Most, if not all, political discussions hinge on the question of who should be the victim and who the beneficiary of the governments use of its power to tax, a power based upon the threat of the use of force. How can anyone advocate the use of force in any instance other than self defense? How does one endorse the use of force to compel the fair outcome of interactions among free men possessed of equal rights? It confounds me that upon asking that fundamental, moral question in supposedly polite liberal company, I am showered with personal invective and contempt. When I observe that forcibly taking money from Peter to feed Paul is unjust, the predictable rhetorical stoning that follows is based on the despicable, foul untruth that I would be pleased by, even that I might actively pursue the starvation of Paul. That position is a dispositive sign that its proponent demeans all life except his own, and he will use or abuse others lives against their will for his own ends and purposes. That is the essence of evil, and I pledge never to let it hide under the mask of merely another political point of view, a difference of opinion I must accommodate and with which I must compromise. Enough.
Posted on: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 15:29:53 +0000
Trending Topics
© 2015