heavily dependent on welfare, but for any decent or at least humble human being it must be extremely emotionally difficult to handle and accept the reality that, for example, you were not able to provide even for your, and most likely your children's, basic needs and it was only because somebody else, who you've never even met, had to "give" you his own money, that you were able to avoid major starvation. That all this time you were perhaps just one little step away from living in hazardous or even inhumane conditions. And that if the next, or any other, time the rich guy isn't there to save your arse, you are done.) the chances are that (unless you're a person of extreme self-honesty) your subconsciousness is gonna do the job for you. <- I don't have an actual proof of that so please feel free to disagree or even better disprove. My judgement is based on my empathy, the intensity of the social pressure to classify taxes and government as just, the natural human tendency to avoid extreme guilt trips by dummy-blaming and the extreme rarity at which most people (especially very poor) encounter any theory/belief/argument questioning the mainstream narrative.

 

But I have, and have a strong feeling that it's not only me, almost always heard this cliche from a person neither too rich nor too poor not to care for the money. But rather from people, for whom dodging all sorts of taxes (including those with fancy deceptive names) would result in straight up doubling (or close to doubling) their income. I mean... it's rather obvious that most of the times people say this, what they're really doing is trying to sell a replica of their internalized dogma (one that is being imposed in an extremely aggressive manner, one that upon adoption grants anyone the right to publicly pet himself on the back and brag about how people like him make for an excellent example of how a good American should take personal sacrifices to the government with joy, because he always knows that what seems to be a short-run loss is but a tiny price for "living in the best country in the world" / "all the services America has done to him" / "being able to take a part in something as amazing as this country" etc. And anyone, who publicly shows his disagreement gets automatically classified a tier-2 human, one that does not understand how important it is to loyally serve his country and thus has to accept being singled out from the group - not because anyone would impose that role on him, but simply because a true American's devotion to the country is a mission of such importance that those brave enough to devote their heart of it must always always come first for it is the best for America.) as a virtue. What really shocks me though is the fact that these people never ever got to realize how ridiculous, fake and straight up self-degrading they sound to anyone who takes a minute to actually contemplate the meaning of those words rather than mindlessly rushing to join the "true American hero public masturbation club".

 

A society where a vast majority of people believe that what a living bush allegedly told an an-alphabet several thousands years ago is about the most relevant source for understanding morality out there, has somehow also reached a strong consensus on that it is immoral to pay the government less money than it demands:

To be fair, 90% sounds just way too high to be real. But it should be safe to say that if Americans see paying taxes as their moral responsability and thus BINDING, the federal government could at any day just stop enforcing taxes (removing all forms of punishment for those who don't pay them) and it would still keep getting the checks from at least 80% of the people (which unfortunately doesn't mean it would be raising 80% of today's revenue, since rich people are probably much more likely to be OK with dodging taxes). If anyone could open a Walmart where everything is ~10% cheaper as it would not pay WAT, only a small fraction of Americans would actually ever go there - and I believe that they would have to deal with heavy ostracism, just like those who claim they would stop paying taxes if they got the chance to. Unless of course many Americans would claim to hold moral positions without being internally bound by them.

 

Each time somebody proudly claims his strong commitment to paying his taxes, he could be just really saying this:

 

That's because Americans in general have a very strong commitment to ethics. We are a very virtuous nation, that's why they would never miss a paycheck for the government, no matter whether enforced or not. The enormous social pressure put on anyone questioning the public dogmas/taboos (like that one bears a moral responsibility for killing innocent brown people even though he had a funny costume on and somebody else told him to do it, or that "pick your horse among two political parties that act almost identically when elected and stick with it in better or worse, regardless of how many times they screw us over" is an absolutely idiotic way to approach politics) is a direct result of the nation's deep repulsion by immorality. The last thing that could ever happen to us is the majority losing a capability of making even some of the most basic moral judgments entirely by one's own, independently on the mainstream narrative. Because after all everybody is responsible for maintaining his own moral compass as precise and as just as he can, for each of us feels bound by his responsibility for the consequences of his moral judgments. And let me tell you this: There is no chance whatsoever that by actually facing the tax-paying decision, many would actually for the first time start seriously contemplating the consequences of each option, as opposed to all of the prior choices on this seemingly surreal and irrelevant topic, where it has been made always absolutely clear that choosing one option will result in the crowd's acceptance and approval, while picking the other one would result in others singling one out, openly disrespecting him for not fulfilling their standards of morality and possibly some of them even getting so carried away by his ego/power trip to seriously damaging ones relationships with the group. It should be more than obvious that for the vast majority of people within one of the world's hardest working and consumption-oriented economy would ever ditch a "moral belief" he has never actually consciously formed, but rather unquestionably accepted under peer pressure, just to double his income. But what more, it is scientifically proven that after the first people not only publicly speak up their mind over not paying taxes, but actually DO IT, their close ones won't suddenly appear under huge pressure of any kind. Because it would be absolutely irrelevant that this time there is no space for any scare or bully-him-into-my-position "you're a horrible person, but if you say you changed your mind and join my club, we'll be friends again" tactics (as our society and neither I would ever subject to something as low as using emotional blackmailing to force anyone into chosing whichever option makes me the least dissonant about the way I blindly accepted a strong belief and now am holding it without being able to actually justify it) and the believer would now have to decide whether he really wants to double on a position he has so far most likely only held for convenience, but now would require to morally condemn a close one. Would you even believe that some people seriously think nobody would actually chose to hold a very strong unjustified position once the result of doing so would switch from "strong social approval + saving me from getting bullied" to "work twice as hard for the same reward + Being one of the very few people hating on the majority for reasons I cannot explain"? 

