Accepting Government Funds

Ethics
21

E. Mathis:

I’ve cleared up my thinking on this a bit and it seems to me that the nature of the unemployment insurance programs that are funded by FUTA and SUTA is an important factor to consider when deciding whether taking money from them is moral. As with any form of insurance, you may never use it, or you may find it necessary to draw out benefits that exceed the premiums you’ve paid.

In many ways unemployment insurance is analogous to auto insurance in my state. We have a no-fault insurance program and the State of Michigan requires everyone to purchase auto insurance. You risk going to jail if you are caught driving without insurance. The state government also skims part of the premium off the top and puts it into a fund specifically designed to pay for people who suffer catastrophic injuries in auto accidents. Given that the government forces me to pay the auto insurance premiums (the same way it forces me to pay for unemployment insurance), would it be morally wrong to accept money from the insurance company if I were in a car crash? If I received horrible injuries in the crash, would it be morally wrong to accept compensation from the state sponsored and controlled catastrophic accident fund? I think the answer to both of these questions is no.

22

In many ways unemployment insurance is analogous to auto insurance in my state.  We have a no-fault insurance program and the State of Michigan requires everyone to purchase auto insurance.  You risk going to jail if you are caught driving without insurance.  The state government also skims part of the premium off the top and puts it into a fund specifically designed to pay for people who suffer catastrophic injuries in auto accidents.  Given that the government forces me to pay the auto insurance premiums (the same way it forces me to pay for unemployment insurance), would it be morally wrong to accept money from the insurance company if I were in a car crash?  If I received horrible injuries in the crash, would it be morally wrong to accept compensation from the state sponsored and controlled catastrophic accident fund?  I think the answer to both of these questions is no.

I have not taken the position that it is immoral to accept funds from the government under any circumstances. My only point here is to question why receiving a government handout can be legitimate in one case but not in the other. I have shown that the unemployment tax is ultimately a coercive wealth redistribution scheme, no different in principle than taxing the population to provide income for artists. On the other hand, there are some important distinctions to be made between unemployment insurance and auto insurance. First of all, the auto policyholder makes a contract with a private sector agency. Yes, states do force drivers to carry insurance, but no state forces anyone to go into the insurance business. Auto insurance premiums are based on one’s driving record. Unlike the worker who frequently loses his job but pays the same FUTA rate as everybody else, poor drivers pay rates many times those of good drivers – and some are not able to find anyone to insure them at any rate. So it is far from clear that auto insurance constitutes a form of socialistic wealth transfer.

But let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that auto insurance is just as coercive and unjust as unemployment insurance. We still have not arrived at a reason why a victim of past government taxation should not avail himself of a government subsidy. If the principle is that one should be able to take out what he has put in, then there is nothing that can be said against the subsidized artist or baseball team owner.

23

“In TVOR, Rand wrote: “The recipient of a public scholarship is morally justified only so long as he regards it as restitution and opposes all forms of welfare statism”.”

In other words then, it’s the state of mind that determines whether or not this act is morally justified. Objectively, of course, there is no difference between a parasite taking public money or an Objectivist taking public money

One unavoidable result of a mixed economy is that people are forced into conflicts with each other. A manufacturer is forced to pay a higher-than-market price for goods bought and sometimes forced to sell at a higher-than-market price to his customers. People in one county are forced to subsidize a highway passing through another county. People in one city are forced to subsidize schools in another city.

The difference between the Objectivist and the bum is that the Objectivist does not want the system and even fights against it to the best of his ability. Even though in one particular instance an Objectivist may appear like the beneficiary, when one looks at his entire life, it is completely the opposite. The Objectivist is not a moocher.

There is a broader point to be made here. When Ayn Rand says that “he regards it as restitution”, she is not talking only about a “state of mind”. If one truly regards this as resitution, that implies that your life, and your actions demonstrate it … in other words, you are not a bum. The bum is the reason Social Security exists in the first place: he is the problem, and the Objectivist is the solution.

24

The difference between the Objectivist and the bum is that the Objectivist does not want the system and even fights against it to the best of his ability. Even though in one particular instance an Objectivist may appear like the beneficiary, when one looks at his entire life, it is completely the opposite. The Objectivist is not a moocher.

I see. The Objectivist is morally justified in taking government benefits because he “does not want the system and even fights against it to the best of his ability.” I’m wondering: what degree of fighting the system earns one a share of government benefits? Would my vote for a tax-cut-promising Republican candidate entitle me to a federal farm subsidy? Or would I have to work harder for it by, say, putting up an Objectivist web site, or sending free copies of Atlas Shrugged to my neighbors, or picketing the UN?

