we depend on the rich more than we realise
But I think her point went a step further. We depend on the rich not because they are rich. They are rich because we depend on them (and they deliver). Then we become envious of their wealth that we gave them freely to fix problems we had. And we become bitter that they have so much power and influence and seemingly do nothing to address things we think are important. Is it so wrong for Elon Musk to drive a nice car or ought he to make sure to get a old clunker? Would it be bad if he had another couple of billion dollars at his disposal to work with? Or do we presume that the government will be able to put those billions to better use?
I bet everyone in it would vote for a more 'leftist' government. Why? Not because they want to pass the responsibility onto someone else, but because they work with the neediest people in the country and they see how small their efforts are compared with the vastness of the problem, the huge numbers of people whose lives have been ruined by a war in their home country and who are now on the streets in a foreign country through no fault of their own. They see the destitution and poverty and the gross unfairness of life, and they want to do all they can to help. When you spend your days hanging out with people like that, you find it very hard to think neutrally about a wealthy person who never had a financial worry in his life driving past in his nice flashy car and ignoring such people when he could do so much for them at so little personal inconvenience. It's not that the poor has a "claim" on the rich; it's that the gross injustice of life stings a lot when you see such a contrast. It's then that you want to raise taxes so the government can do more for such people than you or your charity can ever do in a lifetime.
Oh, yes, I get that very much. Everyone feels very deeply for their cause. They imagine government like a magic wand that if only we vote in the right person who really cares all these problems will go away. We say "funding" but we mean "God". We will take from the rich people and put it toward our cause and then all will be right with the world. Except it's not true. All is never right with the world. There will be another problem and another justification to dip further into the pockets of others. This is the slippery slope. You may decide, yes this is enough taxes, my concern has been met. But the next person has a concern he would like fixing too. There are no clear lines. We can always argue just a bit more and a bit more, for the sake of compassion. This is under the assumption that the government is actually efficient at solving such problems. It's not. This is under the assumption that those in government do not suffer with the same vices we suffer with, envy, greed, lies, and selfishness. They do. What prevents them from merely saying the proper things with grace and dignity while lining their own pockets or pockets of their friends as the money passes through to some "good cause" that sounds good but has been planned by those hired out of compassion rather than competence; those who do not appreciate the blood, sweat, and tears that those precious dollars represent.
That the government is "compassionate" depends on who you ask. The "wealthy" person does not feel the government is being compassionate to them. We do not care enough to look closely at who these wealthy people are and how they have made their money we just see dollar signs and are bitter. We see that he made a million dollars last year and think it perfectly acceptable for the government to skim 30% off the top (or whatever the rate may be) because he can "afford" it. We don't consider that maybe he was making a mere $60K all his life but by the sweat of his brow he turned a piece of woods into a profitable farm with a barn and irrigation and a small house and finally decided to sell it. It sold for a million more than he bought it but the "compassionate" government will take a handsome cut from his hard work.
We don't even need to see dollar signs, all we have to do is see that "fancy" car and we are galled. Perhaps he put a tremendous amount of work into fixing that car and stripping the paint and repainting and polishing and buffing. Maybe it is just a shiny car and ours is so poorly taken care of that we assume they are rich. If someone puts effort into maintaining their house or whatever it is and everything is in beautiful order it looks like dollar signs and we get jealous and bitter. We think they should pay more. It may even be an albatross around their neck. At the luster of the thing they went and bought it, on loan, and now they are *paying* for it. And we are jealous!?
They could be good for nothing rich kids who were handed everything and are arrogant and useless. Let it be. That is for God to judge. Why not, rather, be wronged.
So if the motivation for government spending on the destitute is what you don't like
I don't like a lot of things. The presumption that we know best what other people should do with their money. That the government will take it coercively. That we presume to know who all the wealthy people are upon whom we will put the burden to make our own lighter. That wealthy people have no troubles.
The motivation of honest hardworking people who genuinely have compassion on the poor as demonstrated by their willingness to be a helping hand; to them I harbor no ill will. They are doing well. Their motivation is commendable. I wish it wasn't directed at government to materialize more money for their cause. I wish they would go make a billion dollars honestly and help the poor but it turns out that's not so easy. Taking it from others through government coercion is easier. That's why it is done.
then let's assume the best possible motivation on the part of those voting.
