Category Archives: Force

The paradox of self-righteousness

    With both sides of the traditional political spectrum being consumed with forwarding some moral ideal, it warrants consideration whether people have any claim to freedom if they are unwilling to grant it to another. The Founders clearly intended that one person should not be able to force the actions of another, but we must also come to the realization that any legislative solution to an individual moral question is contrary to the goal of liberty; regardless the origin of any perceived “moral imperative.”

      The paradox of self-righteousness can be easily found in the first word of the phrase: self. The moral authority of one person over their own actions is clear; however, from where is the moral authority of one person over another derived? A common argument submitted to prove the existence and necessity of a list of moral tenets is murder being illegal. While, on its face, this argument would seem to hold—the reality, however, is that murder is not illegal due to a moral dilemma of killing someone. Instead, murder is illegal because it deprives the murdered of the most basic of natural rights—the right to life (which results in a loss of liberty and property as well).

   The fundamental basis of liberty is one’s own right to self-determination; or, as the Declaration of Independence states: “the pursuit of happiness.” However, happiness is not a collective idea, it is an individual one. The same is true for morality as the righteousness of a moral position can be best characterized by the individual forwarding the idea; not surprisingly, the moral code can also be best followed by (only) that same person. If one man or woman has the authority or “right” to impose a moral belief on another, where then is the limits of any other person to do the same?

    This illustrates the paradox. Imposed morality represents a two-sided problem because if the ability exists for one to impose on the others, is it not then implied that all the others have the same ability to impose their beliefs as well? This is where we stand currently. Everyone vying to use government’s monopoly on force to make others behave the way they want them to. If it is okay for conservatives to say no to gambling or drugs due to their moral code, why is it so unreasonable for progressives to wish to coerce “charity” as a moral imperative of their own? Both are premised on the idea that government can save us from a bad (or less than ideal) behavior or condition. By any one group imposing moral control on another, the door is open for the inverse to happen at a later date. A de facto standard is created whereas government becomes a weapon of majoritarian tyranny that’s use is justified as long as a moral precept and a large enough segment of the population is coupled together. Instead, when one is tempted to use government in an attempt to reform others for a personal moral end, society would benefit from them remembering the words of Bastiat: Why don’t you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough.”


Is government absolution?

It has often been said that government is required to help the poor and disabled; however the evidence consistently shows that government’s involvement has not reduced poverty levels. Seeing that government has never (to my knowledge) cured a societal ill like poverty, why then does there remain so much confidence in it for future success? Could it be that support for government welfare programs stems not only from those who directly benefit from being on it, but also as a path to absolution by those who advocate for it?

So, what do I mean by absolution? First, let us discuss the idea that our government has a responsibility to the poor. Milton Friedman wisely pointed out that governments cannot have a responsibility to people…instead, only individuals can have responsibility. We often hear advocates of government welfare say that we are “our brother’s keeper,” a clear reference to the book of Genesis in the Bible; however, the verse is talking about an individual’s (Cain’s) responsibility to his own brother (Abel) and not society’s responsibility to a person or people. This is a blatant misuse of a Bible verse with the intent of misleading people who, by faith, feel an obligation to fulfill Biblical mandates (at least to some extent).

The question then is how does the brother’s keeper example contrast with government welfare and where does the concept of absolution come in? Let us assume that people do feel an innate obligation to help others; which is arguable, but for the sake of this discussion we must accept it generally. What is the easiest way for people to meet that obligation to others? One could work harder and produce more so that they may transfer (via donation) some of that excess production for the consumption of others. Or, one could spend a few minutes every couple of years voting for a group of people who will give money (that is largely not theirs) to others. Both seems to meet the goal of “helping others” yet one of the two options entails significantly less hardship on the individual choosing to vote instead of donate. It is certainly much easier to vote charity to others than it is to actually provide it. Particularly when a good segment of society pays nothing to fund these programs; the estimated percentage of people in America who file tax returns and owe $0 (or less) is 43% (as of 2013).

In the case of this group of people, a vote for welfare is not only costless and potentially beneficial, but also absolves them totally of any further responsibility to be their “brother’s keeper.” In fact, an IRS analysis of the 2012 tax year showed that the most generous states (by percentage of their income donated) were “red states” that voted for Mitt Romney. This implies that those people that believe government should not engage in coerced charity (to as great of an extent) are much more likely to give of their own money while people who see government as a reasonable and righteous source of charity (albeit at the point of a gun, a fact they often ignore) sees little reason to give of their own money when they can instead vote for “charitable” actions.