25

I have not taken the position that it is immoral to accept funds from the government under any circumstances.  My only point here is to question why receiving a government handout can be legitimate in one case but not in the other.  I have shown that the unemployment tax is ultimately a coercive wealth redistribution scheme, no different in principle than taxing the population to provide income for artists.

Yes, the unemployment tax is ultimately a wealth redistribution scheme. However, it is also different from general taxation in that it is essentially an insurance premium (or a user fee) paid to participate in the unemployment insurance system. Is it taken at the point of a gun? Sure it is. However, one pays the premium to receive a specific benefit in the event of a specific occurrence (the loss of employment). If you don’t work and pay a dedicated tax that funds the unemployment insurance system, you can’t collect unemployment benefits. Also, if you’re self-employed, you still pay income tax but likely do not pay the unemployment tax. In that case you can’t receive unemployment benefits. We’re talking about a specific system set up for employed persons who pay a specific tax to support certain benefits, not a general tax being used for whatever the politicians choose.

Nevertheless, I suppose that in some ways taking these benefits is only different from looting the general tax fund (through NEA grants and Stadium Subsidies) by a matter of degree and not principal. However, the issue of the degree of evil is important here. This gets back to a point I made earlier, which is that with the size and scope of our current government, one could hardly step outside and drive down the street without being the beneficiary of a government wealth distribution scheme. Are we all tainted by the current system of taxation and wealth redistribution? Hell yes, it’s impossible to not be tainted.

On the other hand, there are some important distinctions to be made between unemployment insurance and auto insurance.  First of all, the auto policyholder makes a contract with a private sector agency.  Yes, states do force drivers to carry insurance, but no state forces anyone to go into the insurance business.  Auto insurance premiums are based on one’s driving record.  Unlike the worker who frequently loses his job but pays the same FUTA rate as everybody else, poor drivers pay rates many times those of good drivers – and some are not able to find anyone to insure them at any rate. So it is far from clear that auto insurance constitutes a form of socialistic wealth transfer. 

The distinctions may not be that great. Of course nobody is forced to go into the auto insurance business. However, we are forced to pay auto premiums if we drive, the same way we are forced to pay unemployment insurance premiums if we work. Also, the insurance business is heavily regulated in most states. In Michigan, there are all sorts of controls on the companies operating in our market. This isn’t an important point, but I believe that the ins. companies are forced to offer minimum policies at regulated premiums to every driver. So your point that the premium is based on your driving record is true only to a degree. Bad drivers who couldn’t get any policy in an unregulated market are able to get minimum policies in Michigan. Although the coverage on these minimum policies is bad, the effect is still the same. The good drivers are subsidizing the bad the same way people who lose their jobs often are subsidizing those of us who remain employed.

But let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that auto insurance is just as coercive and unjust as unemployment insurance.  We still have not arrived at a reason why a victim of past government taxation should not avail himself of a government subsidy.  If the principle is that one should be able to take out what he has put in, then there is nothing that can be said against the subsidized artist or baseball team owner.

Again I come back to the fact that we’re all tainted by the current system, so it really does become something of a matter of degree. In the case of unemployment, I’m taking money from a system that is admittedly redistributionist, however, I also paid directly for those benefits. By my calculations, the NEA receives approximately .005% of the total amount of the current $2.7 trillion federal budget. Therefore, an artist paying $50,000 per year (which would be a lot for an artist) in Federal Income Tax would have paid all of about $2.50 toward the NEA’s budget. If the artist pays taxes for the next 10,000 years, he’ll have contributed enough into the system to take out a $25,000 NEA grant.

This clearly isn’t a principled argument that I’m making, but it is a practical one in a system where we’ve turned everyone into a thief.

26

Yes, the unemployment tax is ultimately a wealth redistribution scheme.  However, it is also different from general taxation in that it is essentially an insurance premium (or a user fee) paid to participate in the unemployment insurance system.  Is it taken at the point of a gun?  Sure it is.  However, one pays the premium to receive a specific benefit in the event of a specific occurrence (the loss of employment).  If you don’t work and pay a dedicated tax that funds the unemployment insurance system, you can’t collect unemployment benefits.  Also, if you’re self-employed, you still pay income tax but likely do not pay the unemployment tax.  In that case you can’t receive unemployment benefits.  We’re talking about a specific system set up for employed persons who pay a specific tax to support certain benefits, not a general tax being used for whatever the politicians choose.

