The Immorality of Compelled Charity
There are competing mindsets with regard to taxation. The esteemed jurist, Learned Hand, said:
Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one’s taxes.
I tend to subscribe to the above position; nevertheless, another jurist, Oliver Wendell Holmes, was quoted by FDR as saying, “Taxes are the price we pay for civilized society.” In that vein, one person inquired in response to a reposted meme, which compared involuntary taxation to institutional theft, “If we don’t have taxation how do we pay for running a country?”
This was my reply (with some expansion):
First, with regard to the Federal Government specifically, if said government were to limit its activities and obligations to those specifically conferred upon it by the text of the Constitution, recognizing that any additional powers usurped by self-serving political minions and assigned to burgeoning bureaucratic fiefdoms are by definition ultra vires and thus illegitimate, the role of the federal government would be exceedingly easier, and the potential damages imposed by a rogue state or actor would be greatly diminished.
Concerning FDR, it was his New Deal, which sowed the seeds for the burgeoning bureaucratic state. Supporters credit those programs with pulling the nation out of the Great Depression. However, it is more apt to say that the nation’s lead-up to WWII (e.g. the Lend-Lease Program) and the eventual entry of the USA into that war had the greatest impacts upon production, development, and innovation. Being the lone superpower to come out of WWII relatively unscathed, the U.S. rode a wave of prosperity through most of the 20th Century. The resulting economic boon (and boom) had much more to do with the resiliency of the American people and the adaptability of the economy as opposed to any government welfare program.
The vestiges of the New Deal programs represent well-intentioned efforts with questionable efficacy beyond creating government fiefdoms and expanding the federal government well beyond the confines of the Constitution. Of course, those who see or seek personal benefit in such expansions of the state feel motivated to fund the same, by any means necessary.
Second, who is this “we” of which you speak? More than half of Americans pay no net taxes and thus do not contribute materially to the “common good” and “general welfare.”
If government programs provided a mechanism through which individuals contribute assets and eventually have “their money” returned to them (as is often argued), the use of government as a conduit or intermediary would be unnecessary and superfluous. The reality is that “entitlement” programs represent overt wealth redistribution. They are fairly compared to Ponzi Schemes. Government’s largess is funded by forced takings from a limited and shrinking producer class and by mortgaging the nation’s future to the detriment of generations of persons yet unborn.
Underfunded entitlement programs concurrently give rise to insolvent “trust funds” and contribute to a National Debt, which is presently in excess of $31 Trillion; therefore, a noncontributing (but increasingly dependent) electoral majority feels privileged, if not obliged, to tell members of a disfavored minority (i.e. the nebulously defined but much-maligned “Rich”) how to utilize and redistribute their private property. It is the epitome of “Robbing Peter to Pay Paul.” It is unabashed institutional theft. There is nothing “moral” with regard to compelled “charity” or coerced “altruism,” either on the parts of the givers or takers.
Finally, America is NOT its government. Americans owe no allegiance to political minions and technocrats, and the People have no obligation to advance the efficiencies of the state or to contribute involuntarily to a self-serving collective (in the absence of reciprocal benefit and/or commensurate remuneration). Individuals should not surrender their liberties and freedoms to the state, and they should not expect government to replace their personal responsibility and individual efforts to provide for themselves and their families.