 

Well, to wrap it up:

     - Nobody is paying taxes voluntarily as it is impossible by definition for as long as taxes get enforced.

     - You may perhaps believe that there are people who would pay taxes even without the gun at their head, but I really cannot see how could you ever know for sure, let alone rely on it into such an           extent to derive moral implications from it

     - Even people claiming they would keep paying for your welfare despite suddenly not having to have probably never even seriously considered the whole issue and you simply couldn't even enforce that once taxation would become voluntary, let alone force into giving you their consent with paying them in the present

     - Voluntary tax payers simply can't exist in a government that forces people to buy services they don't want

     - And finally: Once you would give people the option to chose what they want to fund, it's not very likely that people would chose to turn to the government in order to give you cash if you need to fake your way to reach it in the current system. Your only option would be to try tricking taxpayers into giving you the cash by lying to them directly, but this would beyond any doubt be a classical example of FRAUD, which is strictly unethical 

 

 

So my conclusion is more than clear from the list above: If your rationale is that people pay taxes voluntarily, I would argue you  have an absolutely terrible rationale! 

 

That doe sn't mean that what you're doing is either right or wrong, it simply means that you probably haven't really put much thought into justifying your position

 

 

I said happily not voluntarily, I understand and agree with all your arguments, my point is that many people can't even comprehend a world without government and taxes, they aggressively oppose anyone who questions it, so those people surrender their money and don't even question how it is to be spent, so I'll take that please, since it is going to be taken regardless may as well try to use it to get ahead. 

[LandoRamone30]

I wanted to post a few articles I was reading concerning american values/traditional values. I wanted to know what values were all about. I do not know the validity of the authors.

Anyway the two mentioned article said there was a difference in the people of the 1800s and 1900s compared to people living today. That being the values. The author of this post is asking if what he/she is doing is right or wrong. The fact that he/she is asking show how the values of people who live today differ from people in american in the 1800s to 1900s. Personally, I think this society and its current values is unsustainable and that it will collapse. I am not against what people do when metaphorical guns are pointed at them. Morality is a personal choice. What you do take full responsiblity for it and just do it. What ever consequences come after you brought upon yourself.

 

Link

http://trends.gmfus.org/doc/mmf/American%20Cultural%20Values.pdf

 

http://www.ushistory.org/gov/4a.asp

[regevdl]

The state has no money. Repeat after me.  The state has no money.  The state can only give what it firsts takes.

 

 So you have no moral obligation to the state, correct, because it doesn't exist, it's not a person or human, it's a concept.  We have no more moral obligation to the state as we do to a forest.

 

...but the money the state is giving you is mine, my children's, all the people on this thread and their families, etc and you do have a moral obligation to us.  We are paying you, not the state.  The state is simply a conduit to get my money to you so by 'cheating them' means nothing.  They always get their cut...it's guaranteed.  It might be emotionally more comfortable for you to think you are cheating an imaginary entity that has no wealth in order to serve your self interests but the reality is you are cheating the people also enslaved by the system.  It's a slave attacking another slave thinking they are hurting the master.

 

Please stop calling people sheep.  They are victimized by the system as much as you.  Some are in denial, some are aware and some are inbetween but putting yourself somehow higher than they doesn't help your case, especially when you lack the compassion of your and their circumstance AND to add insult to injury you are lying to get their money AND calling them names.  

 

Your actions and honest admissions reveal how broken the state is and how you are knowingly stealing from us and the state isn't aware and just like a cheating partner, if they do it to me, they'll do it to you, the state will cheat you on the backend somehow/way.  

 

Cheating the 'state' means nothing because you are forgetting to put the faces of the individual tax payers in the equation.  

 

You are just making it more expensive for yourself in the long run and for everyone else.  They are printing money for you and anyone else who either A. legitimately needs welfare.  B. committing fraud to receive welfare  C.  are lazy and on welfare.  

