How To Identify Legal Plunder

“See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.”

Voting for Romney on this stance seems a bit like the pot calling the kettle black. The argument is just too dumbed down, and it seems untruthful if the purpose is only to trick the lay person into voting against their own true interests. It is easy for the lay man to grasp this concept of taking and giving, stealing, or redistributing, from within the context of foodstamps. Easy to connect the dots there. The truth in the system is not so obvious. What is subsidizing a Monsanto crop planting factory farm (one of Romney's first and greatest successes as single owner and shareholder in Bain)? Is this is taking from one and giving to another. If that corn ends up in the checkout line at a foodstamp counter then who is taking and giving from whom? And what do you call printing money to inflate the wealthy, or too big to fail banks as a status quo?

The system is not what it was meant to be according the Libertarian model, obviously. It is controlled by the elite and globalist corporations and those who do not care about the constitution or rights. I'm not really sure if the system can really go back to first principles, not as a the global hegemony the US is today. It is no longer a closed loop. The government is controlled by globalists corporations. What really irks me is people like Mitt Romney, whose first allegiance is to the globalist mega corporations, waving the flag of the founding fathers and claiming some kind of partisan ownership over it. It's a lie, plain and simple, Ron Paul and true libertarians don't believe in Romney. The way I see it, at least the Democrats are honest about where they actually stand and who they represent. I don't see how another elite President like Bush, another one percenter, an investment banker, the Monsanto man himself, is going to roll things back to the way they were supposed to be under the rule of law and of the constitution in the day before global corporations took over. I only see it getting worse and more of the same.

The global corporations and elitists Romney represents are only as strong as they are because they are allowed to prosper under the safety and protection afforded them as US companies. They would not have survived or built their empires in countries where there freedom and security is absent. They would not have been able to build their empires stalinist countries like China. And who protects those freedoms and those rights. The people do, obviously. And those same corporations that have gained so much advantage from being American are going to gut those people until they are as poor as the middle class in China, a horrible communist country where people have no rights, etc... It's just horrible. And that's where Romney's allegiance is, with the globalist corporations. If you step back and look at the bigger picture you can see who is really doing the lion's share of the taking and the giving, and it aint Bill and Betty foodstamp.

'In a sense there have always and ever been only two political philosophies: liberty and power. Either people should be free to live their lives as they see fit, as long as they respect the equal rights of others, or some people should be able to use force to make other people act in ways they wouldn't choose.

----D Boaz"

The problem in a world of corporate fascism lead by US hegemony is of the certain arbitrage of rights taking place. If you really believed in what Boaz is saying then every American corporation should be banned from basing their business operations in countries that do not adhere to the same rights of man. Otherwise, this is a meaningless argument, and quite simply the people of the US have everything taken from them, by these corporations they serve and protect. Romney has made great fortunes in this game of international rights arbitrage, yet, shamelessly, he claims that he is the party of freedom and liberty. This is double speak. I detest it. I don't detest Romney. I do think he is a good guy, a good investment banker for sure, it's just the double speak really bothers me. For me honesty is the everything. I don't necessarily agree with the Democrats policies everywhere but I know they are honest about what they stand for. At least that's the impression I have. If I am wrong somewhere please show me.

@syxforex

You really sound very anti-american. Our system is not perfect and corporations are not perfect but it has produced one of the highest standard of livings and largest middle classes in the history of the world. While I would not want to be poor believe me the poor in the U.S. are better off than the poor in much of the world. In many places if you own any type of car you are considered to be doing well. Sorry but the U.S even with all it's problems is still the land of opportunity. Everyone has a chance at upward mobility and may even hit it big. These evil corporations you speak of have created countless good paying jobs allowing people to put kids through college, buy cars, houses and generally enjoy life. I have traveled the world and have seen poverty that makes your stomach turn and freedoms trampled on in ways that are astounding. When I come home after seeing these things I feel like kissing the ground. Sorry but I refuse to buy into much of the propaganda you are putting up running down the United States. Proud citizen of the land of the free and the home of the brave. Thank God for the opportunities being born here has put in front of me. Thankful for the corporations that hired me allowing me to get in position to then start my own business.

Well, I think you missed my point, completely. But of course I'm sure that for you anybody who doesn't support Mitt Romney is anti-American. You might not know this, but my homeland is pretty much a mirror image of yours. We have fought for the same rights and freedoms. We are part of the American continent and we have a very similar past and a very similar American dream. We are your neighbour, and our economies are the most integrated of any two on the planet. When we turn on a television we see 98 US stations out of a hundred. We play football, and baseball, and hockey, we drive chevys and fords, we have starbucks and McD on every corner, we want a better world too, we often ask ourselves, how are we different? We are far more tuned into what is going on there than the other way around so I forgive your mean spirited comment because you probably have some major misconceptions of the way we are and you probably didn't understand exactly what I was saying. Anyways, we are playing the same game in the same economy and whatever happens there happens here. That's just the way it is. So of course we have a huge interest in what happens south of the border. We believe in the American dream just as you do, we are North Americans. If American minimum wage goes down to 2$ per hour, it happens here. I believe we need to protect the middle class from expanding global corporatism. Maybe you don't know what I mean when I talk about international rights arbitrage, what I'm talking about is standing up for and protecting the American dream. Selling out the middle class to China runs counter to the American dream and the principle of the founding fathers of your great country. It flies in the face of the US constitution which guarantees the rights of man. Should it not apply to the man working in the US corporation's Chinese factory? It's a sellout, so quite on the contrary, I am fighting for the American dream, and I believe in the American dream as only those who have experienced the pain and suffering of disenfranchisement truly understand.

As for the "Obama Phone" piece, the fact that it's paid for by telecommunications companies as ordered by the government is essentially equivalent to a tax, since the telecos revenues come from customers.

I wouldn't expect the leftists at Think Progress to understand this, but that's because they're leftists.

Furthermore, that piece from Think Progress says nothing to the fact that this lady claims she will vote for Obama because she get's a free phone. The point is not whether she get's a free phone from the government (which she does, indirectly) but that her vote is swayed by the fact that she gets handouts from the government.

I believe there is one presidential candidate talking about this ... and the other one is talking to Whoopi Goldberg.