Three-fifths to two-thirds of the federal budget consists of taking property from one American and giving it to another. Were a private person to do the same thing, we'd call it theft. When government does it, we euphemistically call it income redistribution, but that's exactly what thieves do -- redistribute income..
His argument is greatly weakened by his repeated inability to recognise the difference between theft and taxation. The latter has been agreed upon by a majority (OK, maybe a plurality) of the chosen representatives of the people, using the powers it's agreed that they have.
If he wants to live in the US he needs to accept its laws, or work within legal bounds to change them, not misrepresent them. You don't get to pick and choose.
Government is necessary, but the only rights we can delegate to government are the ones we possess.
Here is where he goes wrong IMO. Because we can and do choose to create laws which do not involve natural 'rights', one way or another. Why can we not collectively decide to give to our central government powers which we might not grant to any individual?
Pity: I agreed with both his definitions of and his criteria for 'rights' up until then. Someone does not have a right to anyone else's money: we may, however, choose (more or less voluntarily) that the society in which we live shall redistribute money from some residents to others. And I'm happy for that not to be called a 'right' - it's a privilege.
However, I strongly disagree with his apparent premise that all that government should be able to do is enforce 'natural law', not least because there is no law in nature, save what we choose to perceive...
no time for more but a thought-provoking piece. |