 

So now you are cashing in but you will become accustomed to the subsidized secret income and what's your exit strategy?  We all know that very few get off of welfare, even those with jobs.  

 

BTW, no one happily pays their taxes.  They pay their taxes like they pay the mafia.  To keep them off their back so they can live a somewhat productive and peaceful life to be out of the cage enough to wake people up.  Prentending to be happy supporting the system is a coping mechanism of a slave. 

I wanted to post a few articles I was reading concerning american values/traditional values. I wanted to know what values were all about. I do not know the validity of the authors.

Anyway the two mentioned article said there was a difference in the people of the 1800s and 1900s compared to people living today. That being the values. The author of this post is asking if what he/she is doing is right or wrong. The fact that he/she is asking show how the values of people who live today differ from people in american in the 1800s to 1900s. Personally, I think this society and its current values is unsustainable and that it will collapse. I am not against what people do when metaphorical guns are pointed at them. Morality is a personal choice. What you do take full responsiblity for it and just do it. What ever consequences come after you brought upon yourself.

 

Link

http://trends.gmfus.org/doc/mmf/American%20Cultural%20Values.pdf

 

http://www.ushistory.org/gov/4a.asp

 

 

good points but...metaphorical guns?  so if/when he gets caught there will be men with metaphorical guns arriving to his home/work? The guns don't appear so long as you comply.  And laws aren't necessarily created out of morality.  taxes are not moral, they are theft and theft is immoral.  Even if one thinks they are, they don't stand the test of moral arguments.  So by not paying doesn't make one immoral, regardless of how many people believe it and regardless of how many metaphoral and actual guns are pointed.  If that were the case then that is to say Hitler was moral because almost everyone complied and there were a lot of guns pointed at people who went against the 'laws'...but we clearly understand even laws can be immoral and enforced with guns.

 

I get that people can choose to be moral or immoral but that's not really clarifying what is moral/immoral.  Just because someone behaves 'correclty' when a gun is pointed at them doesn't make them moral either.  Their behavior is not genuine.  If there were no enforced consequence then they have no choice but to take responsibility.  Do you think this guy will now take responsibility?  He is trying to justify it 'morally' because he doesn't have a clear definition or understanding of morality.  

 

If the state wasn't trying to be the 'moral' enforcers without clear definitions of what morality is, then, this guy would be left to either a.  ask for my financial help or b.  steal it.  if he steals it, as he is doing now but in a very indirect way, then there will be consequenses...from me and anyone he stole from.  Not the contracted (loose term) state.  

[Jakethehuman]

I am not using "the state" as an entity so I can feel better about taking advantage, I am fully aware that the state doesn't actually exist. You are making an emotional non-argument, "but the money the state is giving you is mine, my children's, all the people on this thread and their families". Manipulate much?

I pay taxes as well, so I'm taking back some of my own money, you and your family will have your money stolen whether I participate or not. you make it sound as if enough people stop abusing the system then the tax burden will be significantly less for the rest... the govt will always find reasons to spend more money. 

 

So i don't have a clear understanding of morality? I think you're mad cause i'm getting some extra cash. Heres how it works lady, State steals from people, and now, whether morally or not (obviously not), has control and "ownership" of the stolen property, there is no way whatsoever to retrieve those funds for a normal law abiding citizen, besides a possible tax time refund. I come along and take a risk to take back some of the money that has already been stolen and would have been redistributed through welfare or health care or roads or guns, and make my quality of life notably better. Guns or rent? its one or the other, Once the money is taken it is already spent! 

 

Government IS wealth redistribution, normally it goes to bureaucrats or fat lazy alcoholics, or bankers or the military industrial complex or a million other bottomless money pits, I take some money to improve my quality of life quite substantially, at ZERO cost to you and you want to equate that with me stealing off you and your family?! you need to stop the philosophising and theorising and remember we live in the real world run by a violent state, anything goes as long as you aren't hurting anyone. Send me the bill for the 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 i owe you 

[Carl Green]

I said happily not voluntarily, I understand and agree with all your arguments, my point is that many people can't even comprehend a world without government and taxes, they aggressively oppose anyone who questions it, so those people surrender their money and don't even question how it is to be spent, so I'll take that please, since it is going to be taken regardless may as well try to use it to get ahead. 

 

So all ya gotta do is separate out the money that people did voluntarily give from the money that people didn't voluntarily give, and then give back the money that was involuntarily given to you to those that it was taken from, and you're in the clear!

 

Well on ya for donating some of the little amount you have though, a lot of people here aren't even on the stolen money program yet can't seem to manage contributing.

[regevdl]

I am not using "the state" as an entity so I can feel better about taking advantage, I am fully aware that the state doesn't actually exist. You are making an emotional non-argument, "but the money the state is giving you is mine, my children's, all the people on this thread and their families". Manipulate much?

