George Ought to Help
Imagine you have a friend called George. You've been friends since childhood. Although you're not as close as you were back then, you still see each other once in a while and get along very well. One day, you and George are approached by an old mutual friend, Oliver.
Oliver explains that he's had a run of bad luck and is raising money to cover tuition fees for his kids. You want to help Oliver out, so you give him some money. To your surprise, George doesn't offer Oliver any help. You try to persuade him, but it's no use.
Imagining yourself in this situation, do you think it's okay to threaten to use physical force against George to get him to do the right thing?
Now, imagine a slightly different situation. This time, a group of your friends take a vote. Six out of ten are in favor of threatening George to get him to help Oliver. Does this democratic process make it okay to threaten George?
One large change to the situation: This time, imagine that many thousands of people have democratically agreed that a group, who we'll call the agents, should do whatever is necessary to take money from George and give it to Oliver's family. The agents don't explicitly threaten George at first; all they do is send him a bill like everyone else.
Though George knows what will happen if he doesn't pay the bill. First, he'll get more letters demanding payment, and the bill will get bigger. Eventually, if he still doesn't pay, agents with guns will break into his house and take him away against his will. Almost everyone pays the bills without protest. They know the agents are prepared to use as much force as necessary to overpower him if he resists.
Do you think it's acceptable for the agents to threaten violence against George if he doesn't give his money towards helping Oliver's family? If we approve of state programs that redistribute wealth, we must also approve of threats of violence made against peaceful individuals, because this is how the funds are collected.
On the other hand, most of us feel uncomfortable about threatening peaceful people when we imagine having to make the threats ourselves. If we feel negatively towards the idea of threatening George personally, can we really be comfortable with the threats made against him by agents of the state?
Some people believe that voluntary interaction and spontaneous order are realistic and preferable alternatives to state coercion as a way of organizing society. Do a web search for some of these terms if you're interested in learning more.