California Schools Save Unions

I was just wondering if the students in california mind a 15% increase or are they going to riot and burn the place up again? The unions that the people in cal love so much needs more money so are you all going give it to them are do you want the country to save their sorry asses?

Why does the union need to be saved in the first place?

Mandatory payment for something you don't support is extortion. There's no getting around that simple truth.

The public "education system" relies on theft to exist. Okay people bring on the rationalizations....I'm waiting.

What is wrong with unions? Also, explain to me how the public education system relies on theft.

Disloyal Royal said:

What is wrong with unions? Also, explain to me how the public education system relies on theft.

Click to expand...

Nothing is wrong with Unions if non union persons are free to compete with them.

Public education, is paid for by taking money from one party and giving it to another. Because the money is "taken" involuntarily and
not given voluntarily, theft occurs. Theft being defined as taking something that doesn't belong to you without the voluntary consent of the person it is being taken from.

newatit2010 said:

I was just wondering if the students in california mind a 15% increase or are they going to riot and burn the place up again? The unions that the people in cal love so much needs more money so are you all going give it to them are do you want the country to save their sorry asses?

Click to expand...

you are just small minded. imagine how much better the education will be after the 15% is taken from the people and given to the "educators". california will be a state of geniuses, all 50 million of them.....

Isn't the public education system paid for mostly by property tax? So you must be equating tax to theft, wich is kind of silly. But then again I may be the dingbat that equates tax with running a country.

Disloyal Royal said:

Isn't the public education system paid for mostly by property tax? So you must be equating tax to theft, wich is kind of silly. But then again I may be the dingbat that equates tax with running a country.

Click to expand...

Are you saying theft has another definition other than how I defined it above? If so, please tell me what it is.

Running a country is your reason you use to rationalize the theft/taxation. Seriously please define what theft is if you think it is something other than my definition above.

You've probably hit the nail on the head with your definition. But I, and alot of other taxpayers are fine with paying taxes. So does that mean it is stealing then? Believe it or not, I have never heard someone say we should pay 0% taxes.

Disloyal Royal said:

You've probably hit the nail on the head with your definition. But I, and alot of other taxpayers are fine with paying taxes. So does that mean it is stealing then? Believe it or not, I have never heard someone say we should pay 0% taxes.

Click to expand...

Thank you for acknowledging you agree with the definition of theft.

I'm fine with people making voluntary choices. If you and your friends want a "service" and pay for it that's great.
The problem arises when those who may not want the "service" are forced to pay for it.

I'm saying you should pay for what you use, to do otherwise would be theft unless somebody is giving you something of their free will as a gift. Nobody can force you to "give" something and still call the transaction voluntary without them being a word smith.

Public education relies in large part on an involuntary tax, ie "theft". To deny that and focus on the perceived "good" of the education is an attempt to justify the means of the funding by declaring the end result as beneficial.

Don't get me wrong there is nothing wrong with education, kids or even some well meaning school teachers. There is EVERYTHING wrong with trying to justify theft though.

Government schools teaching the kids they are free is a contradiction.

Actualy I looked up theft. Wich referred me to stealing, now the definition of stealing is as follows:

Pronunciation:/stiːl/
verb (past stole /stəʊl/; past participle stolen /ˈstəʊlən/)

• 1 [with object] take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it
• thieves stole her bicycle (as adjective stolen) stolen goods [no object]
• she was found guilty of stealing from her employers

Thats from the Oxford dictionary. So they are not stealing because they have every legal right to tax you, otherwise you would be right, and it would be stealing.

Disloyal Royal said:

Actualy I looked up theft. Wich referred me to stealing, now the definition of stealing is as follows:

Pronunciation:/stiːl/
verb (past stole /stəʊl/; past participle stolen /ˈstəʊlən/)

• 1 [with object] take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it
• thieves stole her bicycle (as adjective stolen) stolen goods [no object]
• she was found guilty of stealing from her employers

Thats from the Oxford dictionary. So they are not stealing because they have every legal right to tax you, otherwise you would be right, and it would be stealing.

Click to expand...

If rape were legalized by statutory law and a group of cops raped you, would it cease to be rape because they redefined the meaning
to mean it was no longer rape, since they legalized it?

Theft is still unauthorized taking. Passing a "law" doesn't make something automatically "right" . If that were the case when slavery was legal, it would not have been immoral. You erroneously equate "legal" with "right".

A long time ago Nobles passed laws called Prima Noche (or something like that). It legalized their "blessing a marriage", they got to fuck the bride before the groom did if they wanted to. If the groom objected, well he could always be executed.

Murder is still murder even if the government commits it. Rape is still rape if government commitsit. Theft is still theft if government commits it.

Government doesn't have "rights", they are supposedly granted powers to carry out specific acts by the "consent" of people.
How can one person's consent be given by another?

Government redefines the meaning of words to rationalize their behavior. Trust me.

Actually, the dictionary defines meanings of words. But I guess Oxford must have a liberal agenda, just so you have to pay property tax, and more people can go to school and learn about words, thus keeping them in business. Crazy how the world works.

Disloyal Royal said:

Actually, the dictionary defines meanings of words. But I guess Oxford must have a liberal agenda, just so you have to pay property tax, and more people can go to school and learn about words, thus keeping them in business. Crazy how the world works.

Click to expand...

Actually when it comes to statutory laws, the government does "redefine" words. In front of many of their laws is a section called definitions, where they tweak things a bit. Trust me, I've been there.

Anyhow, do you condone taking something forcefully against a persons will if they haven't harmed anybody?

