“Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” That implies our government can’t kill me without reason, can’t restrict me without reason, and must allow me the opportunity to try and better my station in life, whether that’s economically, socially, or otherwise. The entire idea of redistribution of wealth works to serve people who expect to be taken care of, not encouraged to take care of themselves. And if a free society is being punished for being sucessful, the incentive to excel is lost. Who will take care of everyone when everyone is sitting around waiting to be taken care of? It doesn’t work. There are always extenuating circumstances, and in those instances, exceptions can and should be made, but these shouldn’t be the rules to spare the feelings of the few for accepting charity; everyone needs a little help now and again.

They say Heaven helps those who help themselves, but if no one is helping themselves, then Heaven help us.

And well, I totally agree on the forcing = tyranny part. I’ve seen similar ideas on freedomainradio.com. Do you know that website? While there’s a lot I don’t agree with there, they have a point when it comes to many personal liberty issues.

May I ask btw, are you totally against any form of forced taxing (also for things like the justice and police system of an area for ex.) or not? I don’t know what the exact situation is like in the U.S., and especially in Florida which I read has lower taxes, but there must be some major differences with the situation in my country. If you already dislike all this taxing in the U.S., you’re probably not ever going to want to live and work in terrible ‘communist’ western Europe.

Umm lastly I wanted to clarify what I said with regard to the health care system where I live, in case that makes any difference for your understanding: we don’t pay the government itself, we just individually pay a free-market insurance company, but we *are* forced by the government to do so and pay for basic health care. The cheapest insurances are 85-90 bucks a month. People with lower incomes are partially compensated for the costs, of course with tax money largely collected from higher income groups…

It would of course be better to have a shared, voluntary-based system for health care costs that also takes care of the poor somehow… Do such cooperations (they could be church-based for example) exist in the U.S. as far as you know? If they do and do a good job at leveling basic health care access for affordable average insurance fees, maybe those are the sort of systems to go for.

The point I was trying to bring across was this: I have heard people that I personally know have the means to care for another family member, but they would rather EVERYONE else pay out of their own pocket rather than cover all of it alone. This implies that, even though they could charitiably take responsibility, they would rather FORCE everyone else to share in the burden.

This was often spoken in the same sentence as “I don’t care if health care has less quality, only if there is enough to go around.” While it seems a bit extreme, but if a cure costs $100,000 but we could only afford $1000 per person, NO ONE GETS CURED unless we pick an choose. Otherwise, it isn’t “fair,” right?

If you choose to take money you have and give it to the needy, it’s called charity. If your government tells you that you must give it to the needy, it’s called tyranny. Worse of all, even it the government tells you that this is what they’re taking it for, there’s no guarantee on how they will actually spend it.