I pay taxes as well, so I'm taking back some of my own money, you and your family will have your money stolen whether I participate or not. you make it sound as if enough people stop abusing the system then the tax burden will be significantly less for the rest... the govt will always find reasons to spend more money. 

 

So i don't have a clear understanding of morality? I think you're mad cause i'm getting some extra cash. Heres how it works lady, State steals from people, and now, whether morally or not (obviously not), has control and "ownership" of the stolen property, there is no way whatsoever to retrieve those funds for a normal law abiding citizen, besides a possible tax time refund. I come along and take a risk to take back some of the money that has already been stolen and would have been redistributed through welfare or health care or roads or guns, and make my quality of life notably better. Guns or rent? its one or the other, Once the money is taken it is already spent! 

 

Government IS wealth redistribution, normally it goes to bureaucrats or fat lazy alcoholics, or bankers or the military industrial complex or a million other bottomless money pits, I take some money to improve my quality of life quite substantially, at ZERO cost to you and you want to equate that with me stealing off you and your family?! you need to stop the philosophising and theorising and remember we live in the real world run by a violent state, anything goes as long as you aren't hurting anyone. Send me the bill for the 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 i owe you 

 

 Making an accurate statement isn't manipulation. Lying and falsifying to get something you want is manipulation.

 

you are uncomfortable when there is a face on the other end of your actions, I get it.  But these are your actions and you asked for people's perspective on a philosophical and mostly anarchist website.  

 

 You want your stolen money back.  ok.  But what does that have to do with me or anyone else?  you are stealing your money back and mine...so can I steal from you directly or from the state...how does this work exactly?

 

Well, it looks like you have it all figured out, so I'm not sure why you posed the question in the first place.  you seem perfectly content with your actions and it appears prefer to brag that you beat us to the punch and we are the suckers. 

 

I won't send you the bill.  If anyone asks nicely I am happy to contribute, even more than the petty change you get from me at no risk of jail and guns and stuff but seems like you don't need it as you appear to be living large.

[regevdl]

I said happily not voluntarily, I understand and agree with all your arguments, my point is that many people can't even comprehend a world without government and taxes, they aggressively oppose anyone who questions it, so those people surrender their money and don't even question how it is to be spent, so I'll take that please, since it is going to be taken regardless may as well try to use it to get ahead. 

Have you tried giving people a peek at alternatives to paying taxes.  Having discussions with them about how things will be paid for if taxes didn't exist?  Not everyone gets it but when you take the time and patience to explain people common scenarios they think can only exist with and because of taxes and give realistic or already existing alternatives, their mind opens up a bit.  it doesn't mean the gvt will come crashing down tomorrow but of course people can't comprehend world without gvt if you don't bother bringing it up.  Stefan has a few discussions about this and it's fascinating.  People don't realize how much is on the free market that works so much better than the gvt paid services.  Private police (detroit), dispute resolution versus gvt courts, etc.  I hope in the meantime that you are stealing your money back and grabbing other people's money in the process that you are at least sharing these ideas so people CAN begin to conceive a world w/out gvt.  But now you have a conflict of interest and why I worry about these types of approaches to 'stickin' it to the gub'ment'.  

[Guest Gee]

Not an argument, but pertinant nevertheless.

[Jakethehuman]

Don't try to analyze me I am not having trouble putting a face to my "crimes" I don't have a guilty conscience that I need cleared. I am not stealing from you, the money is already stolen! you won't get it back, so me taking it has no relation to you not being able to get access to it in the future, in fact if I use the money to pay internet bills to use facebook to spread the ancap message then you are possibly seeing some of those funds back, (money which was, if you recall, gone forever), in the way of a more peaceful and enlightened society, so you're welcome. I'm also using it to help pay for a visa for my girlfriend who will have to leave the country if we can't cough up 7000, which might be wasted if our application is unsuccessful after a year of stress waiting to hear the verdict, I'm not doing well, only barely keeping my head above water.

 

I'm taking a risk to claim back some stolen money and put it to good use and you want to equate me with a common thief?

 

I came here to hear opinions not to be told what was the right thing to do. I've had convos with lots of people some don't understand, some don't want to, and the ones who do get angry or annoyed, but yes whenever I get the chance is the answer to "have I tried giving people a peek"

[MrCapitalism]

I came here to hear opinions not to be told what was the right thing to do.

You're on a philosophy forum (one that isn't favorable to subjectivism), why don't you want to know what the ethics of the situation are?

 

Why would you need to lie about your income when your last post gives the impression that you are in a situation in which you legitimately qualify for welfare?

[cab21]

if you are against being taxed and claim you are getting that money back

you could  write how much you were taxed and make sure you don't claim beyond that amount plus whatever interest rate you think is justifiable.

