>Money in the bank is not your money anymore...Sure, this time it was not the banks itself but rather the government that did this, but they could only do this because banks and government has stopped seeing money in the bank as belonging to the person who put it there.
See, this is your part about cognitive dissonance. Except, there isn't any cognitive dissonance if governments are just as likely to take grain from farmers as they are to take money from bank accounts. There's no contradiction there.
>They would have never gone to a farmer and taken 10% of their grain. They would have never gone and taken physical property in peoples home. That would had been an complete impossibility.
And this is the part where we start talking about probability, because he's wrong.
>We're talking about grain, not land. The specifics of the example are particularly relevant.
They're actually not. We're talking about virtual property vs. physical property, not grain vs. cash.
It is my position that the lack of physical presence of property does not result in the greater likelihood that the property will be seized, save in instances where the physical property is impossible to seize for some reason. That's all. Governments are supposed to exist to protect the property of their citizenry. Unfortunately, many don't hold that up.
Comments
>Money in the bank is not your money anymore...Sure, this time it was not the banks itself but rather the government that did this, but they could only do this because banks and government has stopped seeing money in the bank as belonging to the person who put it there.
See, this is your part about cognitive dissonance. Except, there isn't any cognitive dissonance if governments are just as likely to take grain from farmers as they are to take money from bank accounts. There's no contradiction there.
>They would have never gone to a farmer and taken 10% of their grain. They would have never gone and taken physical property in peoples home. That would had been an complete impossibility.
And this is the part where we start talking about probability, because he's wrong.
>We're talking about grain, not land. The specifics of the example are particularly relevant.
They're actually not. We're talking about virtual property vs. physical property, not grain vs. cash.
It is my position that the lack of physical presence of property does not result in the greater likelihood that the property will be seized, save in instances where the physical property is impossible to seize for some reason. That's all. Governments are supposed to exist to protect the property of their citizenry. Unfortunately, many don't hold that up.