No, it's not called 'society'. In a representative republic, it's called government over-stepping its constitutional bounds.
To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it ... Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816
I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents ... James Madison, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794)
[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government ... James Madison
The Founders were by no means unkind men, but they recognized that, once the federal government begins to forcibly take from the producers in order to provide for the non-producers, or the less fortunate, the seeds of destruction of an individual-liberty-based government are planted. And today's bloated entitlement state, and its requisite usurpations of individual freedoms are proving them right.
It has also been proven by studies, time after time, that the more taxing/entitlement power the government seizes, the less citizens contribute to genuine charitable causes. So, by robbing Peter to support Paul, not only is the government increasing its own perverted/corrupt power, but it is suppressing the genuinely charitable nature of its citizens.
If the federal government were constrained to the powers enumerated to it in the Constitution, and the states and citizens themselves were free to legislate and live as they see fit, just about every major problem, budgetary and otherwise, that faces this country today would cease to exist. We wouldn't have congress constantly bickering about how to solve problems they were never intended to have the power to solve. Instead, they would be placing most of their focus on keeping us safe (securing our borders, containing our enemies, etc.), which appears to be low on their list of priorities now that they have corrupted their powers to include the running of virtually every facet of our lives. |