Therefore, a vote for government welfare represents a much cheaper way (for the voter) to donate largely because others pay the bill. Individuals can then fulfill their sense of obligation from the pockets of others and still gain the sense of giving that usually motivates people to actually give. This leaves people who preach an obligation to the poor and disabled from actually having any responsibility for meeting that obligation personally. Thus, the individuals that choose the voting method over the donating method have effectively been absolved of their responsibility to others. Effectively, those people do not practice what they preach; instead they demand others serve as their brother’s keeper, while they hold the moral high ground through their mere demanding of action by force.  This reminds me of the brilliant words of Ayn Rand who said:

“It stands to reason that where there’s sacrifice, there’s someone collecting sacrificial offerings. Where there’s service, there’s someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master.”

Interestingly, the people most hurt are the ones who do, most significantly, need the help. For the real crime is not that everyone does not have access to “assistance”; instead, the real crime lay in the reality that those who truly cannot do for themselves are left in poverty so as to satiate the majority who wishes to forgo their own personal responsibility for their own monetary gain. Simply put the absolution through government costs the absolved little, while that release from obligations is paid for dearly by those they claim to be helping. This is the danger of idealism rooted in greater good terms; for the actual good is left subjected to the eye of the beholder while the intent of actions is weighted far greater than actual outcomes. I close with the definition of absolution: “the formal release of guilt, obligation, or punishment.”

The nature of black markets: why making commodities illegal is ineffective.

I think it is important to characterize the commodity in very a generalized manner—at least for now—therefore we will refer to our commodity in question as a widget. Now, it is of no consequence what a widget is because, when analyzing the effects of a black market, the only relevant factor is that widgets were made illegal by lawmakers. It is important to begin with a basic definition of a black market:

“A black market or underground economy is the market in which goods or services are traded illegally. The key distinction of a black market trade is that the transaction itself is illegal. The goods or services may or may not themselves be illegal to own, or to trade through other, legal channels.”

It is important to note that the definition also identifies that the goods (in our example widgets) need not be illegal to own. This refers to situations where taxation or regulations are used to limit, control, or inhibit the trade of a good or service (i.e. high cigarette taxes). However valid this discussion is, it will not be the focus of this conversation as we are assuming our commodity has been made illegal for the sake of simplicity.

Black markets develop because making a product illegal does not cause people to stop using it; instead, it merely marginalizes consumption, the production, and the distribution to those who are willing to accept and operate under greater degrees of risk. I know this may sound a little confusing which is why I created a graphic that illustrates the levels of acceptable risk for different groups of society:

Risk flow chart

In this graphic we can observe that the lower two segments (5 & 6) are those people who enjoy or are comfortable with greater risk levels; next (segments 3&4) we can observe the greatest amount of people as the average level of risk takers which would be generally averse to great risk, but partaking in some low/moderate risk; finally, in our upper two segments (1 & 2) we can see a portion of the population who range from mostly risk averse to almost exclusively averse to risk. This understanding of risk tolerance is important in the realization that making commodities illegal only serves to focus use and production on the risk loving segments which are most likely to partake in other risky behaviors (e.g. crime, violence, etc.) regardless of their use of a certain commodity. This reality is why the argument of illegality for the purpose of public safety is largely invalid.

Let us return to our concept of widgets again. If widgets are made illegal then we have some serious problems: 1) people are still demanding this product (although demand is now almost exclusively coming from groups 5&6 and a small part of group 4) so new producers will enter the market to meet this demand and receive the greater profits now offered by an illegal trade operating at monopoly pricing. 2) By compressing consumption to the risk loving segments we create a self-fulfilling prophesy – that the people using the widget will also be breaking other laws [don’t believe me?…look at why prohibition did not work for alcohol].

We can see a new and growing market segment dominated by those who are more predisposed to risky (read: criminal) behavior. Also, we have reduced competition in the production of widgets which would generally (particularly in a highly criminalized black market) lead to the production of “crappier” products at higher prices. Therefore, the risk factors of our widgets become even greater due to the lower quality. Additionally, in this market with limited competition, lower quality requirements, and huge profit margins we will observe more criminal (mob-like) activities in the production and distribution of our widget. In essence, criminal producers compete with force instead of with price or quality (or both) to gain customers; this has many negative effects on the communities in which these suppliers operate.