If a person "has to" pay property taxes, you imply there is an "or else' if they don't. You okay with that?

If rape were legalized by statutory law and a group of cops raped you, would it cease to be rape because they redefined the meaning
to mean it was no longer rape, since they legalized it?

I don't really understand this, are you saying they changed what rape means, like say to drinking a cup of coffee, or just the law? If just the law then no it wouldn't cease to be rape, but the raping would be legal.

A long time ago Nobles passed laws called Prima Noche (or something like that). It legalized their "blessing a marriage", they got to fuck the bride before the groom did if they wanted to. If the groom objected, well he could always be executed.

I too have seen Braveheart, and and did you see the groom's retaliation in the fort on the noble? I believe he smashed his head in with a mace, but the noble still had legal right. I will even quote him "It was my legal right".

Government doesn't have "rights", they are supposedly granted powers to carry out specific acts by the "consent" of people.
How can one person's consent be given by another?

That is how democracy works my friend. What the majority says is what happens. Example: We have a gun registration here and I have to register my fire-arms. I don't believe in registering them, as I live out in the country, but the majority of people live in the cities and think it is best, so it is still in existance.

I'm saying to make something legal, such as slavery, does not automatically make it right or change the meaning. Slavery is slavery whether it is legal or illegal. To make something illegal, such as pot prohibition, does not automatically make it "wrong".
Theft remains theft, if unauthorized taking occurred, REGARDLESS of who the perpretator was, you, me or government.

The same goes for taxation. Calling it "legal" does not change the fact that it is "unauthorized taking". Something being made legal
doesn't change the fact the "taking" is unauthorized. I cannot give your consent for you, nor you give my consent for me.

You seem to think that this entity known as government can give another person's consent for them. That is a fantasy, they can't give your consent for you any more than I can. You dismiss it as how things work in a democracy. True, but this country isn't a democracy, it was supposed to be a constitutional republic, but I digress.

I maintain, you and only you can give consent for yourself. The fact that it has been statutorily "made legal" does not change the fact you did not consent.


If you truly own something, you have the right to exercise control over it, that control can only be changed
in one of two ways, you GRANT it to somebody voluntarily, wherein there is no "theft". Or they TAKE it, without your consent, wherein theft has occurred. Now how does Government get their (your) money ?

Rob Roy said:

Actually when it comes to statutory laws, the government does "redefine" words. In front of many of their laws is a section called definitions, where they tweak things a bit. Trust me, I've been there.

Anyhow, do you condone taking something forcefully against a persons will if they haven't harmed anybody?

If a person "has to" pay property taxes, you imply there is an "or else' if they don't. You okay with that?

Click to expand...

You were implying that people do not (or should not) have to pay taxes because it is theft, I simply showed you that it was not infact theft. What I believe taking by force has no signifigance here. A person has to pay property tax, I am not implying there is an "or else", I am telling you there is an "or else", you will go to prison for tax evasion, trust me, although I haven't been there because I pay my taxes. The government, municiple, provincial, and federal will tax you, do I agree with every tax, simply put no. Will I pay those taxes, if I have to, yes. Will I stand up to put an end to needless taxing for wasteful managment/government spending at any level? Yes, when I am casting my vote.

The same goes for taxation. Calling it "legal" does not change the fact that it is "unauthorized taking". Something being made legal
doesn't change the fact the "taking" is unauthorized. I cannot give your consent for you, nor you give my consent for me

You are right it doesn't change the fact that it is an unauthorized taking, we are not arguing that point, but it being legal does change the fact that it is no longer stealing or theft (see definition). That is what I am getting at. I am not saying it should or should not be legal, I am saying they (the government) have made it law.

Disloyal Royal said:

You were implying that people do not (or should not) have to pay taxes because it is theft, I simply showed you that it was not infact theft. What I believe taking by force has no signifigance here. A person has to pay property tax, I am not implying there is an "or else", I am telling you there is an "or else", you will go to prison for tax evasion, trust me, although I haven't been there because I pay my taxes. The government, municiple, provincial, and federal will tax you, do I agree with every tax, simply put no. Will I pay those taxes, if I have to, yes. Will I stand up to put an end to needless taxing for wasteful managment/government spending at any level? Yes, when I am casting my vote.

Click to expand...

Um not really. You showed me that you accept the government as being able to take from a person against their will and you will turn a blind eye to it and allow them to rename the act as "taxation". The fact that there is an "or else" or threat is evidence that a theft occurred. In a consensual transaction, absent of theft, there is no "or else". Both parties consent and abide by their agreement.

You say "I pay my taxes" and admit some of what you pay is against your will. Voting to perpetuate an institution that relies on theft as it's life blood, will not reduce "your" taxes, sorry to inform you of that.

Theft becomes "theft" when the act is done against the will or absent permission of the person giving up the
money,service or product. The identity of the "thief" cannot and does not change the fact theft has occurred, simply because it is government. It is the ACT of the unauthorized taking that makes a theft, not the identity of the thief.

You say you will stand up by casting a vote? Okay when was the last time there was a reduction in government spending? Significant reduction trend or Drop in ANY tax?

Making something "lawful" is the stick they use to hold over you to ensure compliance. It was lawful to own people at one time. It is lawful for the government to steal people's homes if they grew pot in their basement. They don't call it stealing or theft, but trust me that is what it is.

Just today I saw a video where a woman will likely lose her home to the federal government...funny SHE thinks they are stealing her house. They word smithed "theft" into confiscation or "forfeiture", but the fact remains theft will be what they do to her.

Watch the video here ....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbYGgaaA8Fk