“I don’t care what the majority voted to do, they don’t have a right to steal my money just because they vote for it.”
Thus spoke Peter Schiff on CNBC in a debate three weeks ago on raising taxes on only the wealthy. And if time is fair, this quote will become very famous the world over for its assertive though seemingly contrary moral stance and its appeal to our common sense.
People who read that quote or heard Schiff say it will understand that social change through popular vote is democracy, and they will understand that Schiff is, in essence, speaking not only of, but against democracy.
As we grow up, we are conditioned to believe that democracy is good and just. So in Schiff’s summation of a democratic vote and then taking it to its ultimate immoral, kleptocratic conclusion, he has hopefully engaged the curiosity and jogged the brain of those liberals who glorify democracy but who nonetheless cannot help but see the common sense of his statement (owing to Schiff’s concise use of laymen terms).
“‘[A]fter the tax hikes go into effect next year…,’ said Schiff, ‘more than half of my total income is going to go to the government. You tell me, what’s fair about that when medieval serfs paid twenty-five percent, I’m paying half?…I don’t care what the majority voted to do, they don’t have a right to steal my money just because they vote for it.’”
A man’s money is his private property. How would we feel if instead of raising his taxes by an effective $100 a month (a small number only for the sake of a simple demonstration), which will ultimately be redistributed to someone else, we simply force him to allow a lower- or middle-income citizen to enter his home and take his hundred-dollar Blu-ray player, or a hundred dollars’ worth of food, or ten music CDs?
Is the man who protests to a democratic vote for his robbery of a $100 item once a month or a $1,200 item once a year any more justified in his protests than Peter Schiff, protesting against a democratic vote for his robbery of $100 a month via taxes?