Charging someone money that they voluntarily pay in return for getting something of value themselves is not stealing.
replyFor example, the highwayman, who who provides the valuable service of 'not getting murdered' to travelers, in return for the payment they voluntarily make.
replyOr perhaps you would prefer the example of the extortionist, who provides insurance against the risk of "something" happening to the nice business you have?
What's morally indefensible about that?
replyOnce they define it as stealing, then it's morally indefensible, by definition.
replyThe question is, is it actually stealing, or is that just their overheated rhetoric? From where I sit, it's hot air.
> Once they define it as stealing, then it's morally indefensible, by definition.
replyRight, similar to the equivocation around the meaning of earn in this thread. I've started to wonder whether it's possible to push by accepting that framing and then asking for a justification rather than quibbling about what "stealing" is.
I doubt it. "Stealing" functions as a thought-terminating cliche; I suspect that very few people will think past it.
replyI fear you are right, but I feel like trying it anyway.
reply