How Government Will Take Meat off Your Table

The New American ^ | 28 September 2012 | Selwyn Duke

[Vanders9]

And did that ancient Tea Party not sequester someone elses property and subsequently destroy it?

The point about the stories of both Tea Party and Robin Hood is that no one is under moral obligation to obey an unjust law. After all, neither Tea Party activist or Merry Man had any part in framing the laws that they broke. And in that case, why should other people's ideas of what is legal bind you?

Cider House rules my man - "they aint my rules. I never wrote them".

[21twelve]

“..so we end up having to import it from other coutnries which DON’T have to abide by all the regulations the well-intentioned by deranged have brought in!”

Same with oil, gas and mining. If the environmentalists REALLY cared about the environment they would push for drilling and mining here - rather than Nigeria, Indonesia or China where they don’t care about the environment.

[IronJack]

You might want to bone up on the theory of social contract. We don’t all write all the laws. But we do agree to obey them. Robin Hood was not a citizen of a representative republic; we are.

And I don’t recall the eighth commandment having any qualifications: Thou shalt not steal ... unless it’s from the rich.

Robin Hood was a thief. He may have been a thief with a heart of gold, but the law he broke was not the king’s; it was God’s.

[Dead Corpse]

What on earth does it take to fight this?

At this point in the game? Bullets.

I wish I were joking.

[Tuanedge]

Breeding pairs of Vietnamese potbelly pigs...hmmm

[Vanders9]

I'm sorry I dont understand your first statement. If Robin Hood was not a citizen of a representative republic, then he had no chance to agree or disagree with any law passed, so the "social contract" you cite did not exist for him. Conversely, if the tea party are members of a representative republic, then the social DOES apply. They have to obey the laws, even if they don't like them, because the way the representative republic works is that the majority opinion is always the way forward, and they were outvoted in the last election. Tough luck for them.

The eighth commandment does not have any qualifications. But its not the only commandment. By your argument, for fear of breaking God's eight commandment, people have no recourse against others cheating them, ripping them off, oppressing and murdering them.

[IronJack]

Robin Hood may have been absolved of his duties under social contract, since (ostensibly) one did not exist. But as I said, the offense he committed was not against King John, but against God.

Stealing from those who stole from you -- or, in the case of Robin Hood, others he claimed to "champion," -- is still theft. There is recourse against those offenses, certainly, but not by answering theft with theft.

I say that fully knowing that this is not a perfect world, and admitting that I would be one of the first to take up arms against those who would rob me.

[Vanders9]

And what would you suggest Robin Hood’s recourse be then?

[Tuanedge]

Spoils of war are not contravened by religious law.

[Vanders9]

Hmm...Did Robin Hood have a legal right to take up arms?

[WhirlwindAttack]

Muslims taste like pork, Problem solved.

[Tuanedge]

Little John went to the Nottingham DMV to pay for their revolution license, but the line was incredible.

[IronJack]

And what would you suggest Robin Hood’s recourse be then?

Go Galt. The Big Bad Sheriff of Nottingham can't take from the peasants what they don't have. And it doesn't avail the king much to starve the peasants to death; all he ends up with then is a disposal problem and nobody to rule.

The peasants outnumber the king's soldiers, and the king has to feed, equip, and shelter them -- at great cost to his treasury.

Or stand together and fight. Ambush the king's columns as they march on the villages. Infiltrate his court and poison a few of his advisers. Drag the sheriff out of his manor and hang him from a tree. But don't delude yourself by thinking that stealing from the thieves makes you anything but a thief yourself.

[Vanders9]

So theft is wrong, but murder is ok?

[IronJack]

First of all, there is a difference between killing in war and murder. And nowhere did I say that murder was right. Both theft and killing violate God’s laws (although it can be argued that God allows killing in a just cause).

Stealing is sin. Killing is sin. Sometimes a greater sin is commiited by NOT doing one of those things. But that doesn’t change the act itself: it’s still a sin.

I’m sorry if I’m attacking one of you’re cherished childhood beliefs, but wrapping Robin Hood in a Lincoln Green mantle of nobility and altruism just promotes the idea that someone gets to decide how to spend someone’s else’s money.