We are also presented with a consumption level distortion. The new consumer group—which is also isolated to higher risk tolerances—engages in the same activities they would have likely done anyway; however, now our widgets are given the credit (blame) for these activities. This creates somewhat of a paradox in that the results of prohibition become the best argument for prohibition because the correlation between widget use and other risky/criminal behavior increases due to us arbitrarily slicing segments 1, 2, 3, and most of 4 off of the consumer base. We have not eliminated any undesirable by-products of consuming widgets; we have merely magnified the (rudimentary) perception of the widgets’ effect on producing these negative by-products.

Why is this important? First, there are little to no positive effects of making products illegal beyond people making themselves feel better that they may have coerced others into not engaging in an activity this other person condemns [think Michael Bloomberg and soft drink sizes]. Second, by isolating supply to risk loving individuals we fuel illegitimate activities and isolate supply into the hands of people willing to exercise the most risk. Not only have we criminalized users, we have laid the foundation to launch a whole new and highly profitable enterprise that relies on criminal activity and violence as the primary means to restricting market entry. This incorporation excludes traditional competitive means (product differentiation and price) in favor of force, violence, intimidation, and a new criminal recruitment system resulting in social problems in these communities as well as losses in property values, tax revenues, and legitimate employment opportunities.

Gun rights advocates make this argument quite accurately and succinctly when they state that: “making guns illegal would only keep them out of the hands of the law abiding population who do not commit crimes anyhow.” This is a very astute observation. Unfortunately, this same group often fails to realize that the same is true for our widget example, or drugs, or prostitution, and was found empirically to be true with alcohol. Making any of those things illegal did not eliminate the use of them; it merely marginalized use and created a criminal enterprise where one did not previously exist. Does prohibition result in decreased use?…only a little because, if the product is inherently risky, a vast majority of the population will avoid it anyway. Does prohibition make society safer? No, in fact the evidence would indicate the opposite.

So, why does our society struggle with this idea? Because liberty is scary to so many people! Of course, liberty—like so many other things—is really only a good idea for ourselves, not for others. The false premise that one group of people has the responsibility or authority to try and save others is preposterous and, I would argue, excludes the people who hold that idea from having any real profound understanding of the concept of Natural Rights or the ideas that our founders held so dear in creating this greatest of countries. The land of the free has become the land of the busybodies, intent on utilizing their votes to gain access to the force that government wields to make individuals “mind” them. I do not wish to have a nanny state economically nor do I wish to have one for individual choices. Incidentally, one thing everyone should keep in mind, you do not get one of those without the other.

Regulation Is Not Our Salvation

        There is much talk of regulation and the need for it in every aspect of our “dangerous capitalistic” society; however, there is seldom talk of what regulation is and of what precisely it accomplishes. Ironically, the very people who exhibit the greatest disdain for “big business” are often the most ardent supporters of regulation (besides the big businesses themselves, of course). Democrats, and statists of all parties, are particularly interested in imposing regulations for the stated purpose of controlling the “animal instincts” of the free market. These are the same people who often deride big business publicly for taking advantage of consumers and keeping the “little man” down. And this is where it becomes interesting.

          What if I were to tell you that regulation is largely designed to do that very thing and that the politicians who both advocate and introduce regulation understand very clearly that it will remove competition by restricting new market participants? I know, I know–many people out there will be shaking their heads in outright refusal of this assertion. I can just hear it now: “we need government to protect us from big corporations”; or “that’s not what the news said”; or “Obama said we deregulated too much.” Food for thought, though: big opponents of airline deregulation were the (big) airlines and the big opponents of trucking deregulation?…you guessed it, the (big) trucking companies. That, by the way, is not an isolated situation.

          Now, before people start into the irrational argument that I hate all regulation or that I am an anarchist; try to refrain from acting arbitrarily dramatic, ‘cause it just ain’t true! Here is an example of the real world scenario and why most regulation is not only supported by “big business,” but also why they (and their lobbyists) write a significant amount of the legislation.

          Let us assume that I am a builder of houses in a small economy with a relatively static population (a miniature US, for example). I am the only builder of houses as I have been an innovator in early house building technology. Let us also assume I hired you to work for me as my helper and you worked your way up to foreman over some amount of time. At this point you realize that you know everything you would need to provide the same service that I do, but feel you can do it more cheaply (because I am operating as a monopolist and thus my pricing is artificially high). So, you strike out on your own and begin competing with me. This does not please me for obvious reasons.

