I was driving to work yesterday morning and Fox News was on the XM. I think “The Cost of Freedom” was on when I heard Ben Stein say that universal health care was a “moral imperative.” At first, I thought he was joking, but then he went off on some class warfare rant about the rich and waiting lists for Bentleys and country clubs. I was stunned.

I don’t hear a lot from Ben Stein, but I have always heard he was more right than left. But when you combine this comment with his financial support of Al Franken’s campaign, it makes me wonder.

Let’s break down what Ben is advocating here. It sounds really good when he says that government provided health care is “a moral imperative” because the rich are rich enough and can spare another 5 percent (he actually said that). But here is what is going on in reality. It isn’t just the rich carrying a tax burden.

I go to work. I work 12 hours and I go home. For the work I contribute, I get money based on the number of hours I work and the amount I am paid per hour. That is my property. I earned it. But the government then comes in and takes a chunk of it, by force, before I ever touch it.

Let that sink in for a minute. The United States government comes into my life and takes my property without my consent. I do not turn my property over to the government willfully. They take it, by force of a gun.

When I tell that to people, generally they scoff. Then I ask them what happens if I don’t pay my taxes. I go to jail. What if I don’t want to go to jail? They make me. How? A guy with a gun shows up and takes me to jail.

Simple, I know, but that is how it breaks down.

Last year, they took everything I earned from January 1st to April 30th. That was Tax Freedom Day in 2007. After that, I actually got to keep what I earned.

The property of mine that was seized by the government was then combined with everyone else’s property, and divvied out to the various government departments. The budget that President Bush just submitted was $3,100,000,000,000 (that’s $3.1 trillion). That is a lot of property seized from the American people. Ben thinks it is “a moral imperative” that more be taken and redistributed to those who “need” it.

I know what you are thinking: The Congress is allowed to levy taxes, right? Right, it is, but I would argue that the taxes are to fund activities of the government and the only Constitutional role of the federal government is to protect the rights of its citizens from domestic threats and foreign invasion. As Paul A. Cleveland noted way back in 1994, when government-run health care was an issue:

Its primary role with respect to the economy is to punish people who use force and deceit for their own gain. History is testimony to the extent to which some individuals will inflict pain and hardship on others in order to obtain what they desire. Thus government’s primary role as an institution is to thwart this behavior by punishing the perpetrators of injustice. To that end, government uses force. Citizens are required to pay taxes to support the police function of government since society benefits from the ensuing order and peace which allow for civil relations among people.

Regrettably, this same force can be put to illegitimate ends. This occurs when the government begins to play favorites among the citizens by extending benefits to some while confiscating property or curbing the rights of others. The most obvious contemporary cases revolve around the many welfare programs established by the government. Benefits are extended to some by taxing away income from others. The costs of such benefits always exceed the costs of purchasing the benefits directly because of the bureaucratic overhead needed to administer the programs. Current health-care reform plans follow the same approach.

He is as right today as he was 14 years ago. There is no morality in taking from one to give to another.

National health-care insurance, or its mandated provision, is unjust. It is nothing more than a forced charity, which is no charity at all. In this vein we might flatter ourselves into believing that we are doing good works, but it simply is not true. True mercy is extended as a matter of voluntary choice. It is not forced. Government mandates which require some to provide for others is false philanthropy. It is fundamentally selfishness unleashed and it will thwart future prosperity. If health insurance is extended the quality of medical care will decline. The end result will be exactly the opposite of what such schemes purport to offer. Instead of provision and prosperity, pain and hardship will follow.

Instead of giving me the opportunity to honestly contribute to a charity that provides free health care, Ben would have my property taken by force for a program that will be far less efficient and cause more harm than good.

Ben’s “moral imperative” is immoral at its foundation. To take the property of one and give it to another by force is nothing less than theft, which is an immoral act. How can a “moral imperative” be moral if it is funded by immorality?

It can’t.

Related posts:

• Expect This with Universal Health Care
• McCain Democrats Will Tax Your Health Benefits
• War Money for Children’s Health Fund? Now That’s Immoral
• Dead Rats in the Operating Room? Only with Socialized Health Care
• Buy Insurance or Go Directly to Jail