But you are! Every time you take a dime out of my pocket and GIVE (note not spend on something, give) to another, you have no say in what that person does.  So if she wants to get her lawn trimmed, you have no say, and his point is proven.  You cannot prove she will not use it for that purpose either.

Well, at least you did not try to change the subject too much.  But you are trying to dismiss it out of hand without thinking it through very well.  SO I give you a hat tip for staying on point, but no points for making no points.

Now you are changing the subject.  Clearly this was not a rant against taking care of our own on our own, but the forceful confiscation of ones properties for no other reason than to transfer it to another.  WHat you do with your money IS your business.  But the community no longer has that option.  Instead their compassion, charity and rights are being usurped by the state.  And not always for charity purposes.  Clearly, giving the woman $40 is not going to feed her unless she decides to spend it on that.  But once the money is given, there is no way for them to know what she will do with it.  And if she thinks her lawn is more important than food, there is no one to say otherwise.

No, you misunderstand. If the local community comes together and decides that everyone (or everyone other than the recipients) will donate (and then give those donations to a few), and punish those who don't, that's not charity. Charity would be where the local community comes together, and gets everyone to volunteer to donate, with no penalty if they don't.

So you're saying that telling everyone to donate a tin of food, and punishing them if they don't, isn't forcing them? Then by that reasoning taxes aren't forcing you to give your money, since you can refuse and get hit by the punishment(fine+/or jail) instead!

As should be the case unless there are exceptional circumstances, since that will maximise the benefit of the donation to that person. What would be a better alternative, dicating that people should spend x amount on y, even if that person doesn't really like y? They then end up wasting that money on something they didn't really want, meaning you may have converted  a donation worth $100 into something worth just $10!

Robbery comes to mind.

We live in democracies. The government is the community. It is the embodiment of the people's desires, the avatar of its will. And, like the people, it can be fickle and stupid. It can plan poorly and it can be a safe harbour for the corrupt and the malignant. It can choose to waste money on the lawn or on car detailing while people starve and hobos fight for a bottle of whisky. It can take money from the rich and give it to the poor, or it can take it from all and give it to the rich.

There is no point pretending it is not composed of the chosen representatives of the people, and therefore an appropriate avenue for determining what the people want or at least are prepared to put up with. And if the people want to live in a Robin Hood fantasy world, the rich will just have to suck it up and/or convince their fellow citizens to choose smarter, more noble representatives.

Government ownership of resources and rents are another, as seen in the Middle East and Africa.

Problem identified in a nutshell right there.  If you believe that, there's no point in debating.  Lenin claimed the same thing.

Daiwa understands.   I must have missed out on a socialist education being a little older darn!

Yes on the first part.  It is forcing them.  And taxes are forcing as well, but you benefit directly from what the founders intended - maintaining a clean safe environment.  But that disappears when you take money from paul to pay peter without any benefit for paul just because the government has decreed it.  That is where is becomes evil.  It is forcing morality on you and also confiscating your property without due process.

That should be the case only if it is your money being given.  Once you dip your hand into my pocket, then it becomes forcing your religion on me.

No, that is communism (hence the root).  Democracy (or more precisely a republic) is not that. The government is tasked with providing for the common welfare, not creating it.

Bingo!

I doubt Lenin was referring to an analogy in which an old woman and a local community were being talked about. In this example, yes, the community could be the government - there is such a thing as local government as well as national government you know! So for example if the community being talked about has the powers to get people to donate and to punish people who don't give to a particular cause (elderly women living in their community and not able to survive or going back to the original one, not able to mow their lawn), then you have a form of government right there.

I doubt Karl Mrax was thinking about it eihter, but that is because they were myopic and not too bright (just eloquent).  Lilke many, they only saw what they "felt" was good, and did not try to divine the reprecussions of their edenic ideals.

Now that's the concept I support, except I want the government to be democratic and not like in the Middle East and Africa.

Let people pay for what they use of the commons and not according to what they produce.

Government is simply the name for the system of organisation all human societies use. Representative government is a system which incorporates the views of most citizens. As a result I really don't see why you consider it unreasonable to say that a system where government follows the views of most is democracy. If most choose to take from the rich and give to the poor, it's still democratic. It's just not a government which follows liberal economic ideology.

EDIT: Summary = politics isn't economics.

There's a very strong argument to be made that rentier states are inherently hostile to democracy, instead encouraging dictatorial government.

Wow... so in reality the little old lady who can't mow the grass has to buy cocain for the able bodied yong men in her neighborhood who don't want to help her?

Talk about perversion of ideals.

If anything then I would think that rather then demanding they be forced to do your lawn, at least eliminate the handouts, so that you would not be taxed as much, and they would not be able to buy their crack on YOUR dime... and then you can use that extra money to get lawn service.

Once you allow slavery, even if for ideals and good intentions, it is bound to be abused...