In one of the shares on Facebook, I discovered this little gem:
This is a great refutation of the idea that the person holding the gun to someone’s head, and demanding that the wealth be redistributed from one person to another, is somehow morally superior to everyone else.
Charity is something that most people realize has an intrinsic moral character to it. But when the government uses coercion to redistributed from Peter to Paul, the charitable character of the transaction is utterly lost.
Peter has no choice. He must pay Paul. And without the choice, how can Peter claim he has done charitable works? And the agent who holds the gun cannot claim to be charitable either, for it is not his wealth that is being given. He is taking from someone else.
The government sucks the charity out of everything. It deprives us of the satisfaction of having helped another out of our free will. And, furthermore, the government doesn’t like us freely giving without their interference. The government wants a monopoly on this. Why else would they trumpet moral superiority while simultaneously screwing the poor?
When a BBQ event wanted to donate their leftover food, excellent first class BBQ cooking, to the poor, what did hte government do?
Similar things happen all the time. Churches are fined for allowing the homeless to sleep on church property. Soup kitchens are kicked out of parks in Miami, because the locals (mostly Democrats!) don’t like the poor hanging around the park to get a bowl of soup.
No. The only charity that is to be allowed is the kind that isn’t charity in the first place. All they want is your wealth, so they can grab a slice of the redistribution for themselves. Graft, bribes, selling off baby parts for Lamborghinis, whatever.
And the Left calls this charity. They call this helping their fellow man.
Pull the other one.