          So, I go see the executive (president/governor) of this “state” we live and work in and I convince him that we should, for the safety of all consumers, get control of the house building market and pass some regulations so that amateur and dangerous new builders do not hurt anyone financially or physically. The executive, not wanting his constituents hurt or angry sees great value in regulation that will control the evil capitalists (besides me, of course as I will be grandfathered in…) and will make one of his major campaign contributors happy. He goes to the legislative branch and convinces them to draft a law; however, how can these lawmakers draft regulations about housing that will safeguard their citizens when they themselves have never built houses? Hmmmm…Wait, they have an idea—they should approach the local expert for help in constructing these regulations. My phone rings and I gladly accept my civic duty of drawing up regulations for housing standards so that I am guaranteed customers…I mean, so that the citizens are safe!

          Now, back to you, my only competitor; if am lucky I can build in professional fees and licensing, insurance, or even capital requirements that create a great enough obstacle to you not being able to continue in the market. If not, I have almost guaranteed that neither of our employees will likely ever be able to afford to compete with us.   Here is the best part, though. Having seen how well the appeal to citizens to safeguard them from “greedy profit-driven” capitalists worked out for his polling numbers; the executive decides to move on to another market segment. Once again, this executive finds great public support (who doesn’t want to be safer) and also finds he has more campaign contributions rolling in from companies which no longer have to fear any significant competition in their field.

     Here is the reality and the bad side of this equation. First, capitalism in this example no longer exists (incidentally, there has not been true capitalism in the U.S. for many decades except perhaps in some isolated market segments). The little man has been effectively “held down” and kept out of the marketplace. Skill, pricing, or a combination of the two is no longer that which is primarily supplied by market participants; instead, the ability to navigate the political waters and afford to pay for these regulatory burdens is what determines market participation.

          Second, the government has created a moral hazard in which the citizenry no longer feels responsible for ensuring quality in the products and services they purchase; additionally, government takes on no liability that the work they attest to (through regulatory obstacles) is of high or even good quality. For example, if you have a house built, it will have to be approved by government inspectors on many occasions for different purposes. However, if that house burns down later from faulty wiring that was inspected; the government that essentially told you it was safe carries no liability. This begs a tangential question: what is the point, exactly?

          Third, in fields that are “regulated” it has been made essentially illegal for people to work. To license something is defined as: the ability to grant a license to (someone or something) to permit the use of something or to allow an activity to take place. If something requires a license, it is otherwise illegal—ergo, it is illegal to work and earn a living if the government does not permit you to do so. Yet another disincentive towards working, just what we need!

          The rise in corporations over the last century is not due to not enough government. Inversely, it is due to too much government. I understand there is a long held belief in most people that government is there to help us, but we must get beyond misconceptions and use logic to approach questions. Whether a politician is well-intentioned or not, regulation still results in the same thing. Also, do not believe the hype that the Bush administration marked the biggest rollback of regulations in modern history—that could not be further from the truth. In fact, if you are a fan of regulation, you should have a picture of “W” over your mantle right next to your picture of Obama.

          If people actually understand what the true effects of regulation are, it is likely that we will tolerate less of it. However, I understand there is a draw in believing in wholesale regulation; the comfort of feeling like someone evil and rich is being halted on their wicked quest for world domination is probably great. But, perception a reality does not make. Regulation is the pet of “big business” that does not wish to compete and colorful plumage which politicians display to prove how “caring” and “egalitarian” they are; both, instead, use it largely as a tool to monopolize market segments and line their own pockets; perverting capitalism into cronyism.

          When you consider the effectiveness of government in solving all our problems you should truly ponder why all of governments “wars” of morality such as the one on drugs and the one on poverty have only resulted in more of both. Certainly, in the thousands of years of human history it is unlikely that humans have only recently gone bad; perhaps, we should realize that government has the anti-Midas effect of turning everything it touches into crap instead of gold.


The Fallacy of Greed

       Greed…what a fun word! It is that invisible cause of all of society’s problems, right? Have an older car or smaller house than your neighbor? Don’t beat yourself up, they are obviously greedy. Textile manufacturing is now (predominantly) overseas? Duh…just a greedy capitalist. Walmart not forking over that mythical thing called a “living wage?” They are blatantly exhibiting their own greed. She has too much; he has too little…all byproducts of American greed, right?