[Jakethehuman]

You're on a philosophy forum (one that isn't favorable to subjectivism), why don't you want to know what the ethics of the situation are?

 

Why would you need to lie about your income when your last post gives the impression that you are in a situation in which you legitimately qualify for welfare?

 

That was not worded very well on my part sorry, the thing is I do understand the ethics of the situation I have spent a lot of time thinking about it and to be told I am stealing from my family, friends and neighbours is offensive and is emotionally charged language, not an argument. I think it is right to take what you can of what has already been stolen and is now unavailable to the people it was stolen from, can someone address this argument and help me see why, me "stealing" stolen money is somehow the same as stealing it myself? like I said I watch the show, I share links, I have conversations with people, I have shown people that you can live a moral life without religion, the money stolen from you is being taken in part to help spread the good word and that has to be preferable to the bullets it would have bought otherwise.

 

I do qualify for some but it is not a great deal

[Jakethehuman]

Jake, I don't have any advice for you, but I wonder based on your posts whether you have calculated the amount the state has stolen from you, and the amount that you are getting back out of it through welfare? Will you stop taking welfare once you've reached that amount?

 

If you have the opportunity to take some of the money stolen from me back through the welfare system I applaud and congratulate you for doing so, as it is already lost to me. A second answer is they are always stealing, and will do for many years to come, so no I won't do this forever because I will get caught eventually but the money I get will not come close to the taxes I will pay in the future. 

 

This is what I don't understand, the money is gone, wouldn't you want someone half decent to take a little while they can rather than it just being spent elsewhere? I

[neeeel]

If you have the opportunity to take some of the money stolen from me back through the welfare system I applaud and congratulate you for doing so, as it is already lost to me. A second answer is they are always stealing, and will do for many years to come, so no I won't do this forever because I will get caught eventually but the money I get will not come close to the taxes I will pay in the future. 

 

This is what I don't understand, the money is gone, wouldn't you want someone half decent to take a little while they can rather than it just being spent elsewhere? I

 

 

This seems to me, exactly the same as saying "Someone stole my phone, my phone is gone, I hope they sell it to someone half decent rather than it just being used elsewhere" 

 

Do you feel bad about taking welfare? To be honest, your lines of reasoning seem to be just flimsy justifications as to why what you are doing is actually all right.

In order for you to be coming up with these justifications, it seems like you must actually think that you are doing wrong. So perhaps it might be useful to go into that here?

 

Please note, this is not a condemnation, or trying to tell you that you should feel bad, or shouldnt feel bad. 

[Jakethehuman]

This seems to me, exactly the same as saying "Someone stole my phone, my phone is gone, I hope they sell it to someone half decent rather than it just being used elsewhere" 

 

Do you feel bad about taking welfare? To be honest, your lines of reasoning seem to be just flimsy justifications as to why what you are doing is actually all right.

In order for you to be coming up with these justifications, it seems like you must actually think that you are doing wrong. So perhaps it might be useful to go into that here?

 

Please note, this is not a condemnation, or trying to tell you that you should feel bad, or shouldnt feel bad. 

 

my arguments are flimsy? not as flimsy as that non argument, how bout you rebutt them properly?

 

the only thing in your whole message that i can respond to is your first sentence, and to that I would say there are a few obvious differences between the two, for one there is no institutional phone stealing crime ring that is 100% going to steal your phone, if its a random theft then you don't think about where the phone is going you just want it back, but when it happens all day everyday you can start to have a preference for how that money will be used, seeing as it is unavoidable. Also if pushed then yeah i guess i would prefer a decent person down on his luck to have a cheap phone at my expense if i had no way of getting the phone back ever.

 

to clarify there are ways to retrieve a stolen phone, not so your stolen tax money, and as such you can have a preference for where the money should go. no?

[neeeel]

my arguments are flimsy? not as flimsy as that non argument, how bout you rebutt them properly?

 

 

 

I cant, Because you havent made any arguments.

 

 

 I think it is right to take what you can of what has already been stolen and is now unavailable to the people it was stolen from

 

 

and

 

I watch the show, I share links, I have conversations with people, I have shown people that you can live a moral life without religion, the money stolen from you is being taken in part to help spread the good word and that has to be preferable to the bullets it would have bought otherwise.

 

 

 

are not arguments. You have made some statements, 

 

For example, your second statement above, is saying, in effect 

 

P1 its better for stolen money to be spent on something good,

P2 I am spending stolen money on something good

C therefore I am not immoral for taking stolen money ( implied conclusion)

 

the conclusion doesnt follow from the premises, which is why it seems to me you are trying to justify taking welfare, to yourself and others. 

