First, let’s listen to Harry Reid on trying to explain how our system is a voluntary tax system verses a forced one. After watching Harry Reid BS us for some time, I want you to follow the two analogies to show in better detail why our system is anything but voluntary.
Consent of the Governed
A great analogy that explains the dilemma of our “redistribution program” here in
Our government, as our Constitution says, derives its powers “from the consent of the governed.” The idea here is that we cannot and should not ask the government to do anything for us that we cannot legally or morally do for ourselves. Sounds logical, doesn’t it? With that premise in mind, lets build the following scenario.
You live in a triplex. You are in apartment No. 1, Johnson is in apartment No. 2, and
You believe that
Good for you. What a guy!
A month later
You decide to visit Johnson in apartment No. 2 to see if he can chip in. Johnson tells you that, while he certainly understands the seriousness of
You make the determination that it is far more important for
“Do you have the right to pull out a gun and point it right at the middle of Johnson’s forehead? Can you use that gun to compel Johnson to hand over a few hundred dollars for Wilson's care, and then tell Johnson that you’ll be back for more next month?”
Obviously, when put like this, you won’t run into too many people who will tell you that they have the right to take Johnson's money by force and give it to
- “Well, if our government derives its powers from the consent of the governed, how can you ask your government to do something for you that, if you did it for yourself, would be a crime? Why would it not be OK for you to take that money from Johnson by force and give it to Wilson, but it would be perfectly OK with you if the government went ahead and did it?”
Last time I checked, IRS agents were armed.
Another way to put this is an example from J. Budziszewski’s book, The Revenge of Conscience: Politics and the Fall of Man: On a dark street, a man draws a knife and demands my money for drugs.
- Instead of demanding my money for drugs, he demands it for the Church.
- Instead of being alone, he is with a bishop of the Church who act as bagman.
- Instead of drawing a knife, he produces a policeman who says I must do as he says.
- Instead of meeting me on the street, he mails me his demand as an official agent of the government.
If the first is theft, it is difficult to see why the other four are not also theft.
Is the redistribution of money paid by me to other people theft or not? Is it part of a constitutional republic, or more in line with a socialistic/communist frame of government?