But if the “premiums” for the unemployment fund are coerced, then it does not matter whether we call it “insurance” or “looters’ plunder.” As long as there is one person who does not wish to pay the FUTA tax, then anyone who receives pay-outs from the fund is a recipient of stolen funds. The fact that recipients are far more likely to be chronically less employable than non-recipients simply underlines the basic injustice of the transfer.

Nevertheless, I suppose that in some ways taking these benefits is only different from looting the general tax fund (through NEA grants and Stadium Subsidies) by a matter of degree and not principal.  However, the issue of the degree of evil is important here.  This gets back to a point I made earlier, which is that with the size and scope of our current government, one could hardly step outside and drive down the street without being the beneficiary of a government wealth distribution scheme.

Except that land owners and their guests have “right of way” access to their property, and that in virtually every present case they have no power to choose an avenue to their land except by roads paved by the government. Thus government-maintained roads are an unavoidable “public good,” no different than the classical music that drifts into my home from a “free” concert in a city park.

Are we all tainted by the current system of taxation and wealth redistribution?  Hell yes, it’s impossible to not be tainted.

But what conclusion do we draw from this? If we are all tainted, isn’t it legitimate for the ball club owner to get a tax-subsidized stadium?

Again I come back to the fact that we’re all tainted by the current system, so it really does become something of a matter of degree.  In the case of unemployment, I’m taking money from a system that is admittedly redistributionist, however, I also paid directly for those benefits.  By my calculations, the NEA receives approximately .005% of the total amount of the current $2.7 trillion federal budget.  Therefore, an artist paying $50,000 per year (which would be a lot for an artist) in Federal Income Tax would have paid all of about $2.50 toward the NEA’s budget.  If the artist pays taxes for the next 10,000 years, he’ll have contributed enough into the system to take out a $25,000 NEA grant.

Of what significance is this? The argument we have been examining on this thread is that one is morally entitled to get back what has been coerced from him. Why should it matter what percentage of total revenues collected ends up as subsidies to artists? If an artist has contributed $100,000 in taxes over the past ten years, should he have to file for a farm subsidy since the Department of Agriculture consumes a bigger slice of the budget than the NEA?

27

But if the “premiums” for the unemployment fund are coerced, then it does not matter whether we call it “insurance” or “looters’ plunder.” As long as there is one person who does not wish to pay the FUTA tax, then anyone who receives pay-outs from the fund is a recipient of stolen funds.  The fact that recipients are far more likely to be chronically less employable than non-recipients simply underlines the basic injustice of the transfer. 

I don’t argue that the unemployment tax is a just tax or that it doesn’t redistribute income. However, it seems to be slightly more just than many of the other taxes we are forced to pay. At least this tax is put into a special fund that pays benefits only to those who have actually paid for unemployment insurance.

Since government funds in general are coerced, then anyone who receives government money is the recipient of stolen funds? If that’s the case, then in a welfare state like the current one, there isn’t an innocent person in America.

Except that land owners and their guests have “right of way” access to their property, and that in virtually every present case they have no power to choose an avenue to their land except by roads paved by the government.  Thus government-maintained roads are an unavoidable “public good,” no different than the classical music that drifts into my home from a “free” concert in a city park.

But what conclusion do we draw from this?  If we are all tainted, isn’t it legitimate for the ball club owner to get a tax-subsidized stadium?

Forget the road and sidewalk example. If you go to the grocery store and buy milk, you’re the beneficiary of a government subsidy provided through the use of coerced funds. If you use a cell phone, you are the beneficiary of technology originally developed by the government using coerced funds. The examples are almost endless. Again, I see it as a matter of degree. We’re all made guilty by this welfare state, some of us more than others.

Of what significance is this?  The argument we have been examining on this thread is that one is morally entitled to get back what has been coerced from him.  Why should it matter what percentage of total revenues collected ends up as subsidies to artists?  If an artist has contributed $100,000 in taxes over the past ten years, should he have to file for a farm subsidy since the Department of Agriculture consumes a bigger slice of the budget than the NEA?

I was simply pointing out that the artist who has paid taxes for years and uses this as justification for obtaining a grant, has actually paid very little toward funding the NEA.

28

If it were possible for me to fraudulently claim welfare without a significant chance of being caught then I would do so with no hesitation, so no, I dont have a problem with people claiming it legitamately so long as they dont use it in order to live unproductive lives.

