I've been reading Beyond Democracy.
One point made in the book is that democracy includes the redistribution of wealth to the majority of voters. Not all voters will agree with this. (Because they're stupid.)
Some people advocate the outright redistribution of wealth, and healthcare, and so on. They say that its not fair that the rich have more and better.
This book points out that these people only make this point in the confines of modern western countries, not throughout the world.
The GDP per capita in the United States is around $48,000 (questionable source). If you make less than $48,000 and live in America, then redistributing wealth (if done honestly and fairly lol) should raise your annual income to $48,000. You'd be made better off.
If you're honest about improving the lives of the poor by redistributing wealth, then why stop at our country's borders? You should advocate redistribution, or universal healthcare, throughout the world.
The world GDP per capita (another questionable source) is around $12,000. If you make more than $12,000, then redistributing wealth (if done honestly and fairly lol) should lower your annual income to $12,000. You'd be made worse off.
If you advocate redistribution of wealth, or for universal healthcare, or similar, but do not give away all of your annual income over $12,000 to the poor of the world, then you are a hypocrite.
Even more oversimplified: Of course Warren Buffet and I should share our wealth equally. No, I don't want to share my wealth equally with the residents of Tanzania.
You hypocrites want the wealth of others for yourselves. And you're not even willing to steal it yourself. You'd rather vote for the government to take from those others by force. If they get thrown in jail or killed while resisting arrest becasue they don't want to pay, then what's it to you?
Robbers, muggers, and thieves are honorable compared to those of you who advocate redistribution of wealth or universal healthcare. At least they do the dirty work themselves.