I was not saying a thing about property rights. The "force" appears when two people disagree and instead of trying to find a better argument, one of them takes out a gun and tells another one to shut up (instead of leaving the conversation).
I'm not advocating what you personally, or society should or should not do. I am simply pointing out that some people have gold and others want to take it away from them. My question is: what moral principle makes it valid for some people ("government") and makes it invalid for others ("thieves")? If the principle is "some voters voted some people via secret voting", then Hitler did nothing bad. Also, if the principle is "decision of majority" is moral, then more questions arise: on which territory do you define this majority? How can morality flip completely when 1 extra person joins another camp or gets to a legal voting age? Etc.
If you want to redistribute gold, it's up to you to show why it is justified to kick someone in a face because of "hoarding". And when you start explaining this, it will be you who comes up with some definition of property rights (maybe by saying "hoarded gold does not belong to you, but to society").
I think you have me confused with someone who gives a crap about gold, sorry. I don't. Gold is not a good currency, nor is anything else with a fixed supply, for a variety of reasons. I'm sorry if (controlled) inflationary, government backed currency makes you feel like someone is stealing your gold, but I can't take you seriously - you're such a delightful caricature!
Also your Godwin (democratic taxation = Hitler) is just hilarious.
I'm not advocating what you personally, or society should or should not do. I am simply pointing out that some people have gold and others want to take it away from them. My question is: what moral principle makes it valid for some people ("government") and makes it invalid for others ("thieves")? If the principle is "some voters voted some people via secret voting", then Hitler did nothing bad. Also, if the principle is "decision of majority" is moral, then more questions arise: on which territory do you define this majority? How can morality flip completely when 1 extra person joins another camp or gets to a legal voting age? Etc.
If you want to redistribute gold, it's up to you to show why it is justified to kick someone in a face because of "hoarding". And when you start explaining this, it will be you who comes up with some definition of property rights (maybe by saying "hoarded gold does not belong to you, but to society").