"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
-Benjamin Franklin
If a poor person were to hold a gun to a rich person's head and take their money, was the rich man being charitable or being robbed? Obviously, he was being robbed because he did not freely part with his finances. Why then can the government take money from the rich, with the threat of imprisonment, and then redistribute that money however they see fit? Are not taxes, unless used for the good of everyone being taxed, the government's way of legalizing robbery?
The only thing that should compel a person towards charity is love. It seems that most people want to be free as long as everybody acts in the same manner as they do. If everybody is in favor of the government taking their money and redistributing it, then freedom is easy. But what do we do with the person who wants to be greedy? Are greedy people not allowed any freedom? It is the same with free speech. People want the freedom to give their opinion, but they do not want others to have the freedom to express the opposite opinion. Nevertheless, if society is to be free, it must be able to cope with the negative consequences of giving liberty to people who will, in their opinion, abuse it.
James Madison once said that "Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government." He was not being cold and uncaring. He was simply taking the responsibility of taxing citizens seriously. What if somebody entrusted their money to a financial manager with a big heart, and the manager, because he was so loving and caring, gave his client's money away to help AIDS victims in Africa? Was this manager being responsible? Not if his duty is to take care of his client's money. If the manager wants to help AIDS victims, he should start a fund raiser or take donations. He might even find that if he asks, his client might make a large donation. There is nothing wrong with charity. Charity is one of mankind's highest virtues. The problem is with how charity is sometimes defined. Taking what belongs to somebody else in order to give it to another is not charity. It does not cost politicians anything to take tax payer's dollars and give it to somebody else. It is not their money, and they are making no sacrifice. If it does not cost the giver anything then what has taken place cannot be defined as charity.
What is the purpose of taxation? Is it for wealth accumulation, or is it a tool for defense, for improved infrastructure, for public schools, and for the provision of police and fire departments? These benefits provide for an improved quality of life for everyone being taxed; however, a tax to compel charity only benefits those receiving the charity. Many times people who become wealthy never stop to consider how they went about accumulating their fortune. They assume that it is unfair that they have so much while others have so little. What they never seem to realize is that most people do not becomes financially independent by receiving charitable gifts. If they were to stop and analyze this a little, they would find that they became wealthy through their talents and hard work. Perhaps, they would then encourage these virtues rather than so called "charitable gifts" that keep others in poverty.
It is easy to give away somebody else's possessions. True charity is giving of oneself. It is the giving of one's own money, talents, and time. Taking possessions by force in order to give those possessions to somebody else is not charity. If people who want compelled charity are so concerned for the poor, for victims of abuse, and for the hurting, then why are they waiting around for the government to fix these problems? Why are they not sacrificing themselves? Why do they only want the government to rob others? This is not charity. Charity is selfless, and it is not as quick and easy as a robbery.