I think most are simply misguided. They look in the short term and think if the government would just take from these people who I deem have plenty, and put it toward my cause we can do so much good. But they are also driven by emotion. How much would they sacrifice for a single dying child in the street that they can see at the expense of a million that they can't? It is not so obvious what will not get done by the most productive people when we strip away what they build. They have less to build with, that is obvious, but they also are less inclined to build because it is less fruitful; the rules and regulations and red tape slow them down, then there are lawsuits and audits and board meetings about equal representation and a host of other social matters that they would rather not concern themselves with. But we have priorities for them. I think in the longer term it is best for everyone to let them be and "make their money" because in reality "making money" is just serving other people, assuming it is being done honestly.
Your point is: it's theft, so the destitute should remain destitute unless someone freely chooses to help them (which doesn't happen very often, let's be honest).
My point is, it is theft. You have concluded that you will compromise on theft if you get to be told that the destitute are being provided for. I don't think the destitute should remain destitute. And I don't think that it necessarily requires help in the form of charity (money). For example in your debt charity you were simply giving advice, not bailing them out of debt. I also think that the more government takes over the role of charity, the less willing people are to personally step in and help. If you knew that there was no safety net at all, that there was no daddy government going to come to the rescue, you might be much more inclined to build a local network of people who could collectively discuss and deal with problems as the arose. Everyone would be much more keen on taking care of each other. This is a community. Government program supplant community and we are the worse off for it. In a community you might say, look kid, I'm not going to just give you money, but I tell you what, if you wash my car I'll give you twenty bucks, if you also mow my lawn I'll give you fifty. You may not be looking for someone to do that for you but at the same time you get something out of it and the person is providing something of value. What you want is not charity per se, what you want is opportunity so that charity is not needed. But you need the jobs first. Which means you need to figure out what people want that they are willing to pay you for and then you need to tell this to your workers so they know what to do that is worth something to other people.
My point is: not all taxation is theft; the government has a duty to take care of those within its borders who can't take care of themselves, just like it has a duty to protect those borders. If the latter is not theft, then why do we have to consider the former theft ?
I'm not convince yet that not all taxation is theft. It certainly looks like it if we are being honest with ourselves. The problem is, if we forbid taxes we fear what will happen. Will it be anarchy? Will it just be strongest man wins everything. Mob rule? We are afraid of what that might mean and so as we get down to it we concede, yes maybe some taxes aren't theft. Even the Rand people will concede that government should employ police to protect their property and borders and military and justice system, which means taxes. I think the argument would be that these things are actually shared equally by all. Everyone gets their property and country protected, rich and poor alike. As such there are rarely major disputes over these things (although we do often complain about the *level* of military spending because it is not so clear that the US military is simply acting in defense of the country but this is a huge tangent). But still in the back of my mind it itches at me... isn't this, too, theft?
As far as the government having a duty to "take care" of its citizens. This is immediately a slippery slope. People need houses don't they? And cars? Healthcare, food, clothing, the dignity of a good, meaningful job, air conditioning, hot water, clean air, etc etc etc. The government should provide all of these things. Isn't that care? There are plenty of things we want and if we are given the opportunity we will certainly have someone else pay for them if we can. No, the government is not charged with caring for its citizens. That is a dystopian nightmare in the making. We want to be free, not cared for. The government is to take care of everyone else's citizens if they come to our borders (with extreme prejudice) and maintain order through the lightest possible touch. This gives us freedom to choose how to live. The problem is you don't like how some people live. You want them to prioritize a cause you have. It is so obvious in your mind that, whatever it is, is so important that, if they don't prioritize your cause, they must be selfish. But how many causes are there? Should they prioritize all of them? How do they know you are not just a swindler going to take advantage of your generosity? How about we also extend to them the grace of simply being misguided or uninformed and not attempt to use the government to coerce them to do what we want. I don't think God needs their money to accomplish what he wants.
