You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Stealing a duck gets 7 years in prison, stealing $ 300 thousand is recommended for 3 years in prison
In fact, when you look at the rules of the law you can see that it is very fair. The problem is that its implementation is unfair. I think the reason is because the three rights in Vietnam are not as independent as other countries.
Regarding murder: In the duck case, life-threatening. The country's robbery of $ 300,000,000 is a tax robbery of the entire people, when our country is poor, this money will indirectly kill many people.
For now, I will skip the murder, only in terms of robbery. You see this case: robbing 2 loaves of bread, not using weapons. Taking place in 2016, note that the defendants are not yet 18 years old.
See more
Duck Value:
But in reality, a duck is only worth whatever a duck is worth when you sell the duck plus the value of the eggs from the duck, right?
Ownership
In reality, the duck is not owned by the people because ownership means the right to murder what you own, which government says you don't have the right to do.
Ownership Means Freedom
If the people own the duck, then that means the murderer of the duck also owned the duck.
Cannot Punish Owners For Owning
Therefore, the owner cannot be punished for doing whatever the owner wants to do. Because real ownership means the freedom to do anything with what is owned, good or bad, if you own it, then you can do anything with it. Punishing owners for owning is an insult to the principles to what it means to own something.
Land Renters
Same thing with how land owners are generally just land renters in reality. I wonder how many people can grasp that if everybody owned something, then nobody owns it except for government.
Who Owned The Duck?
Well, technically, wouldn't the farmer of the duck be the only owner?
Owning a Television
Imagine telling Vietnamese people that every Vietnamese person owns this one television. So, owner 1 one turns on the TV. But then owner 2 turns off the TV. Owner 3 turns it to channel 5. But then owner 4 turns it to channel 42. And then it becomes a fight if everybody were to own the same TV or the same duck. And how would you decide who was right? Who would make the final decision? DO you have a vote to decide what to do with the TV or the duck, if everybody owned it? I don't understand how people can believe that everybody can own something.