Yes, but so is discriminating against the poor because they are poor. The government should protect everyone, not use their power to enforce one-sided rules on the poor.
So discriminating rich is okay for you? Double standards. Law should treat everyone equal. The police officer should equally protect the property of a poor person as well as the rich person's.
But the law is not treating everyone equally, because it is protecting the things that the rich want protected over those things that the poor want protected.
Those rules are agreed on by people.
Right, but this is an argument about what the rules should be, not what they are
Tyranny of minority over democratic rule. Way to go.
No, freedom over tyranny of the majority. Tyranny is still tyranny even if it has popular support.
Notice that taxation is used to protect the people and everyone should contribute to the effort. Without taxation there is no military, police force, basic healthcare, et cetera.
Yes, but taxation is and should be also used to provide for social justice. Otherwise, it is just using the wealth of the nation to oppress the poor, and in that case the poor would be absolutely right to stand up and fight against the government, and to steal as they wish.
If a government decides to overly tax rich in misguided "social justice", the rich can simply emigrate to other countries, withdrawing their assets and ruining the economy since the private companies are main source of the jobs. The rich and middle class people giving workers place where they can legally earn for living are the basis of a healthy economy.
In other words, it's not about consensus at all, it's about the rich holding the poor to ransom by threatening to pick up their ball and leave if they don't get their way....
Further, the same logic applies in the opposite direction. If the poor don't like the system, then they can just leave to somewhere they do like or, if that isn't a possibility, they can just rise up and overthrow the government. The only reason that does not happen is because of government oppression of the poor and the heavy bias in the immigration system towards the rich.
And, it still does not change my point. The government makes theft illegal not because it is wrong, but because doing so is convenient, and in return for doing so it taxes the rich and funds social welfare programs to ensure that no situation where theft would be generally considered the morally correct thing to do arises.
Plus, your reasoning here is not valid, because plenty of countries have strong social welfare systems without the rich just leaving
. It can happen, but it does not always
happen. And, in so far as it does happen it is a direct subversion of freedom and democracy, because the rich are allowed to take the attitude of "if I don't like it, I'll just leave" whilst the poor are forced to stay where they are.
It's illegal because it is the will of voters represented by people who draft and enact legislation.
Nope, sorry, just because the government does something it does not automatically mean it is the "will of the voters". Not every government policy is popular. Further, because of the nature of our system, the government can win power with only 35% of the vote, and thus is generally opposed by the majority of voters.
People root for various people, and it is by no means indicator of their morality. Are those Loki fanboys pure evil then?
No, but I doubt they consider Loki to be evil and still root for him. Plus, isn't Loki mostly a trickster?
My point is that Robin Hood is widely considered to be good, and that the fact that he robbed from a rich elite to give to the oppressed poor (and, yes, they were very definitely oppressed) is seen as a good thing. That doesn't mean people think that theft is a good thing in general, but it does give a clear indication that the majority of the population considers taking property from greedy rich elites to feed the poor to be perfectly acceptable and, even, outright good
, regardless of legality or government involvement.
Sure, because people in the US South are exceptionally good at brainwashing, and corporations are exceptionally good at using the media to convince turkeys to vote for Christmas. Plus, even though there are poor people in the US who vote Republican, even there they are in the minority, and I think that even the ones who do so are doing so mostly because of social issues (i.e. their adherence to traditional Christian values) rather than their economic policies.
People not adhering to the vision of dogma shared by a tiny minority - they must be brainwashed.
It's not a "tiny minority" and, yes, they most definitely are
brainwashed, you only have to watch US news to see that.
Yes, of course actual ownership is more stable and secure, but my point is that it is not necessary. A homeless person gains far more by having somewhere to live than a non-homeless person gains by actually owning their home.
So you imply that person shouldnt own house she probably earned for by own work?
No, I'm saying that everyone having a house to live in is far more important than some people owning the house they live in.
What revolution? These people were looting stores, which is how criminals behave, not peaceful protesters.
They weren't peaceful protesters, no, because the government wouldn't have taken notice of them in that case. My point is that they were obviously frustrated and angry at the government and at the system, and they reacted violently because no-one would listen to any non-violent response.
Ultimately, this is no different from what you said you would do if the government stopped protecting your property. Peaceful protest which, if ignored, would escalate to violence.
Part of freedom is that you can do what you want with money you earned. I should be free to own a house, not fear that misguided left wing radicals will try to 'redistribute' my wealth.
I don't see why the ability to use arbitrary government-mandated tokens given to you by some guy who massively-undervalues your labour and keeps the difference for theirselves despite doing fuck-all to earn it is a necessary part of "freedom".
I don't think it is wrong for people to own the house they live in or the things they use, but I do
think that it is wrong for someone to say "hey, I own this piece of land with tons of minerals because I said so, so if you want to take any of them and use them for yourself you're going to have to pay me a large portion of the profits", and I also think it is wrong for someone to claim ownership of a property they barely ever use whilst some poor homeless guy freezes and starves on the street outside.
If that ever happens, I'm banding with other like minded people and protest.
Yeah, well, that is exactly my attitude to the government enforcing property rules without giving anything in return. If they are just going to tell me what I can't do without providing anything in return, then why should I support or obey them?
If the government responds with force, we have right to defend ourself and expect international communist to save us from dictatorship.
But, if it is done by popular consent, then how is it a dictatorship?