Teach a man to fish and he'll eat for life - FB conversation

I posted this on FB: 

B.R.: Trick a man into thinking you care about his fish, even though the majority of your policy actions serve to take away his fish, and he'll vote Republican for life.

Me: You should know by now that I am not a repub, B.R. And by the way, the Left really does care about some else's fish, particularly if they think it's too big. Functionally speaking, the policies of the Left seem to indicate the fish belongs to them, not to the fellow who caught it.

B.R.: I'm just havin' fun with your fun. And I don't take you for a member of the Tea Party, but please correct me if I'm wrong. Also, functionally speaking, the policies of Left COULD totally be interpreted that way. However, logically speaking, their policies would indicate that it matters less who caught the fish and more how fairly the fish is distributed. I'm starting to understand how necessary it is that there are both liberal and conservative voices in the spending discussion. I'm just always going to lean toward the people and policies that care about the whole and not just themselves.

Me: There is only one version of fair. My fish, not yours. Therefore, I decide how best to use it. You have no say.

Policies do not exhibit care. They force people to do things. No policy that takes from what belongs to one and gives it to another is fair, compassionate, or just by any definition.

B.R.: Imperfect as man is, policies can be fair and compassionate.

It sounds to me like your version of fair, in your last comment, applies to things that are taken unjustly, which I do not believe tax collection to be. Taxes are a necessary and inevitable part of a market capitalism-based democracy. There is already a model that dictates who pitches in how much, and what things that collective pool is spent on. I think we have a lot of improvement to make in the fairness of who pitches in how much, and the fairness of who benefits from the spending. If you only care about destroying the tax collection system, then maybe we could talk more about destroying market capitalism. That'd be two birds with one stone.

Me: Only people can be compassionate. Inanimate objects cannot.

Tax collection is not the issue. It's what happens after the taxes are collected. If the revenue is used to operate the government, that is justified. If it is taken from one and given to another, that is theft. It's immoral and unjust to take someone's property and give it to another.

B.R.: Ok. And can you specify which government spending you consider theft? Just for my future knowledge in talks like these?

Me: "If it is taken from one and given to another, that is theft."

B.R.: Ugh, ok, clarification would help our discourse. By your general definition, I could say that Social Security is theft, but I could also say ANY tax incentive for businesses is theft. I could also say that congressional salaries are theft. Or FEMA emergency response budgets. Or USPS. Or subsidized school lunches. So where do YOU actually draw the line?

Me: SS was promulgated as a "savings" plan for which you would receive your benefits when you retire. That would not be a wealth transfer. However, it is in practice a wealth transfer (because the Trust Fund is empty), with workers paying for the benefits of retirees.

Tax incentives for business does not transfer wealth any more than any feature of the tax code would do so. You pick out this one because it's a favorite ogre of the Left. But beyond that, business taxes are passed on in the price of the product. Only individuals pay taxes, businesses do not. So in actual fact, your scenario works in reverse of what you thought it did.

Congressional salaries are constitutionally provided for. There is no transfer of wealth because no one is receiving an unearned benefit at the expense of another.

FEMA funds are wealth transfers, unless the payment was made to those who had flood insurance policies. I object to flood insurance on other grounds, however.

USPS is specifically provided for in the constitution. Also, there is no wealth transfer occurring.

Subsidized school lunches are providing an unearned benefit. Look how this is constructed. There is no possible way to evaluate the issue apart from emotional content. Starving children dressed in rags, barefoot and poor. Who could object to this kind of emotional manipulation?

My line is drawn quite simply. Any government policy which gives cash and prizes to someone who did not earn it is evil.

B.R.: Which government policies give cash and prizes to someone who did not earn it?

Me: You can answer this yourself.

B.R.: You're missing my point...I'd like to know which government policies you consider theft, so that in future conversations, I don't have to put words in your mouth or misinterpret you.

Me: No, really, I'm serious. You can grok this yourself based on my presentation. Anyone, rich or poor, who gets something without earning it is receiving the fruit of someone else's labor.

B.R.: I just think you've got a boogie man in your head. Your explanations of each program/line item I listed was very helpful, but I don't see evidence of the vast injustice you're holding onto. Are we just talking about welfare? Unemployment benefits? Either there's an elephant in the room, or a monster in the closet.

Me: I'll make it easy. Any government program you would label as compassionate most likely is a wealth transfer.

B.R.:  That certainly makes it easy for YOU! Haha...

Me: I'm not trying to be evasive. I think the best way to understand a proposition is to act on in like you believe it yourself as you research.

B.R.: Sure, and I'll try your method. I'm just saying, it IS pretty easy to automatically reject any claim of political compassion and re-label it as wealth transfer.

Me: I do reject any claim of political compassion. It's not compassion to help people with someone else's money.

B.R.: And I don't really view it as compassion, I view it as fairness. I understand that many people don't want to see their money go toward the health or benefit of others, but many of us do.

Me: No, no, no. You don't understand at all. A very few people don't want to help others. Most people do help others. Many people help a lot. NONE of this is anyone's business, let alone government's. You're not entitled to this information to determine your idea of fairness and impose it through government action.

People choose to help other people. They decide who, how much, and when to give. They decide to help and they write the check. They decide. Their choice. Government takes choice away. Government chooses for itself. And you call that fair?

B.R.: I decide with my vote and my complicity. I'm part of the government because I give and take from its programs. The government is made up of people. And again, I'm not just talking about charity, I'm talking about the socio-economic playing field as a whole.

Me: Your vote and your complicity is exactly the same as two wolves and a sheep marooned on a desert island, voting to decide what to have for dinner.

B.R.: Wait...which one's the wolf and which one's the sheep?

Me: The majority vote deciding how much to take from the minority.

B.R.: That's a little skewed. The current socio-political system fucks over the poor more than it fucks over the rich. I'm suggesting that the system can change, to be balanced more fairly.

Me: It's not poor vs rich. I didn't even mention who was rich and who was poor. You are so invested in your template that you can't see past it.

It's government vs the people.

Me: I now see that you actually do care about a man's fish, simply to determine if it's fair. If not, you seem to dell justified in taking it away. Fair to everyone, except the real owner of the fish. Fairness to him is irrelevant, of course.

B.R.: Perhaps our main impasse here is that you see government as separate from the people, and I don't think it's that black-and-white.

Me: A distinction without a difference. What is relevant is who is exerting power over whom. When government forces your choices over who gets your money, that's tyranny.

B.R: You consider government an external entity, separate from people, which exerts power to achieve its means. I consider government an interdependent system, comprised of people, which executes agreed-upon policies to achieve its means.

Me: The exertion of power, yes, you have it. A few smokey backroom deals, and ergo, a policy, used to exert power over others, with or without their consent.