You seem to believe that these choices, or preferences, apply to everyone. Upon closer inspection, however, your divisions between what is properly the function of government and what is not appear nothing more than personal and arbitrary.
An individual could conceivably argue that he has no need of government military defense because his home is a fortress and he also has a private army armed with the latest weaponry. Why should he be responsible for paying for the protection of everybody else's security and the territorial integrity of the nation in which he lives? That's Collectivism I say! Bad! Bad!
There are at least two issues here. The first is the fact that according to the document quoted below I have give tacit approval for the collective to protect me. "Provide for the common defence." While the United States Constitution may seem like an arbitrarily conceived document to you that statement is mere rhetorical legerdemain. The same is true of the local constabulary which is written into our city charter.
Please show me the provisions in the Constitution of the United States or our City Charter which gives either government the right to take my money by means of taxes and redistribute it to those who need food, clothing, shelter, or health care.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Your example of a person's private army or defense is an error in logic. As they say, "Hard cases make bad law." It is really an example of the fallacy of secundum quid. You want to make all taxes theft because taxes that are approved by the legislature without a provision in the Constitution, i.e. welfare, health care, etc ad nauseum ad infinitum, the same as taxes with provisions in the Constitution.
So sorry, it doesn't wash.
There have been a plethora of logical fallacies committed during this argument but none are convincing to those with a few critical thinking skills or ability to reason.
We started out with argumentum ad misericordiam (appeal to pity) because the poor helpless souls were elderly and children who were starving. Then we moved swiftly in the same breath to the classic argumentum ad hominem painting those who would disagree with the premise as heartless and cruel. Proceeded to argumentum ad populum (appeal to popular opinion) because everybody knows that we "ought to" feed those who are starving (even if it means stealing from someone else). We even managed to dredge up a fallacy of equivocation and try to redefine what theft was by calling withholding food which is rightfully ours theft if not given to another.
At the end of the day our case is still clear for those capable of reason. Valid logical arguments that constitute proofs or disproofs are intellectually convincing. Rhetorical arguments, if effective, are persuasive, emotionally or intellectually, but never convincing.
Unlike some of the respondents here I do not banter for long with those who cannot understand the premises involved or the reason used to arrive at the proper conclusion. Therefore I have posted my last post in this thread on this argument.
Good day.
|