[labmath2]

The government steals money on the premise of delivering public good. The system only continues as long as there os someone to steal from and a recipient of the good. Given that most will choose giving away some of their earning than go on strike and starve, the victims will always exist. Should the beneficiaries sieze to accept, the thieves will be shown for what they are. You may deserve the money more than most other beneficiaries of the theft, but you are now an excuse for the system. Every dollar you take is a testament to the public good the system achieves. Every dollar more you demand is proof of the morality of the system. Not only does it justify past theft, it encourages future ones as well.

[Jakethehuman]

The government steals money on the premise of delivering public good. The system only continues as long as there os someone to steal from and a recipient of the good. Given that most will choose giving away some of their earning than go on strike and starve, the victims will always exist. Should the beneficiaries sieze to accept, the thieves will be shown for what they are. You may deserve the money more than most other beneficiaries of the theft, but you are now an excuse for the system. Every dollar you take is a testament to the public good the system achieves. Every dollar more you demand is proof of the morality of the system. Not only does it justify past theft, it encourages future ones as well.

 

so if all welfare recipients realize they aren't entitled to payments then the system collapses? this is just a silly hypothetical that doesn't match anything in the real world, the system will not be brought down by welfare recipients deciding they don't want free money, it has to start with the enlightenment of the tax payers. In what way am I an excuse? is some politician going to point to the extra one household on welfare as justification for the system?  the money is there regardless of what I do, Im just another number out of millions.

 

I cant, Because you havent made any arguments.

 

 

 

and

 

 

 

are not arguments. You have made some statements, 

 

For example, your second statement above, is saying, in effect 

 

P1 its better for stolen money to be spent on something good,

P2 I am spending stolen money on something good

C therefore I am not immoral for taking stolen money ( implied conclusion)

 

the conclusion doesnt follow from the premises, which is why it seems to me you are trying to justify taking welfare, to yourself and others. 

 

my arguments:

 

1. You can't be assigned an equal amount of moral responsibility for stealing stolen property as the person who originally stole it, because by taking it back you can in some way give it back (by having conversations and making the world a slightly safer, less violent and more philosophical place) rather than it being spent on something bad.

2. I have been paying tax for years and will continue to do so for the rest of my life in all likelihood, so in exact dollar values I won't come close to getting back all of my own money let alone start to "steal" others money, so the whole discussion of stealing stolen property is moot.

3. The money is gone and will never be seen again, there is a system set up to make sure this happens, under these conditions it is reasonable for people to have a preference for where the money should go since they cant get it back.

[labmath2]

I wish people had more courage to refuse to pay taxes, but self preservation is human nature. The robinhood story is not complete without the deserving poor. Robinhood is not a thief as long as there exists the poor who are victims of the rich, or at least deserve a piece of their labor. The minute the poor refuse to accept what doesn't belong to them, robinhood becomes a common thief. This does not stop robinhood from stealing, but at least we all see him for what he truly is.

[neeeel]

1. You can't be assigned an equal amount of moral responsibility for stealing stolen property as the person who originally stole it, because by taking it back you can in some way give it back (by having conversations and making the world a slightly safer, less violent and more philosophical place) rather than it being spent on something bad.

 

 

to put your argument into standard form ( as I understand it)

 

P1) stealing something and spending it on something good, is better than stealing something and spending it on something bad

therefore

C) I cant be assigned an equal amount of moral responsibility for stealing stolen property, as the person who originally stole it

 

Again, your conclusion doesnt follow from your premises. Are you trying to argue that later actions lessen the immorality of a previous action? That stealing something in order to do good is ok? I am not sure you want to go down that road.

 

2. I have been paying tax for years and will continue to do so for the rest of my life in all likelihood, so in exact dollar values I won't come close to getting back all of my own money let alone start to "steal" others money, so the whole discussion of stealing stolen property is moot.

 

 

 

P1) I have been paying tax for years

P2) The amount I get back is less than what I have paid

therefore

C) I am not stealing.

 

This also seems a bit ropey. If someone steals my phone, I can go and steal someone elses phone of lesser value? I can see that you are trying to argue that its not stealing, since its "your" money that you are getting back,  I am not sure I agree with that.

 

 

3. The money is gone and will never be seen again, there is a system set up to make sure this happens, under these conditions it is reasonable for people to have a preference for where the money should go since they cant get it back.

 

 

I am not sure what you mean by "the money will be gone and not seen again" . Which money? The money that you paid in taxes?

[Jakethehuman]

 P1) stealing something and spending it on something good, is better than stealing something and spending it on something bad

therefore

C) I cant be assigned an equal amount of moral responsibility for stealing stolen property, as the person who originally stole it

 

 

 

the money is already stolen, its either i steal it back and spend it on something good, or do nothing and its spent on something bad, so your P1 is a misrepresentation of the situation.

 

Are you actually claiming i have equal moral responsibility as the government? or just having a go at me because my argument style/format isnt water tight...

