It’s really interesting that when people make arguments how so many make statements that are full of implications, subtexts, and assumptions that they don’t even know that they are making. And, they say these things with such conviction and moral righteousness or moral indignation that few, if any, question the logic, the moral implications, or the justness of the statement.

Two of these statements:

  1. It’s the law!
  2. We all voted on it!

When most people hear either of these arguments in support of the opposing view, they jast give up their own position. It’s like the magic words that someone can employ to end all arguments.

For example, a policeman pulls you over for a Hollywood stop at an intersection in which there are clear line of sights, no pedestrians and, clearly, there was no need to come to a full stop before proceeding. However, the policeman pulls you over and tells you that you didn’t come to a full stop and will be writing you a ticket for running the stop sign. You plead your case and the policeman says, “it’s the law! And, you broke it!” Typically, that shuts up the motorist.

However, is the policeman right? When he/she says that it’s the law does what the policeman say automatically carry with it the power and the force of Justice and morality? Why are traffic laws in place? I think that very few, if any, would argue that it is to ensure the safety of both pedestrians and motorists, i.e., traffic laws are meant to be about safety. So, in our example, if safety is the primary motive for traffic laws, and you didn’t do anything that was remotely unsafe then why is the policeman giving you a ticket? For what? For violating the letter of the law? Does that justify what the policeman did? Of course not. More likely than not the policeman is writing you the ticket to fulfill a quota for revenue generation that the municipality that the policeman works in has imposed on its police force. It’s either that or the policeman is an unthinking automaton with bad or no judgment. Either case, the policeman is unqualified to be one. Don’t forget, even a soldier is under the obligation to question and disobey unlawful and immoral orders.

The counter-argument is that if police officers are allowed to use their judgment to write or not write tickets then this introduces the potential for even more morally and ethically questionable behavior on the part of the police, like accepting bribes for not writing tickets, letting politicians get away with “murder,” and haggling as to whether the police officer is/was correct or not correct in his/her judgment as to whether or not a particular violation of the stop sign law was safe or not safe. This is jast laziness talking and fear mongering. Bribing occurs regardless, politicians still bully police officers with the threat of disciplinary action or termination, and as for haggling, it goes on now and, regardless, it is still the police officer’s judgment that wins anyway. Enough of the distractions; let’s get back to the main point.

The point that I’m making is that jast because something is the law or that we voted on it that does not make something that which is inherently immoral, all of a sudden become moral. The most clear example that I can site is the following: If we all voted to make slavery law again would that make slavery moral? Would anyone argue that it does make it moral?

So, why do we allow liberals, socialists, progressives and Democrats (libs/socs/progs/dems) to get away with making this argument when it comes to things like progressive taxes, redistribution of wealth, estate taxes, and other tax and economic issues? I don’t get it.

We, as a country, need to learn to look past the superficial and focus on the core meaning of every action, every law, every argument, and every situation. If we can do this then we are well on our way to achieving a more Just society.

In the case of so called “wealth redistribution,” there should be no confusion as to what is the true underlying core action that drives so called “wealth redistribution.” And, that is theft! No more, no less, and with no uncertainty. The government is sanctioning the theft of money from those that have it under the moral guise of helping the poor. However, very few, if any, would disagree with the moral principle that one cannot execute an act of morality by initiating an act of immorality. And, yet, the moral justification for implementing the unjust policy called “redistribution of wealth” is that we have to help the poor. And, to do so, the libs/socs/progs/dems justify stealing from the rich through such crazy policies as progressive taxes, estate taxes, gift taxes, among other methods.

So, the only thing left for me to prove is that so called “progressive taxes” and, in general, the so called “redistribution of wealth” is indeed stealing. I’ve outlined my arguments as to why the so called “progressive taxes” are immoral and nothing more than organized theft, so I won’t get too deeply into the analysis here. But here are the salient points:

  • The person’s who’s money is being taken has no say – don’t forget voting for something doesn’t make it moral;
  • The money is taken by force; if the rich don’t pay, they go to jail and lose their livelihood;
  • A very large portion of the money being taken from the rich is not used for the benefit of the person paying the tax;
  • The vast majority of the money taken from the rich is being given to others that had nothing to do with earning that money;
  • And, in the case of so called “estate taxes” it isn’t about whether or not the children of the rich did or did not do anything to help with earning the money, but everything to do with the last will and testament of the person who made the money of which the government has no say in and by taxing that money is disrespecting and dishonoring the person who died.

Also, there is nothing in the Constitution that says that the government is responsible for redistributing wealth, and there is nothing in the Constitution that says that the government is allowed to discriminate between one group of Americans and another. The Constitution does allow for the government to raise taxes, but it doesn’t say that it is allowed to have a progressive tax system. Also, the Constitution says that the government cannot seize your property without due process and fair compensation. Now, there may be due process – Democratic process, voting, etc. – however, clearly there is no Just compensation for the rich for taking all of that money.

By the way, anyone who claims that the rich don’t pay their fair share of taxes is either ignorant or is a hustler. Look up the stats: The top 10% of income earners pay for some 70% of all of the income taxes collected by the federal government at a tax rate of some 18%, while only making some 43% of the adjusted gross income and what qualifies as a top 10% income earner is about $120,000 per year. The top 1% pay for some 38% of all of the income taxes collected by the federal government at a tax rate of some 25%, while only making some 17% of the adjusted gross income. And, you only need to make some $380,000 per year to qualify in the top 1%. Now compare this to the bottom 50% who make about 14% of the adjusted gross income. They only pay for about 2% of the total income taxes collected by the federal government at a tax rate of less than 2%. So, who’s not paying their fair share?

And, please don’t say the rich can afford it! That is one of the dumbest and silliest arguments anyone can make. And, when I say that it’s a dumb argument, by now, you should get a feeling that I’m probably right even though you may not know the particulars of my argument, if you’ve read my entire post. However, if you want to know the particulars of my argument please read a previous post entitled, “The “affordability” standard that liberals/socialists use to determine what is and isn’t Just is not only ridiculous but also highly capricious and, therefore, can be used to justify anything, which proves liberals/socialists are not only extremely stupid, but also very dangerous and bad for our country” (

The bottom-line is that we, as a nation, need to wake-up and start looking for and understanding the root cause and effect for everything. Uncover the true meaning behind words and look towards the fundamental and the most basic rationale for everything. Don’t be swayed by BS logic like “it’s the law!” or “we all get to vote on it!” or “you can afford it.” These are meaningless and empty phrases designed to convince the weak-minded and the thoughtless that they are wrong and that the person uttering those ridiculous words is sage and thoughtful. What a load of crock!

Make sure you always think; not only about the words that someone speaks, but the meaning of those words. When someone cites something as if it were a fact, but you don’t know it to be a fact then look it up and make sure that what someone claims as a fact is indeed a fact. Like when Hillary Clinton says that the rich don’t pay their fair share of taxes, look up the facts, and you’ll see that she is full of it.

For more, please read my books, “… Under the Constitution with Liberty and Justice for ALL,” available at and also available on Kindle, and “The New Constitution for Modern America,” available at and also available on Kindle. Please don’t forget to rate this post. Any comments or questions are welcome and can be left for me on this blog, @Ahmedinejahd on Twitter, on Facebook or via email at Thank you in advance for buying my books, and rating this post. And, thanks for visiting my blog; I hope you get an opportunity to read my other posts. Have a great day!