29

I gather from this that you regard receiving welfare as a legitimate way of getting back money taken from you through taxation.  If so, would it also be legitimate for a businessman to get money back by receiving a government subsidy in the form of a tax-supported stadium?  How about a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts?

I dont think that you can fault people for accepting these under the present circumstances, although there are reasons for not doing so (eg the knowledge that you probably only succeded as a result of the grant, and the fact that you have got an ‘unfair’ advantage over your competitors may lead you to bitterness and jealousy of them, especially if they are ‘beating’ you). Whether or not I would accept/apply for one personally would be highly context-dependent.

It’s an interesting question though, I hadnt thought about it in those terms before.

30

Actually now I think about it, doesnt accepting most subsidies create obligations towards the state? If someone accepts welfare then thats pretty much it - they take the cheque and go spend it. But if you were to accept a grant, doesnt that give the state some ‘control’ over your business that they wouldnt otherwise have had? Similarly for the artist - dont grants only get given to artists who are prepared to do certain types of work?

If so, then this would be a very significant difference between the two cases.

31

… Since government funds in general are coerced, then anyone who receives government money is the recipient of stolen funds?  If that’s the case, then in a welfare state like the current one, there isn’t an innocent person in America.

… Again, I see it as a matter of degree. 

It is a matter of degree as well. But also this…

There is a crucial moral difference between an artist (Mr. X) who cheers the NEA, supports its establishment, wants to increase its funding, etc. and a second (Mr. Y) who does not want the funds to be government-dispersed, tries to have the NEA scrapped, etc. but takes its funds because he judges it as the only way to counter the advantage delivered to Mr. X. The difference is not simply a state of mind. If everyone was like Mr. X, the NEA would be all powerful; if like Mr. Y, there would be no NEA.

I’m using the NEA example merely to indicate how to judge the people morally. I do not imply that this particular concrete (i.e. taking money from the NEA) is a moral one. In this particular case, my understanding is that artists have a lot of opportunities outside the framework of the NEA; also, in this case, one good artist using the NEA might be supporting its cause more than hurting it. On the other hand, if the context was one in which the NEA controlled most art then the situation would be like that of a scientist in a particular field who finds that all the labs in that field are government funded.

Now, reconsider the unemployment compensation case. One person pays 15% of his income in tax, another pays 20%. One person gets money back from the government because it deems he earned too little in that year. One person gets a credit because he has a child. Now, suppose someone were to get a credit from being unemployed – it is no different from the other cases. The unfairness is inherent in the system. It cannot be fair. Part of the benefit to the statists is that we all feel like undeserving bums.

In summary, the fact that a person claims unemployment from the government is insufficient information to make a moral judgement about that person. I would have to know more to figure if this is a moral man or an undeserving bum.

32

I don’t argue that the unemployment tax is a just tax or that it doesn’t redistribute income.  However, it seems to be slightly more just than many of the other taxes we are forced to pay.  At least this tax is put into a special fund that pays benefits only to those who have actually paid for unemployment insurance.

It doesn’t follow from the fact that the government declares something to be “insurance” that receiving benefits from the fund is moral. We could call food stamps a form of insurance; but naming it such does not legitimize it.

Since government funds in general are coerced, then anyone who receives government money is the recipient of stolen funds?  If that’s the case, then in a welfare state like the current one, there isn’t an innocent person in America.

There are those who are net tax producers and those that are net tax consumers. I regard the latter class as recipients of stolen funds.

Forget the road and sidewalk example.  If you go to the grocery store and buy milk, you’re the beneficiary of a government subsidy provided through the use of coerced funds.  If you use a cell phone, you are the beneficiary of technology originally developed by the government using coerced funds.  The examples are almost endless.  Again, I see it as a matter of degree.  We’re all made guilty by this welfare state, some of us more than others.

I agree that it is unfair for me to benefit from cheap milk that I have subsidized through taxation. I will make it a point to put back into my pocket any savings I have realized through my involuntary support of farm subsidies. If cell phones have been created through government technology, I will seek out any cell phone manufacturer who evades paying patent royalties. I’ll try to pick up one on my next trip to Hong Kong.

I was simply pointing out that the artist who has paid taxes for years and uses this as justification for obtaining a grant, has actually paid very little toward funding the NEA.

If the NEA collected its own taxes separate from the rest of the federal apparatus, this might be a valid point. However, since the NEA is financed from one big pile of tax loot, collected mostly by IRS brigands, it seems to me perfectly reasonable to say that if one is taking from the NEA, one is ultimately taking from the big pile of loot that one’s income tax went into.