 

P1) I have been paying tax for years

P2) The amount I get back is less than what I have paid

therefore

C) I am not stealing.

 

This also seems a bit ropey. If someone steals my phone, I can go and steal someone elses phone of lesser value? I can see that you are trying to argue that its not stealing, since its "your" money that you are getting back,  I am not sure I agree with that.

 

 

 

I am not sure what you mean by "the money will be gone and not seen again" . Which money? The money that you paid in taxes?

 

"im not sure i agree with that" sounds like an opinion. obviously this situation with the phone is in no way comparable to the one in question what are you trying to do here?. im not going into someone else's pocket to get my own money back, im going into the collective pool of stolen funds where my own money is stashed and taking it back.

 

I mean all our money is gone never to be seen again, so the rules have changed, im "stealing" money that could never have been recovered as opposed to stealing something that you had a chance to take back.

[Jakethehuman]

I wish people had more courage to refuse to pay taxes, but self preservation is human nature. The robinhood story is not complete without the deserving poor. Robinhood is not a thief as long as there exists the poor who are victims of the rich, or at least deserve a piece of their labor. The minute the poor refuse to accept what doesn't belong to them, robinhood becomes a common thief. This does not stop robinhood from stealing, but at least we all see him for what he truly is.

 

so im a common thief?

 

im not stealing from the rich, im taking money from the state, my own money in fact.

robinhood was also stealing from the state..

[neeeel]

the money is already stolen, its either i steal it back and spend it on something good, or do nothing and its spent on something bad, so your P1 is a misrepresentation of the situation.

 

Are you actually claiming i have equal moral responsibility as the government? or just having a go at me because my argument style/format isnt water tight...

 

 

 

 

I am saying that your argument isnt valid, the conclusion doesnt follow from the premises, and its possible for the premises to be true, and the conclusion to be false.

I am not claiming anything, I am looking at your argument. Are you really arguing that later actions change the morality of a previous action?

[LandoRamone30]

I did not want to progress the debate further than what I stated previously. It is a no brainer theft is immoral. I have the rich to property I owned and can use what ever forced needed to protect it. What one ought to do or ought not do is a personal choice. If you are a person that values morality and want to be a moral person you know what you should do. Take responsibility own your actions and hold yourself accountable and accordingly to your values whatever the consequences of your actions might be. That is all I feel need to be said about this the moral rules are so easy to know it can be taught to children. Do not hit people because it hurts them do not steal peoples property because it hurts and do not lie because that hurts too.

[Malej_Pstros]

I said happily not voluntarily, I understand and agree with all your arguments, my point is that many people can't even comprehend a world without government and taxes, they aggressively oppose anyone who questions it, so those people surrender their money and don't even question how it is to be spent, so I'll take that please, since it is going to be taken regardless may as well try to use it to get ahead. 

 

Oh, my bad, for some reason I thought you used the world voluntarily. But it's not really an issue here, as I was saying exactly that they may be willing, but they're not doing so voluntarily. So it's not really a "the sheep litimize it by trusting a sociopath with their money" scenario, which I felt you were trying to put forward. If you only meant taking significantly less than you've paid on your taxes through your life, then it's a no-brainer. The question I find very interesting is what is the correlation between the ammount you take out and the total tax revenue. Also you should check whether your maxim could be consistently universalized without self-destructing.

 

...but the money the state is giving you is mine, my children's, all the people on this thread and their families, etc and you do have a moral obligation to us.  We are paying you, not the state.  The state is simply a conduit to get my money to you so by 'cheating them' means nothing.  They always get their cut...it's guaranteed.  It might be emotionally more comfortable for you to think you are cheating an imaginary entity that has no wealth in order to serve your self interests but the reality is you are cheating the people also enslaved by the system.  It's a slave attacking another slave thinking they are hurting the master.

 

Given he has not always been on welfare, and he still has to pay a lot of taxes (idk the US tax code, but stuff like property tax, VAT, gas tax and others), how is it more your money than his own?

 

 

1. You can't be assigned an equal amount of moral responsibility for stealing stolen property as the person who originally stole it, because by taking it back you can in some way give it back (by having conversations and making the world a slightly safer, less violent and more philosophical place) rather than it being spent on something bad.

 

1. I would add one premise to that: Unless it undermines the thief's ability to payback and thus preventing the victim from getting his cash back. But that's never the case with governent. They seize as much as they can get away with, next they pay for basic functionality, pay for marketing (your welfare, etc), and cash out the rest. So as long as you know somebody's gonna spend the stolen money, I don't see a victim of the re-steal. Extra points for using it on something other than killing people. (edit: a reference to what government does with the money, not indicating it would be also acceptable if you'd use it for immoral purposes) 

 

 

For example, your second statement above, is saying, in effect 

 

P1 its better for stolen money to be spent on something good,

P2 I am spending stolen money on something good

C therefore I am not immoral for taking stolen money ( implied conclusion)

 

I'm think you're misinrpreting this. It doesn't matter, if your purpose is better or worse if neither of them is strictly immoral. There is no victim of a theft of stolen money. How does it sound bad for you to take away the initial thief's ability to spend it (he cannot make any legitimate claims on it!)?

