My response to Lee Matos’ Letter to the Editor:
Mr. Matos makes what I consider an immoral plea at the beginning of his Letter, send tax money to my employer, but for a moral good: charitable works. Helping people is always a moral good but should ask: is forcing people to do so a moral act itself? For the charity’s good intentions, I twice am made out to be immoral: first for apparently being a skinflint (being a member of that committee) and not wishing to help people and secondarily, taken to woodshed for NOT doing what I consider an immoral act.
In a larger sense, I must act immorally by giving my assent to the taking of more of someone else’s private property (their money) than otherwise necessary (in supporting Lee Matos’s charity). For doing this on a street corner, this forceful taking (often called stealing), I would be correctly labeled a thief. As a politician doing so, (or even as a voter) I am called a "good man". Dichotomy, anyone?
This really is not about charitable giving (by definition, as paying a tax bill is not a charitable act) but is all about my respect for the property of others. How can I, in good conscience, recommend that property taxes be raised beyond what is absolutely necessary, and over which good folks in Gilford would have no recourse, to send money to a charity to which they otherwise might not give? How is that morally correct, to take that which is not mine to give?
Or is it a case of "the ends justifies the means"?
When all of the arguments for and against such actions are cleared away like leaves on a fall day…