33

It is a matter of degree as well. But also this…

There is a crucial moral difference between an artist (Mr. X) who cheers the NEA, supports its establishment, wants to increase its funding, etc. and a second (Mr. Y) who does not want the funds to be government-dispersed, tries to have the NEA scrapped, etc.  but takes its funds because he judges it as the only way to counter the advantage delivered to Mr. X. The difference is not simply a state of mind. If everyone was like Mr. X, the NEA would be all powerful; if like Mr. Y, there would be no NEA.

I agree that in terms of morality, the difference you point out is important.

34

It doesn’t follow from the fact that the government declares something to be “insurance” that receiving benefits from the fund is moral.  We could call food stamps a form of insurance; but naming it such does not legitimize it.

You don’t pay a food stamp tax, but you do pay an unemployment tax for that specific benefit.

There are those who are net tax producers and those that are net tax consumers.  I regard the latter class as recipients of stolen funds.

Given that the top 10% of wage earners pay about 65% of all Federal Income Taxes, then the vast majority of Americans are recipients of stolen funds. The politicians want it that way.

I agree that it is unfair for me to benefit from cheap milk that I have subsidized through taxation.  I will make it a point to put back into my pocket any savings I have realized through my involuntary support of farm subsidies.  If cell phones have been created through government technology, I will seek out any cell phone manufacturer who evades paying patent royalties.  I’ll try to pick up one on my next trip to Hong Kong. 

You can just send the money directly to me. I’ll make sure it gets to the correct parties.

If the NEA collected its own taxes separate from the rest of the federal apparatus, this might be a valid point. However, since the NEA is financed from one big pile of tax loot, collected mostly by IRS brigands, it seems to me perfectly reasonable to say that if one is taking from the NEA, one is ultimately taking from the big pile of loot that one’s income tax went into.

Perhaps, but if one is taking from the NEA or getting a stadium subsidy, one is also giving the thieving politicians an excuse to perpetuate their game. They can point to all of the money given away in the form of NEA grants and stadium subsidies and say “See how we fullfilled the tremendous need for NEA grants and stadium subsidies.” “There is such a strong demand for these programs, they must be continued and even expanded.” “Of course we’ll need to raise taxes to pay for these very important programs…”

35

It is a matter of degree as well. But also this…

There is a crucial moral difference between an artist (Mr. X) who cheers the NEA, supports its establishment, wants to increase its funding, etc. and a second (Mr. Y) who does not want the funds to be government-dispersed, tries to have the NEA scrapped, etc.  but takes its funds because he judges it as the only way to counter the advantage delivered to Mr. X. The difference is not simply a state of mind. If everyone was like Mr. X, the NEA would be all powerful; if like Mr. Y, there would be no NEA.

So what makes NEA Recipient Y morally different from NEA Recipient X is that Y

  1. “does not want the funds to be government-dispersed” and

  2. “tries to have the NEA scrapped, etc.”

Regarding 1), we can only guess what a person really wants. As to 2), just what constitutes trying to get the NEA scrapped? What does Y have to do in order to be morally qualified to accept NEA funds? Does he have to organize a national campaign? Visit lawmakers in DC? Write a letter to the NY Times? Or just mention his outrage to friends and relatives?

36

Two points:

(1) I would question whether Eric thinks that it would be immoral for those in socialist societies, where private property is completely abolished, to accept whatever rations are due to them. The tragic part of socialism and welfare statism is that people are forced to cannibalistically feed off of each other. The key word there is “forced”; accepting a welfare check isn’t theft any more than it would be murder for a death camp inmate to kill a fellow inmate under the orders of the camp guards. They need to feed off of each other as a matter of survival.

(2) Even if you managed to get back all the money you payed in taxes, you wouldn’t truly be making up for the wealth the government stole from you. There is an uncalculable mountain of wealth that disappears as a result of government regulation and the perversions of supply and demand resulting from subsidies and price controls, not to mention the destruction of the most precious resource of all: the human mind, which is systematically dumbed-down by progressive education in public schools. A check for a million dollars per person couldn’t make up for this crime.

In sum, it is moral to accept government handouts, under the two conditions explained above: (1) You must truly need the handouts as a matter of survival (corporate welfare is ruled out here because companies don’t need it), and (2) your need must be the result of the government (which is possible even if you don’t pay any taxes, but may not be the case if you are just lazy). If the first condition isn’t met, the government didn’t “force” you to accept the handout because you didn’t need it; if the second condition isn’t met, it wasn’t the government that made you need the handout, it was your own laziness.

