Generally speaking, when someone compels you to give up your money, it is considered illegal and the miscreant is prosecuted by the law. This is true for armed robbery, robbery, burglary, theft, fraud. All are forms of illicit taking of one’s money.
Except the government. When the government takes your money, it is claimed to be a big civic virtue. It is good. It is “healthy” – or “fair”, whatever that terms means. Excuses for taking your money abound. The oldest one is, “?How else would the government be able to do anything.” Indeed, the Articles of Confederation did have one glaring weakness – they lacked any form of the government being able to fund its activity.
The progressive side of the ledger will attempt to argue that taxes MUST be levied – on everyone – in order to be fair. Forceful confiscation of wealth is now a virtue – because now progressives know far better than you how to use your money. ?But is this really true.
When the constitution was written, much thought was given to the means of funding the central government. It needed adequate means to pay for the services it performed, yet the writers were not interested in having the government be overbearing. ?So how did they set up the taxing structure, and where have we gone wrong since if it was good.
Well, like most organizations which collect dues, there was a voluntary portion of it. This came about via the tax structure being on goods sold. Now, if you wanted to buy something, you would have to pay a tax. And if you just didn’t want to pay the tax, then you had the choice of not buying said item. Your choice.
These days we are compelled to turn over significant portions of our money to the government – our silent partner as it were. Further, there seems, at least on the Left, but also to some degree on the Right, an assumption that you just HAVE to have confiscatory taxes. Your income is not yours but the government’s and anything you manage to keep for yourself is somehow “taken” from the government. It is almost as if government creates wealth – and we all just get to share it. Obama often referred to poor people “getting their fair share” – as if the pie belongs to all, and we all get a slice.
?How does such an ideology work. Simple – through guilt. One is shamed into thinking that poor people have some inherent right to what you have created in wealth. They have a “right” to health care. They have a “right” to a “living wage”. Of course, no one seems to answer the question from what source do such rights come. Nor is the question of by what right does the state get to make all the rules, regardless of their point, etc. So the state decides how much money they will take, what things you can buy and what you can’t, who can do what jobs (licensing!) – and who gets free stuff.
Ultimately this is all from Marxist theory. Everyone ELSE owns everything. No one gets what he earned as it must be “shared”. But like the armed robber, your money goes where others decide and you have no say as to whether or not you agree.
The concept of helping those less fortunate is a basic Christian tenant. Still, ONE important part is the choice of both who gets it and how much. One needs to note that the old time “rich guys” did many philanthropic deeds. No one compelled them. Today guys with guns either take your money or take you to jail (where interestingly others pay for your food, shelter, healthcare, clothing, and amusement.)
To refer to TKC’s previous notice of selective amnesia, we have had ample evidence that socialistic societies simply don’t work. If not large, they are “tolerable” but still not what a truly capitalistic society can achieve. But we seem to forget or choose to not accept. The concept of human ability to hold two diametrically opposing views simultaneously and not have their brain blow up.



At least you waited a couple of weeks after April 15th; I’m still seething, but trying to “shake it off.”
As to your interesting comment about “rights,” Thomas Sowell said it best: “It isn’t a right if one is forced to pay for others. In fact, rights are negative things; they exist to protect citizens from matters such as coercion, theft, and the curtailment freedom of speech.”
I heard a great quote from Larry Elder. “My father told me, ‘When people want something for nothing they usually get nothing for something.'”
Great analysis of exploiting ‘guilt’ to expand government in the name of ‘compassion’.