If you claim the a monopoly government is necessary to prevent the predation of the disadvantaged by the powerful, then I ask, howz that workin out for you so far?
Here's a question: let's say you could, for the rest of your life, commit 30% of your income and savings to charitable organizations of your choice, with a certain amount required to go to basic needs charities, in exchange for never paying taxes on anything ever again. Would you say yes? If that's too much, what's the maximum you'd go up to?
My maximum is zero percent. It's my money. If I am forced to be charitable, it's not really charity, is it? How much freedom would you be willing to give up for freedom? Your question makes no sense.
Billyjoeallen has the point go right over his head. Shocker.
My question is a test to see who cares about their ideals and who is just greedy. Judging by your response, it's all about the money for you, which suggests to me your odds of willfully giving anything to charity are extremely low. If that is the case, why should I believe your ridiculous "support through voluntary charity" argument. You clearly don't.
No, the point has gone over your head. Forced charity is not charity. Involuntary wealth redistribution is not efficient because the victims resist and evade. Wealth is destroyed in the process making everyone poorer. The size of the pie is just as important as the fraction of the slice. You don't seem to care about the poor and needy nearly as much as you care that I might possibly spend my money as I see fit and not as you think I should.
You spend your money your way and I spend my money my way. That's agreeing to disagree, but when you advocate theft against me, that makes you my adversary.