37

Two points:

(1) I would question whether Eric thinks that it would be immoral for those in socialist societies, where private property is completely abolished, to accept whatever rations are due to them. The tragic part of socialism and welfare statism is that people are forced to cannibalistically feed off of each other. The key word there is “forced”; accepting a welfare check isn’t theft any more than it would be murder for a death camp inmate to kill a fellow inmate under the orders of the camp guards. They need to feed off of each other as a matter of survival.

In this thread we’ve been dealing specifically with the idea of whether it is moral to take back what one has been forced to put in. Please note that I’ve never taken the position that it is always immoral to accept a benefit from the government. My goal has been to clarify under what circumstances one may morally accept a government benefit.

(2) Even if you managed to get back all the money you payed in taxes, you wouldn’t truly be making up for the wealth the government stole from you. There is an uncalculable mountain of wealth that disappears as a result of government regulation and the perversions of supply and demand resulting from subsidies and price controls, not to mention the destruction of the most precious resource of all: the human mind, which is systematically dumbed-down by progressive education in public schools. A check for a million dollars per person couldn’t make up for this crime.

So do we conclude from this that each person who has been victimized by government theft may take more than the precise dollar amount that has been seized from him? If so, what extra percentage am I entitled to?

In sum, it is moral to accept government handouts, under the two conditions explained above: (1) You must truly need the handouts as a matter of survival (corporate welfare is ruled out here because companies don’t need it), and (2) your need must be the result of the government (which is possible even if you don’t pay any taxes, but may not be the case if you are just lazy). If the first condition isn’t met, the government didn’t “force” you to accept the handout because you didn’t need it; if the second condition isn’t met, it wasn’t the government that made you need the handout, it was your own laziness.

Therefore, those who truly need food stamps (as, say, a result of the government interfering in the economy and preventing us from enjoying rapidly expanding productivity) are entitled to food stamps (as long the recipient is not lazy).

If both conditions are met, does it mean that Objectivists are in favor of food stamps? Would Objectivists have a preference on who should finance these food stamps?

38

Please note that I’ve never taken the position that it is always immoral to accept a benefit from the government. My goal has been to clarify under what circumstances one may morally accept a government benefit.

What are those circumstances, in your view?

So do we conclude from this that each person who has been victimized by government theft may take more than the precise dollar amount that has been seized from him? If so, what extra percentage am I entitled to?

<snip>

Therefore, those who truly need food stamps (as, say, a result of the government interfering in the economy and preventing us from enjoying rapidly expanding productivity) are entitled to food stamps (as long the recipient is not lazy).

If both conditions are met, does it mean that Objectivists are in favor of food stamps? Would Objectivists have a preference on who should finance these food stamps?

My bold. I never said you are entitled to government money - only that it would be moral to accept it when the government forces circumstances where life is impossible without accepting it.

39

In sum, it is moral to accept government handouts, under the two conditions explained above: (1) You must truly need the handouts as a matter of survival (corporate welfare is ruled out here because companies don’t need it)

I don’t see how need can be a condition, at least in the way you put it in (1). Those who have had the most stolen from them would likely not need a handout for survival. There’s also a case which could be made for a company to accept government money. The most successful companies are often the ones most leeched off of. (unless their success is the result of coercion) If a government steals a company’s property (Brazil and health care for example) and income (through taxation) should that company refuse a tax break for building a new factory in a certain area?

One more question concerning the idea of taking back what’s rightfully yours. What about future earnings and future government theft? If a 19 year old accepts government funds for school they will not have lost as much as a similar 45 year old. (taxed for years) Yet isn’t it likely that they will be looted in the future and they may not have another chance to retrieve their funds? There are exceptions of course, but what about a person living morally with no reason to think that will change?

40

What are those circumstances, in your view?

That is what I’m trying to find out. Earlier in the thread someone made the claim that it is moral for one to take out what he has put in. Ever since that claim was made, I’ve been attempting to concretize just what benefits one could legitimately accept from the government.

My bold. I never said you are entitled to government money - only that it would be moral to accept it when the government forces circumstances where life is impossible without accepting it.

“Entitle” means to furnish with a right or title to something. Why should we say that a person may take something that he has no right to? Or to put it another way, if someone is not entitled to something, why should he be allowed to keep it?