SPECIFICALLY, the removal of property from one individual and the gifting of it to another for making the 'correct; decisions IS inherrently wrong. You seem to be caught up on this 'will of the people' manure anyway. That is rarely the will of anyone outside of the legislator in question. Here is how it basically works.
Property isn't taken from one person and given to another. Property is taken from one person in the form of taxation. That money is spent on all sorts of programs that benefit us individually and collectively. 'Your' money isn't given anyone. Our money is. As the money is no longer yours. Its ours. And its not spent on one program. Its spend on thousand of programs. Some you might agree with. Some you wouldn't. All enacted by duly elected representatives weilding the sovereign authority of the people they represent.
I don't consider that situation to be particularly immoral or unjust. Lets try a different scenario:
Lets say that legislator A runs for office on a platform of home ownership for families and wins. He then co-sponsors tax breaks for home owners and tax breaks for parents with children. And with his support, this legislation passes and becomes law. He is engaging in 'social engineering' by the standards you've offered. He's clearly attempting to encourage both homeownership and family through incentives. You might characterized it as 'attempting to force and control the actions of its people'.
I would disagree. He has been duly elected, ran on a platform of homeownership and family, and helped enact the policies he said he was going to enact. He's weilding the people's authority for policies that benefit the people he represents. In this case we have government acting in the interests of the common good, intent on benefiting the people. And with the tax break making both home ownership and children less expensive, helping to encourage a 'positive' outcome: more families owning homes.
I don't consider that situation to be unjust or immoral. As government is wielding the authority of the people for the benefit of the people with the consent of the people. And that's something I think government should absolutely do.
- A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury.
Elmer T. Peterson
No system of government is permanent. The laws of thermodynamics alone mandate that any system eventually break down. Given that our system of government has survived for centuries and is one of the longest lived governments currently standing, we're clearly doing something right.
? Do you understand the concept of freedom? The government is an expression of force. If that force comes and takes from us but promises to return some if we make the 'right' choice that is, by its very definition, coercion.
No it isn't. As you don't have to buy a home in the above scenario. Its simply less expensive for you if you choose to. You don't have to have kids in the above scenario. But its less expensive if you choose to. Better yet,
a solid majority want to do both. People generally aren't being 'coerced' into home purchases. They aren't being 'coerced' into starting families
. These are activities they actively pursue. These are life goals. Both of which help benefit the individual , their family, their children, and society at large.
With their government, wielding their authority, elected by them, acting in their interests , enacting policies that benefit them and society.
That's what government is supposed to do. And there's nothing immoral or unjust about it.
You can reject away but the idea that the will of the people can essentially control your decisions but you are still completely 'free' is rather silly.
You don't have to have kids. 1 in 4 people don't. You don't have to purchase a home. 1 in 3 never do. Your actions aren't 'essentially controlled'. The policies that the majority supports, enacted by their representatives, are simply easier and less expensive. If the government invests in say, hydro electric power....electricity is cheaper and easier. If the government invests in roads......transportation is cheaper and easier. If they government invests in say, education......education is cheaper and easier.
And none of this inherently 'immoral' or 'unjust'. This is how a constitutional republic works and should work. Where the priorities of the government are shaped by the will of the people, weilding the people's authority on behalf of the people, for the benefit of society and the individual.
AKA....the common good.
The idea that the entirety of government spending has to be a tabula rossa that can never reflect the will and priorities of the people or its completely contrary to freedom....is blithering nonsense. The government is *supposed* to reflect the will and priorities of the people. And on an individual level, no one is every going to agree with every expenditure. That's just the nature of compromise.
