If the Constitution said it was okay, would it no longer be theft? Was the slave trade fine until 1809?

A fine point.

The underlying issue is the distinction between what is right and what is legal. While slave trade was obviously not fine in an ethical sense, it was legal at that time.

Philosophically, governments are established as some compromise between freedom and safety. From anarchy to oppressive totalitarian regimes, governments reflect where that compromise is set.

While you correctly identify my reference to the Constitution as extraneous to defining forceful redistribution as a version of theft, I included it to underscore that America’s compromise was set by that document.

In order to meaningfully determine which (if any) incursions into liberty we should tolerate, we need context. Brooking no governmental theft at all (Anarchism) is a philosophically pure position, but yields a society I would not find acceptable. Alternatively, the pervasive redistribution of wealth of an authoritarian welfare/warfare state also yields a society intolerable to me. Historically, my preference on the spectrum between these two unacceptable extremes has been what I call “Libertarianism”.

The U.S. Constitution is America’s method of codifying where we set this line. It was written to expressly define the categories and specific instances where our federal government is empowered to intrude upon our liberties and take our money in service to compromises intended to protect our lives, liberties, and property.

Funding extra-constitutional concerns actually works against this protection and allows the power to be abused (whether the ends are considered by many to be compassionate or not). Funding what limited concerns are provided for by the Constitution is a compromise I’m willing to accept. When I hear calls to federally regulate, subsidize, or entirely fund an extra-constitutional issue, my perennial response is: “Amend the constitution.”

“…if someone does not use violence to grab the stuff they need to satisfy their desires, they’re being “cold and heartless?”…”

Brilliantly pithy.

Ultimately, though, Huckabee is right. If cutting Medicare means old people go without drugs, so be it. We’re not going to restore Medicare just to get old people their drugs.

I see funding extra-constitutional concerns like healthcare and education using taxation and debasement of the currency is ethically equivalent to theft, fraud and extortion.

If the Constitution said it was okay, would it no longer be theft? Was the slave trade fine until 1809?

If I lose my job, my house, and my savings (all three of which have simultaneously occurred for me in the past), I have a range of recourses available to me. Included in this range are requests for voluntary aid from friends and charities, extreme deprivation and slow recovery via independent action, and/or “involuntary aid” such as theft, fraud or extortion.

I my case, I did not find theft, fraud or extortion ethically acceptable. So I relied upon a combination of voluntary aid and independent action.

I see funding extra-constitutional concerns like healthcare and education using taxation and debasement of the currency is ethically equivalent to theft, fraud and extortion. While they can accomplish the ends, I do not support the means.

I will not yield the high ground to those who call for admirable endeavors, yet fund them unethically.

Maybe so, but if they’re not healthier and better off, the libertarian response is still “that’s too bad”. Huckabee is absolutely correct about libertarianism.

Do you think Huckabee is actually as stupid and ignorant as he seems, or that he just acts this way because it makes him popular with a certain group of people?

A little from choice “a”, a little from choice “b”.

I agree on all points. I hope that Hucksterbee continues to speak up; he’s only going to help the Barr and Obama campaigns. Huckabee is the poster child for everything that is wrong with the Republican Party. He’s worse than John McCain (which is saying a lot).