Quote:
Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
While I like the tone of the article, I think various answers to this question: "Can a moral case be made for taking the rightful property of one American and giving it to another to whom it does not belong?" would make for an interesting discussion.
Hello
|
Okay, let's take a look at the question as the author poses it:
Quote:
|
Can a moral case be made for taking the rightful property of one American and giving it to another to whom it does not belong? I think not. That's why socialism is evil. It uses evil means (coercion) to achieve what are seen as good ends (helping people). We might also note that an act that is inherently evil does not become moral simply because there's a majority consensus.
|
There are goods (roads, schools, military hardware, etc.) and services (police, military, health regulation, etc.) that are expensive enough, and provide little enough benefit to any individual or group of individuals, that no one person or group would find it economically efficient to pay for such goods and services. However, these goods and services supply us as a democratic society with a collective benefit greater than the benefit each of us enjoys individually.
These goods and services are generally characterized as externalities. We pay taxes to support those externalities. We buy police to keep us safe in our homes. We buy armies to keep us safe in the world. We buy education for our children, so that they will grow up to provide a useful labor force and so that they will have the knowledge to improve our lot and take care of us in our dotage. We provide a afety net for those who cannot provide for themselves because we find it prefereable to them killing us and taking what they need since they have no other means to live.
Oliver Wendell Holmes said: I enjoy paying taxes: with them I buy civilzation. Anyone who views this as socialism and as a moral wrong is either too simplistic in em's thinking, or being sollypsistic, or just plain old fucking stupid.
