I know practically nothing about the most recent tweaking of the gang's theft conspiracy. I hadn't been keeping up with developments, details, or news about it, and I don't care enough to research it.
Some people claim it means they will be stealing slightly less. (I sort of doubt it, because they always seem to manage to make up their theft quotas elsewhere, but I can pretend for a moment.)
Some other people are having a conniption because some people are happy if it's the case that slightly less will be stolen. What?
I am against theft. All theft. That being said, in my opinion stealing less is always preferable to stealing more (or the same). Right? How can anyone object?
If I get mugged, and manage to not have the thief steal as much as he might have stolen, I'm not going to be happy about the mugging, but I will be happy to have retained what he didn't get.
I oppose the self incrimination ritual that occurs when people have to ask for some of their stolen property to be returned. I understand it's not really about giving back the money, but about social manipulation to give it back. "Incriminate yourself and jump through these flaming hoops, and we'll see if you deserve to have the property we stole returned to you."
I also understand whiny statists complaining that without the stolen money, government can't "provide" as much. Good!! I don't want anything from government except to be left out of it.
But, really, complaining that a mugger will possibly get less money than he did previously seems misguided.
The only aspect of the melodrama to which I've paid attention is that now I will no longer be jacked by the IRS to pay a fine because I can't afford their stupid government-mandated health insurance. I don't make enough money to care about the rest of it. That's a tempest in a pisspot, and I'll let the Babbitts squabble over it.
ReplyDelete