     Effort is good, the old college try they used to say; but don’t you dare actually succeed because clearly you have morphed into just a common greedy piece of trash. Here is an interesting question then: If, in fact, a person who develops a product for which millions wish to pay for is greedy; what do we call a person who is willing to live for nothing off the labors of others? Ah, I remember now, we call them victims of American greed. Instead might I suggest we call them greedy victimizers of Americans; merely a semantic difference, I am sure.

     The convenience of greed lay in its ability to be arbitrarily blamed for anything. Those on the left have made careers playing on peoples’ petty jealousy through use of the word greed. People have justified the taking of others’ property because of greed; however, greed cannot be proven and, perhaps more importantly, cannot be disproven. How does one combat an accusation of greed? They cannot, which is why it is such a powerful tool of the politician to ensure support from those who Bastiat noted “wish to live at the expense of others.”

     Legalized theft and redistribution gains its mandate from this notion of greed, but how do we define greed exactly? If greed is to be defined as the desire and effort to take something from people which is not theirs, then who is greedy? Can we rightfully call Steve Jobs greedy because he created things which many were willing to trade money for? Or would that title be more properly attributed to the 23 year old which, instead of practicing responsibility, decides to live off the welfare system? I would say the latter; our president would likely say the former. A person who makes a living at the point of a gun is, in my estimation, greedy. There is little difference between someone who is able-bodied and living (almost) exclusively off the taxpayer than there is a common gangster. Both prey off of those unable to defend themselves from their oppressors, the only difference is the mobster at least has the courage to do their own dirty work.

Why warnings of tyranny must not be “rejected.”

Unfortunately, you’ve grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that’s at the root of all our problems. Some of these same voices also do their best to gum up the works. They’ll warn that tyranny is always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices.

                                                -Barack H. Obama, 2013 Ohio St. Commencement

        Actually, what they suggest is that any government is predisposed to usurp the liberties of its people. What they would suggest is that trust in a government official merely at their own behest is unwise at best and disastrous at worst. But, to be completely honest, it is not the government official for whom we must fear attempted subjugation; instead, it is “from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the major number of the constituents” (James Madison, 1788). It is the tyranny of some oppressive majority. Generally, though, a single figure stands ready to exact the pound of flesh which this majority so dearly desires.

     “Reject these voices” Obama tells young people…or, perhaps in other words: “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.” Indeed, the manifestation of a threat to liberty has and will always be a single figure. Is Obama that figure to be feared? Who knows, only time can bear that out; however, I suspect he is only one of the puppets opening the show. The proverbial hand up his back, as with other leaders before him, has been our neighbors and family members and perhaps even ourselves. Eagerly our populace has stood ready to pull the handle for whomever promises to subdue ideological enemies and punish others for our own self-victimization. The choice has largely been either those people willing to seize the property of one man for the benefit of another; or, on the other hand, seize one’s liberty to appease the conscience of another. Both are mere perversions of liberty and, I would assert, share the same outcome: slavery.

    There is, however, shelter from the looming storm of statism. Unfortunately, the concept of liberty appears far too risky for those who never lived without it—sloth likely is our greatest sin. Liberty is merely a punch-line for people like Obama and Bush. For two “truths” resonate loudly for both: 1) the people cannot be trusted with liberty, and 2) most of us are more than happy to trade it for payments in-kind. Our weakness invites the shackles that will bind us, be they real or figurative. Ronald Reagan once said:

Socialists…can provide you shelter, fill your belly with bacon and beans, treat you when you’re ill, all the things guaranteed to a prisoner or slave.

This may be the best characterization of socialisms’ ill-fated pursuit. Despite popular opinion, however, the socialists ride on donkeys and elephants; and we should be wary of both.

      What then are those of us who yearn for liberty to do—where is our shelter? Not coincidentally, the “they” who Obama speaks of are very much the same as the “they” who founded our great nation. And those great minds and greater men gave us a weapon to defend ourselves from tyranny. They armed us with words whose sole purpose was to warn us of tyranny and provide the tools to defend ourselves from it: the Bill of Rights.

        What is the Bill of Rights? In school it is an inconvenience we have to remember for one test. In our adult life it is only the 1st Amendment (part of it, anyway) for Democrats and simply the 2nd and 10th for Republicans. But, in a broader sense its purpose was the explicit outline of what tyranny may look like. In fact, if tyranny was not even a possibility, the Bill of Rights would be unnecessary. Furthermore, for those who claim the mere age of the Constitution is proof of its own irrelevance and short-sightedness; they would be wise to appreciate that it is the very blanket of liberty which keeps us warm at night.

