Who says you have a right to medical care/food/other social benefit?  And who gets to decide what is a "surplus"?

As I said, true "rights" don't require the usurping of another's "rights".  What you're speaking of are "entitlements".  Forcibly taking from one to give to another.  That is nothing less than the "ends justify the means" argument, and that has been the argument of tyrants throughout history.


The thing that strikes me as most significant about all socialist types in developed countries is that they are utter hypocrites.  Their are plenty of people in this world poorer than they are; and by the socialist way of thinking, those poor have a "right" to all the first-world socialists "surplus".  And yet somehow they haven't downsized their house, they still drive around in expensive cars, they still find time and money to have children, buy computers and broadband services, and bitch about rich people on the Internet.  They claim to believe in socialism, and yet they have failed to buy communal property, have failed to open communal bank accounts, and have failed to pay all their "surplus" to the tax office (who will happily accept over and above the required proportion).

My political views might be abhorrent to you, but at least they are self-consistent.

If I were left the 50% of my income that is forcibly taken from me and my wife each year, I could purchase all the services supposedly provided to me for the government, more efficiently and better than they are now.  I would also be in a considerably better position to direct my excess income to more charitable purposes, with those charities doing far better work because they would have to compete for my money.

Perhaps this is all a fantasy, but given the abject failure of the current socialist methodology, what possible argument is their against giving it a try?