 

P1) stealing something and spending it on something good, is better than stealing something and spending it on something bad

therefore

C) I cant be assigned an equal amount of moral responsibility for stealing stolen property, as the person who originally stole it

 

Again, your conclusion doesnt follow from your premises. Are you trying to argue that later actions lessen the immorality of a previous action?

 

As always with ethics, its not the the "later actions" that counts, but the maxim, which can include spending it on something good

 

That stealing something in order to do good is ok?

 

How did you make the leap from "less bad than stealing to do evil"  to "ok"?

[Romulox]

P1) I have been paying tax for years

P2) The amount I get back is less than what I have paid

therefore

C) I am not stealing.

 

This also seems a bit ropey. If someone steals my phone, I can go and steal someone elses phone of lesser value? I can see that you are trying to argue that its not stealing, since its "your" money that you are getting back,  I am not sure I agree with that.

 

 

I am not sure what you mean by "the money will be gone and not seen again" . Which money? The money that you paid in taxes?

 

If someone steals my phone, and I then later see the thief with my phone hanging out of his back pocket, is it immoral to pickpocket it back?  Since money is a homogeneous good (that is, one dollar bill has the exact same value as any other), it is irrelevant whether or not I receive the same money back that I paid in.  The only moral question should be "Am I a net tax-payer or a net tax-consumer?"  If you are a tax payer, you are receiving property that was stolen from you; if you are a tax consumer, you are necessarily receiving money that is beyond what was taken from you, and are therefore guilty of theft.  What you intend to do with the money seems irrelevant. 

 

Is taking welfare morally different than receiving a tax refund?  In both cases you are receiving money from the thief that has already been stolen from you.  The only difference is the consent of the thief, which should not be a factor in judging the morality of the situation.

[neeeel]

If someone steals my phone, and I then later see the thief with my phone hanging out of his back pocket, is it immoral to pickpocket it back?  Since money is a homogeneous good (that is, one dollar bill has the exact same value as any other), it is irrelevant whether or not I receive the same money back that I paid in.  The only moral question should be "Am I a net tax-payer or a net tax-consumer?"  If you are a tax payer, you are receiving property that was stolen from you; if you are a tax consumer, you are necessarily receiving money that is beyond what was taken from you, and are therefore guilty of theft.  What you intend to do with the money seems irrelevant. 

 

Is taking welfare morally different than receiving a tax refund?  In both cases you are receiving money from the thief that has already been stolen from you.  The only difference is the consent of the thief, which should not be a factor in judging the morality of the situation.

 

so you are saying that as long as the phone you steal is of equivalent value, it would be ok to steal someone elses phone in order to make up for your stolen phone? 

 

someone steals £100 from me, so in return I can just go and steal £100 from anyone, because all pounds are the same worth?

 

Im pretty sure thats not what you would want to argue, but thats what you seem to be saying, although its possible I misunderstood

 

 

Edit :Ah, I think I understand. If a thief takes money from you, then you are entitled to take that money back, even though they arent exactly the same bills that you take.

[Romulox]

so you are saying that as long as the phone you steal is of equivalent value, it would be ok to steal someone elses phone in order to make up for your stolen phone? 

 

someone steals £100 from me, so in return I can just go and steal £100 from anyone, because all pounds are the same worth?

 

Im pretty sure thats not what you would want to argue, but thats what you seem to be saying, although its possible I misunderstood

 

 

Edit :Ah, I think I understand. If a thief takes money from you, then you are entitled to take that money back, even though they arent exactly the same bills that you take.

 

To clarify my position:

 

- It is not ok to steal another phone of equivalent value from someone else, as that would be a blatant act of aggression against an innocent person. 

 

- Since each individual phone is generally different (unless its brand new), it is not ok to steal someone else's phone from a thief, unless you are returning it to the original owner, or unless the original owner consents to you keeping it.  Only the original owner can rightfully determine the phone's value since it was not exchanged in a voluntary way. 

 

- It is ok to steal the specific phone back from the thief that was originally stolen from you in the first place, since you are the original owner.

 

Your edit is right on with my point, but to take it from another angle: Since the tax money that is stolen from everyone is pretty much just converted to bits in a hard drive in the government treasury, it is impossible to trace the original owner, and pointless as all digital money has the same value anyway.  As long as you are not taking more than you paid in, you are just taking back money that is identical to what was stolen.