You can accept money without supporting the money being taken in the first place. Slaves have no choice.
I somewhat agree with this, in that if accepting the money gives you any slight advantage as opposed to not taking it, then go for it while you are still being coerced by The State & it’s interventionism in the markets, per self-interest.
Accepting it or declining it largely has little effect on whether they will exist at all (i.e. even if everyone who was offered a government grant declined, government grants would still be offered as an option, as long as The State exists).
I vaugley remember Rothbard saying something along the lines that an “income tax refund” was sort of like partial reparations for slavery under the state, so I would extend a similar argument towards government grants. The source, however, escapes me at the moment…
Personally, however, I’d have a huge problem with it if I could do without, but took the grant anyway, knowing it’s not necessary.
In retrospect, however, I cannot possible see a situation where I would be in the position of taking a government grant, so I would oppose it not only ethically, but also because I view it too hypothetical, at least for myself.
I most likely would outright reject working for The State before a grant becomes a possibility; I’d have a cleaner soul by trying to do my best in the markets, however distorted they are.
No, people on welfare are in favour of it. They believe in redistribution (not only from the rich to the poor). I agree that this is very difficult to set a limit above which the amount of money exceeds the money you paid via taxed and for that reason you can’t use the government’s grants for instance. But I think this is a great mistake not to allow people to take their money back and call their supporters of the nanny state if they do so. Why? For the reason that you can’t say that a person who has been robbed of a bicycle is the supporter of the robbery just because s/he takes the bicycle back.
Aren’t you obligated to return it to the rightful owner (after you accept restitution and retribution for your own confiscated money)?
Also, after you have accepted retribution and restitution, isn’t accepting more for your own use a bit hypocritical? I mean, we do say people shouldn’t plunder others and be parasites.
In many if not all cases I don’t believe the government has the right nor does it make sense for it to spend money the way it does. However I don’t think it is immoral for an individual to accept money for the reason it is intended. Whether it be education grants tax stimulus checks etc
The state is a common, exploit it like you would any other.
If you are actually using the grants to fight the system then the rules of war apply. It is no crime to capture supplies of the enemy and use them against it.
If a seccessionist revolt sprung up in one province of a certain state, you would surely not object to rebels capturing military equipment of the federal state to deploy it against that state.
If Al Capone by mistake sent you a check for 1 million dollars, would you cash it in and use the money to hire some muscle and bring him down, or would you send it back to Mr.Capone, it being stolen money?
It is a thin line though. And Id say that if you start adjusting your rhetorics and your stance to be eligible for more grants, then youve crossed the line and became a parasite and a party to the plunder.
Do you also know how many opportunities were stolen from you as well because of government theft of others?
How can you know that? The government doesn’t rob you of the income tax only. On top of that you also pay via VAT, petrol, etc. At the end of the day there is no chance that you know exact amount stolen from you unless you spend you entire life keeping and counting the bills to break out them by source to where the money is going.
Why should we recognize the state to have a right to be a common?
You left out the option of returning the money to those robbed.
its not a positive obligation?
Well, my question is, “Why isn’t it an obligation to return government give-aways to the tax-payers?”
because there are no positive obligations. they lead to contradictions. of course it may be ‘kind’ to do so, and perfectly just, but is not mandatory for anyone other than the thief to do ‘returning’
It is not a perfect comparison. I don`t think you can generaly spend the grants on whatever you want them to.
This!
Again, I ask what right the state has to be a common.
have you read all the posts in this thread ?!?!
what are you asking? no-one has claimed that the state is X by right Y.
Huh? When has anyone said why, because the state is a common, its property, plundered from the tax-payers, is open for exploitation?