> Please allow me to be more specific. Western European and North American governments are not, in terms of quality of leadership or structure of administration, tangibly different from many governments not present in those regions.
There are despots and tyrants all over the world. They are very tangibly different from Western European and North American governments in terms of quality of leadership or structure of administration.
> Further, seizure of land is not unknown in the US.
We're talking about grain, not land. The specifics of the example are particularly relevant.
> If the government isn't particularly different, is it some quality of the people present in those countries that makes you so confident that they wouldn't take physical property?
I'm not confident at all that they wouldn't take physical property. Once again, this is irrelevant. We aren't talking about probability, or chance, or anything of the sort.
Once again, the top parent is a commentary on cognitive dissonance using factual observations about the world. Governments are not taking grain from farmers, but governments are taking money from banks.
> That's an interesting point to make because prior to this instance, governments in the developed world didn't take 10% of deposits, either.
Well, yes... The top parent was contrasting this with something the top parent believed was morally equivalent, but was not practiced.
> "if you say so." ... This is generally something people say when they don't agree, but can't or don't want to prove their point.
Actually, I meant it as, "I don't care to argue that point because it's irrelevant to the topic of conversation."