I go up to John Doe, because I know he is rich, and put a gun to his head. "Give me your money," I demand. John, valuing his head more than his current stash, hands over what he has and I run off. Now, what I did was wrong, wasn't it. It's stealing. It's immoral, it's illegal, I have taken something that I have not earned, that is not mine, and I would be subject to prosecution. There are few who would disagree with that.
I go over to Sam Smith and I say, "Sam, John Doe is rich. Go put a gun to his head and take his money and we'll split it." So Sam does, and he and I enjoy John's earnings. I'm still wrong, aren't I. I've again done something immoral and illegal. Even though I did not directly rob John, I remain culpable for I was an accomplice, yea, the instigator of the crime. Both Sam and I would be subject to prosecution. Again, few would object to this line of reasoning.
However, I vote for Bob O'Brien. He puts a gun to John's head (it's called the IRS). John hands over his money to Bob, and Bob gives it to me. But that's ok, isn't it. Not a thing wrong with what Bob and I did, is there....
Can anybody explain to me why what Bob and I did is acceptable, moral, honorable behavior but what Sam and I did wasn't? I still end up with something that isn't mine, John's money, something I haven't earned. Yet, voting to transfer the wealth is admissible conduct.
Why?
Folks, all thieves do is redistribute income from those who have earned it to those who have not (themselves). That's what makes stealing wrong. Whether we do it directly or indirectly.
Oh, wait a minute. I've got the answer. The Eighth Commandment says, "Thou shalt not steal, unless a majority in Congress vote you can." What a dummy I am.
"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propogation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical." Thomas Jefferson
"If the Almighty had ever made a set of men that should do all of the eating and none of the work, he would have made them with mouths only and no hands." Abraham Lincoln