            For example, in the last couple of years alone, the news has been filled with government acts which challenge the:

  • 1st Amendment (“Obamacare” and the Catholic Church; Rosen from Fox News, etc.)
  • 2nd Amendment (gun control efforts)
  •  4th Amendment (NSA data collection, phone tapping, etc.)
  • 5th Amendment (illegal government takings during TARP)
  • 6th Amendment (NDAA)
  • 8th Amendment (NDAA, again)
  • 9th Amendment (the one the statists of neither party like)
  • 10th Amendment (Obamacare and unfunded mandates on states)

        Maybe the guys in the powdered wigs were on to something, huh? Simply put, our Constitution and the first ten amendments were designed to protect us from our government; and ensure we have the tools with which to protect ourselves from it. This is true even when an over-zealous majority threatens to exercise the government’s monopoly on violence to make us behave in a way which pleases them. It would be fair to say that distrust of government is the founding principle upon which our great republic (not democracy) was built. We would be wise to heed these warnings, not reject them; the cheap parlor trick of the politician is an illusory idea that we are safe because we are Americans. Instead, to retain the freedoms encapsulated in what Martin Luther King, Jr. referred to as the “promissory note to which every American was to fall heir” we must remain ever-vigilant. I leave you with these words:

Although all men are born free, and all nations might be so, yet too true it is, that slavery has been the general lot of the human race.  Ignorant—they have been cheated; asleep—they have been surprised; divided—the yoke has been forced upon them.  But what is the lesson?  That because the people may betray themselves, they ought to give themselves up, blindfold, to those who have an interest in betraying them?  Rather conclude that the people ought to be enlightened, to be awakened, to be united, that after establishing a government they should watch over it, as well as obey it.

                                                                               -James Madison, 1792


Government is Force: The Uncomfortable Truth People Wish to Avoid.

It stands to reason that where there’s sacrifice, there’s someone collecting sacrificial offerings. Where there’s service, there’s someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master.

—Ayn Rand

     Our society speaks of things like social justice as if it were a victimless activity. As though giving to someone deemed “less fortunate” entails only the act giving without the taking. Where then does this magical manna come from if not from another citizen? Clearly it comes from someone who is rich or simply has what some deem to be “too much,” right? Let’s assume it does, is the moral righteousness of theft based on the size of the victim’s bank account? If that is in fact the case, should not most white collar crimes be considered righteous?  Or, for example, if you carjack a Maserati are you not merely taking what is not deserved by the owner of that car?

       The rich are hardly the only ones who are victims of our entitled society; anyone who falls into some sort of minority can find themselves targets of our burgeoning tyranny of democracy. If the limits on individual rights to property are up for a vote, then where do the limits of the state lay? In a society which justifies activity by a majority (more aptly, plurality) opinion, no limits exist; instead, the law is a shifting tide dictated by mob behavior and “popular” ideas. I can take your money, your property, and (more poignantly accurate) your very life as long as I can convince enough of my fellow citizens to direct the government to forcibly remove those things from you at the point of a gun.

          You say that no one is taking another’s life, but only their money; excess money at that? How is it exactly that we earn money? Time! Time of our life spent producing, thinking, building, growing, and teaching; and by endorsing the government confiscation and redistribution of people’s money we are very much endorsing the taking of people’s lives; one hour at a time. You cannot ask another for $10 without considering that the money you ask for represents a portion of their life spent earning (assuming they have earned that money). Likewise, you cannot empower government to separate them from that same $10 by force without considering that government has taken the time that money represents from them.

      The cold reality that people wish to ignore is that if that person gets paid $10/hr. then your government has exercised your desire to steal that hour from them; forcibly take those minutes, those breaths, and those heartbeats from them as if they rightfully belong to you or someone else. That activity relegates that producer to the role of slave and you take on the role of slave owner. What gives us the right to prey on our fellow citizens? Nothing! Still, we try to justify it with absurd notions of social justice and fairness. Those who are comfortable voting the confiscation of other’s money are no different than the pimp on the street corner preying on their hookers or the mobster running a protection scheme on businesses. Try as we may to justify our actions as assistance or some altruistic heroism; we are merely common thieves who ply our trade at the ballot box because we lack the courage to steal from others in person.