I have been presented with an interesting argument recently. The argument's premise is that the government can sieze your property/income in the name of national defense, to fight wars. Therefore, it is no less proper to sieze your property/income in the name of health care or bailing the nation out of a national crisis.
If you are a person who accepts this argument, I would like for you to consider some questions:
- what are rights? what is the relationship of rights to reason for the existence of government.
- what is the relationship between rights/freedom (to life, liberty, property) and your ability to pursue your happiness?
- what is the principle that prevents the government from seizing all of your earnings? is it their good will? is it that a majority would get upset? do they have a right to do it?
- can the government do anything it wishes so long as a majority of the people agree? can it choose to put people to death without due process of law? can it choose to sieze all of the belongings of a person and enslave them? if not, why not? if so, what rights do you really have?
- A war can have a clear definition. If some so-called "war" can't clearly defined with clear enemies and boundaries (i.e. War on Drugs, War on Terror), can it really be said to be a war?
- An emergency, too, can be clearly or ill defined. Who is to determine what constitutes an emergency? a majority vote? what may the government do during a properly defined emergency that it may not normally do? May fundamental rights be abridged or discarded?
What is the cure? A government limited by principles (rights). A system of objective laws (if it can't be clearly and unambiguously identified, it cannot be made law). What is this system called: http://www.capitalism.org/