Government Wealth Redistribution

I would like to debate the moral dilemma raised by taxing as a means of wealth redistribution. This was raised in your earlier debate on abortion. I do not wish to debate that topic at all (just to be clear). You basically state that you cannot rely on the goodwill of the people to help those in need so we must use taxation to accomplish that goal. However, you state that you do not trust the goodwill of the people, so those same people should be taxed in order to guarantee their overall wellbeing. I am going to assume that what you mean is certain people should be taxed for the benefit of other people. This is a natural result of any such scheme from national health care to welfare. If, as you state, people are not inherently possessed by a goodwill toward all, then why should I think that anyone taxing me is possessed of a more beneficial will? Where is the logic in believing legislatures, elected by the people, will be possessed of some genuine moral quality so lacking at large? I would submit that the necessary qualifiers of an election are at least as likely to produce a sub par goodwill. Pardon me, but your cynicism seems to have defeated your own argument. Lets pretend otherwise. The principle reason for a lack of charity, if that is what you wish to claim, is very easy to qualify. The people are heavily taxed by their government. The government's methods of "helping" the poor, i.e. welfare, tax credits, Medicaid etc, all depend on taking money from citizens in the first place. Governments produce nothing so they must take in order to give. Thus, you are being systematically robbed to help the poor so why on earth should you donate individually to private charities (if you lack a good will). Government taxation for this explicit purpose will naturally crowd out some private charity. This brings up my next point: Even with these impediments, our country still manages to be extremely charitable. "Private donations total nearly $2.7 billion just 11 weeks after Hurricane Katrina struck, according to the Red Cross and Indiana University's Center on Philanthropy, which tracks charitable giving." http://www.usatoday.com... That alone should completely destroy the notion that people are, in general, possessed of a malevolent disposition. In addition, it is obvious that people are generous when they believe in the cause. This is true charity: giving away your own wealth for the purpose of helping another. You cannot morally claim that wealth redistribution is charitable for this reason. The government is not giving away money that it produced (as I said earlier, the government must take as it produces no wealth on its own). No, the government taxes (which is the forceful seizure of wealth) in order to accomplish this goal. Theft is theft regardless of the context. I differentiate this from public good services that must be provided by the government and which we must in turn pay for through taxation. It is one thing to produce an infrastructure I use and tax me for it and quite another to take my money and give it to someone else. Finally, your last point, "...in hard times when people need help most, wouldn't people stop donating in order to keep their own families afloat?" is a ridiculous defense of government taxation. If those families will not provide charity because of their financial situation, how does that imply taking their money would be better? Taking the money they cannot afford to give would make the situation much worse.