Wealth Redistribution

I find the embedded quotes pretty hard to respond to but I think that these points will cover off most of your questions.

1. I think (or believe, if you prefer) that the overall quality of life in a society can be improved through redistribution of wealth. I need a government to do that with. I prefer a democratic government.

2. I think that the concept of majority rule needs to be backed by a bill of fundamental rights of individuals that can't be violated regardless of the democratic majority rule. I believe that the entire source of our disagreements boils down to the fact that you (apparently) think (or believe) that the taxation system is a violation of your individual rights. I don't have a problem with you believing that and I continue to disagree. I anticipate that your response will be "but the majority sets the bill of rights". But we already have widely accepted bills of rights and I have faith (perhaps blind faith from your view) that the majority does a good job of defining individual rights.

3. The problem (as I see it) with a voluntary social insurance program is as follows. One fault of the human psychological makeup is that most people think that they are above average (I believe that this is a fairly well known and accepted scientific result; I'm sorry that I don't have a link). Consequently, if we fairly price a social insurance contract we would expect a large number of people to irrationally opt out under the assumption that they don't need the insurance. The result would be too many people falling into what I would call unacceptable living conditions. Sure, you can callously say "it's their fault, that was their choice" but we knew in advance that it would happen. Does that really make it their fault? Can't we accept some responsibility as policy makers without trampling individual choice? I think so.