The Gross National Debt

Thursday, October 10, 2013

A most excellent question!


.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

I just posted this to my FB book and am very much looking forward to some replies.

Meantime, some of my thoughts.

If I am walking down the street and someone comes up and demands money to spend on things I don't approve of and threatens me with physical violence if I do not give him this money, is this legal?

If I am walking down the street and the same man comes up to me, makes the same demand and the same threats and has an IRS badge, is this legal?

As above, but the man now has an IRS badge and a warrant for my arrest for not giving him the money. Is this legal?

What, really, is the difference? The end result is the same; my money has been taken from me against my will upon threat of violence and used for ends I do not support.

The difference, apparently, is robbery becomes legal when institutionalized by government. For that matter, a whole lot of what government does is legal ONLY because it's a fiat from government. How's that for tautology. If you or I try to do the same thing, it is illegal.

What gives you the right to take what I have? Careful how you answer because it can be used against you and will when I come to take your stuff.

"Less fortunate" you say? A man goes out and works all day long while someone else sits on a front porch all day long and the porch sitter is "less fortunate?" OK, that was an easy one.

A man works all day and through no fault of his own suddenly can't work any more. Why should people who do not know him be forced to support him? Why is he more important than a starving child in Africa? Why should I be threatened with violence if I choose to not support him?

The only way to answer these questions is through a moral code. Which begs another question: What makes your moral code superior to mine? Why should your morals be codified into the law and mine rejected? Caveat - my moral code says intentional violence against others cannot be permitted. Taking my money against my will on threat of violence is intentional violence.

"It's the right thing to do" as you may say is a moral statement. I can reply, "It is not the right thing to do" and my words are just as valid as yours.

Some people (Hi Renee) like to point to Jesus and His commands. Mention was made that Jesus tossed the money changers out of the temple. Not entirely sure how that fits into this discussion, but that was said and I pass it along.

Jesus never said government should feed the masses. Jesus said His followers should engage in charity. As for the money changers, He knocked their money to the dirt. He didn't take any of it. Jesus never took from anyone who was not first willing to give. (See how I tied that right back in?)

Choice is what I, you, we and the guy who just ducked around the corner so you won't see him when you turn around. Unfortunately, having the option of inflicting violence on someone who won't go along with you is also a choice. Is that fair? Just? If so, who gets to make that rule and what happens if someone comes along and has enough power to change that rule?

So where is the fairness and social justice due me when I am threatened with violence if I refuse to give?

No comments:

Post a Comment