A major topic of many politicians in contemporary America is the need for welfare and wealth redistribution. I urge you, especially those who believe in these programs, to consider the thoughts of the principle writer of the ideals of the Constitution.
Contemporary American political discourse is no longer about ensuring the freedoms of individual choice but rather satisfying the masses with generous benefits from the public treasury. Democrats and many Republicans (for the sake here I will say Progressives a category liberals, socialists, fascists, and communists all fall into) propagate ideas about forms of wealth redistribution. Some agree with these thoughts, generally the beneficiary of the programs and some oppose them. This is the natural course of opinions in politics.
Progressives will say that it is wrong that we have people making millions and people making next to nothing and that something must be done to remedy the situation. It is somehow immoral how people succeed while others fail and that these "less fortunate" people are deserving of help from the public at large. This comes though at the expense of the "fortunate".
I despise these words "fortunate" and "less fortunate" and I know I have gone into this before but let me revisit this for a moment. It is without a doubt that some people are born into more privileged situations wealth, loving parents, attentive parents, large family, large house, well educated family, or any number of other things. Even with those who have been born into any number of privileged situations, the decisions the person makes dictate the success of their life. Any person who makes sound decisions can have success. Those who make poor decisions will face the other fate. "Fortunate" and "less fortunate" are words Progressives use in order to elicit the idea that position in society is based off of luck instead of personal decision in order to gain favorability with the masses.
Progressives will state in their argument that it is unethical not to help these people. Well I would not disagree, but the help should come at the hands of private charity. Why not government? Thomas Jefferson has said it perfectly "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical."
The founding fathers of our country would be dismayed to learn that private charity has been taken over by governmental programs that the Constitution has specifically set aside to the States and private charity. Take a look at the 10th Amendment and read the rest of the Constitution, which specifically limits federal government limit to defense, international affairs, protection of individual choice, and the administration of justice. The founding fathers recognized the ills that would be brought on by governmental social welfare programs and how they would eventually erode the protections of the Constitution and bring about tyranny to Americans similar to that of the British Crown and modern powers such as those in the Middle East, communist countries, fascist countries, and socialist countries.
To force a person to give for a purpose of, which they disagree aside from the basic functions of government as listed out specifically in the US Constitution, is entirely unethical. It is the equivalence of theft. I do not know another term that correctly describes forceful collection of wealth for the benefit of another. What would you call forcefully taking money from another person or entity? Those who support the taking of this money are nothing but common criminals using the guise of benevolence to hide their ambitions. This is not done out of compassion but instead power.
Thomas Jefferson is completely right and as the principal writer of the US Constitution he sought to ensure with the 10th Amendment and the specific delegation of powers to the federal government that this unethical practice could not be undertaken legally by national politicians. Despotism arises from the evils of dictatorships and totalitarian regimes. There is no doubt about this. But without question, despotism can also arise at the hands of governmental social welfare programs and the forced collection of wealth for the purposes of distribution to ideas that oppose your own beliefs.
Governmental sponsored social welfare is a crime against individualism, personal choice, and is the new form of despotism in America today. Government forced social welfare is a crime on the same level as theft or burglary. Those who purport to support individual liberty and personal choice cannot in good faith, by any means, support government sponsored social welfare.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.--Thomas Jefferson
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
