Tyranny, government, and business

rabsteen:

What seems to be missing here is your account of obligation. Having all the rights that citizenship affords, comes with responsibilities. If, in redistributing wealth for example, libertarians feel disadvantaged, what sort of political obligation grounds their thinking? A liberal democrat has no problem defending the claim that as part of their responsibilities as a citizen they should be subject to a redistributive tax system.

Why am I obligated to give my money to people who haven’t earned it? Because they are in need? Because they chose not to take advantage of the wealth of opportunities available to them? Because they keep doing the things that make them poor?

This neglects the important fact that politicians are elected officials who represent them in government. The politician’s decision is the interest of the citizen realized.

But so is an individual’s own decision, and it is probably better for him than the one the government will make. Government shouldn’t have to tell me what is best for me.

Either would any politician who wanted to get re-elected. If they don’t act according to their constituents interests, they get voted out. That’s why democracy works.

I can’t disagree with that, in order to stay in office, an elected official must act what he thinks will garner the most votes from the most important places. The government continues to subsidize corn as ethanol, to the harm of the food industy, and small farmers, because the votes of those farmers being paid to waste corn on an inefficient, less effective fuel system, are extremely valuable to them. Is this in the best interest of society on the whole? I don’t think so. There are countless other examples of situations just like this.