We differ in our starting points, our underlying premises.
Well, I certainly agree with that part of your statement.
So, let's say I go along with your view of things.
And take an example. Perhaps an outrageous sounding example, but it is made to be outrageous for a reason.
And let's say that some party(let's assume the evil Republicans) in Congress gets in majority, and they get a sympathetic Prez, and they vote to have martial law, crack down on all dissent, and essentially set up a police state and decide to take 100% of everybody's income to pay for it. And they announce it is necessary for the safety of the people, and they have party members in the public who agree, and want this level of safety. After all, there are terrorists out there, you know.
What's the difference between that, and what you're espousing?
The only difference is that you don't like that law. Nor do I.
But, it's doing exactly the same thing that you advocate, but achieving a different goal, with a larger amount of taxation.
Some people think a militarized police state would make them safer, and they don't want to "worry" about being safe.
They have a legitimate concern, and they think that's the way to handle it.
It's a "basic human need", and government can be made to provide it.
Empower gov't to do it, and tax people whatever it takes to make it happen.
That kind of security is expensive, and they have to spread the costs around.
What makes them wrong, and you right?
It can just as easily go against what you want, as for what you want.
The only difference is that in one case you agree with the oppression, because you feel that particular use of oppression of the public serves the "feel-good-ism" that you like.
And the other doesn't. But it might serve the "feel-good-ism" that some other group likes, and if they can swing it, there you have it.
No principles, just mob rule.
Ok, now let's leave that example, and look at the moral issues..
You obviously feel that it's a moral thing to do to provide people with their basic human needs. And that's laudable. And people can do that with their own money.
However, taking money from other people to give to those who don't have enough is stealing. That's not morally right.
And to claim moral high ground by saying it's civilized to provide heath payments for a certain group of people, and then turning a blind eye to the vast numbers of people that you steal from and oppress in order to do it, is hypocrisy.
If people want to give their money to charity or help people, that's magnanimous.
If somebody forces people to hand over their money, so that they can spread it around to those they think should have it, then that's theft.
And this is why we have that quaint little document that is known as the Constitution,which tells the gov't what they can and cannot do. And what taxes may be levied, and for what purposes that money can be used for.
A long list of previous infractions and abuses is NOT an authorization. It may be a precedent, but not an authorization.
Where would it end? Hence, the reason for my "universal Ferrari plan" that seemed so ludicrous in one of my previous posts.
And to bolster that illustration, I'll quote Karl Marx
"Democracy is a form of government that cannot long survive,
for as soon as the people learn that they have a voice
in the fiscal policies of the government, they will move to vote
for themselves all the money in the treasury, and bankrupt the nation."
Karl Marx
Except in our case, they are going to vote themselves into everyone's pocket that can possibly pay, and bankrupt the productive members of society. And then, since they are insatiable, they will then bankrupt the nation soon after it cannot borrow any more because there's nobody left who can pay.
And then, it becomes total tyranny, because the gov't wants to survive, and all payments will cease and "order will be maintained" militarily.
If you open that door, and it was opened long ago, mind you, then this is what you get. Any hare-brained scheme that some politicians think they can get away with, becomes law, and you're taxed to pay for it. No matter how much that tax is.
And just because you agree with this particular one, doesn't mean you'll agree with the next debacle that comes down the pike.
To quote Thomas Jefferson,
"Any gov't that is big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take away everything you have".
Remember that.