Return to Answer

Private property is a core characteristic of capitalism.

Hence, under the capitalist system, it’s my money (and that's all the reason I need).

A country that doesn’t respect ownership is, by default, non-capitalist.

A country that does respect ownership needs to show a compelling excuse for taking away ownership or ignoring it.

The idea of “redistribution of wealth” is not a compelling reason, since it's core is a socialist outlook and it conflicts with the core principle of ownership.

If the country wants money, in a capitalist system, it can work for it, just like everybody else - any other behavior is hypocritical (or concessional to other practical interests / ideas).

A country might deserve to be paid for providing services, such as protecting people’s rights and freedoms - which might be the valid part in the rational for taxes - but a citizen's death is not a valid reason for the country to get paid.

Also, I believe you should re-visit the definition of capitalism. I suspect you’re mixing up the definition with something else.

Private property is a core characteristic of capitalism.

Hence, under the capitalist system, it’s my money (and that's all the reason I need).

A country that doesn’t respect ownership is, by default, non-capitalist.

A country that does respect ownership needs to show a compelling excuse for taking away ownership or ignoring it.

The idea of “redistribution of wealth” is not a compelling reason, since its core is a socialist outlook and it conflicts with the core principle of ownership.

If the country wants money, in a capitalist system, it can work for it, just like everybody else - any other behavior is hypocritical (or concessional to other practical interests / ideas).

A country might deserve to be paid for providing services, such as protecting people’s rights and freedoms - which might be the valid part in the rational for taxes - but a citizen's death is not a valid reason for the country to get paid.

Also, I believe you should re-visit the definition of capitalism. I suspect you’re mixing up the definition with something else.

Private property is a core characteristic of capitalism.

Hence, under the capitalist system, it’s my money (and that's all the reason I need).

A country that doesn’t respect ownership is, by default, non-capitalist.

A country that does respect ownership needs to show a compelling excuse for taking away ownership or ignoring it.

The idea of “redistribution of wealth” is not a compelling reason, since it's core is a socialist outlook and it conflicts with the core principle of ownership.

If the country wants money, in a capitalist system, it can work for it, just like everybody else - any other behavior is hypocritical (or concessional to other practical interests / ideas).

A country might deserve to be paid for providing services, such as protecting people’s rights and freedoms - which might be the valid part in the rational for taxes.

Also, I believe you should re-visit the definition of capitalism. I suspect you’re mixing up the definition with something else.

Private property is a core characteristic of capitalism.

Hence, under the capitalist system, it’s my money (and that's all the reason I need).

A country that doesn’t respect ownership is, by default, non-capitalist.

A country that does respect ownership needs to show a compelling excuse for taking away ownership or ignoring it.

The idea of “redistribution of wealth” is not a compelling reason, since it's core is a socialist outlook and it conflicts with the core principle of ownership.

If the country wants money, in a capitalist system, it can work for it, just like everybody else - any other behavior is hypocritical (or concessional to other practical interests / ideas).

A country might deserve to be paid for providing services, such as protecting people’s rights and freedoms - which might be the valid part in the rational for taxes - but a citizen's death is not a valid reason for the country to get paid.

Also, I believe you should re-visit the definition of capitalism. I suspect you’re mixing up the definition with something else.

Private property is a core characteristic of capitalism.

Hence, under the capitalist system, it’s my money.

A country that doesn’t respect ownership is, by default, non-capitalist.

If the country wants money, in a capitalist system, it can work for it, just like everybody else - any other behavior is hypocritical (or concessional to other practical interests).

A country might deserve to be paid for providing services, such as protecting people’s rights and freedoms - which might be the valid part in the rational for taxes.

But the idea of “redistribution of wealth” runs against the grain of capitalism.

Also, I believe you should re-visit the definition of capitalism. I suspect you’re mixing up the definition with something else.

Private property is a core characteristic of capitalism.

Hence, under the capitalist system, it’s my money (and that's all the reason I need).

A country that doesn’t respect ownership is, by default, non-capitalist.

A country that does respect ownership needs to show a compelling excuse for taking away ownership or ignoring it.

The idea of “redistribution of wealth” is not a compelling reason, since it's core is a socialist outlook and it conflicts with the core principle of ownership.

If the country wants money, in a capitalist system, it can work for it, just like everybody else - any other behavior is hypocritical (or concessional to other practical interests / ideas).

A country might deserve to be paid for providing services, such as protecting people’s rights and freedoms - which might be the valid part in the rational for taxes.

Also, I believe you should re-visit the definition of capitalism. I suspect you’re mixing up the definition with something else.