Redefining "Compassion"

Jacob Hornberger, president of The Future of Freedom Foundation, has an excellent essay posted on LewRockwell.com. Here is a brief excerpt:

"Our" Collective Goodness in the Tsunami Disaster

Stung by the suggestion that "we" (please note the quotation marks) are stingy because "we" (quotation marks again) were sending only $15 million to the tsunami victims, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell immediately upped the ante with another $20 million in U.S. government assistance. Powell also made it clear that this is just the beginning and that "we" will ultimately send billions of dollars to the victims. Extolling "our" generosity, Powell vowed, "We will do more." ...

... In the 20th century, "we" embraced a collectivized system in which "we" nationalized everyone's income and then made the government "our" agent for "our" goodness, compassion, and caring. The system that "we" adopted functions like this:

"We" authorize the Congress that "we" elect to take any portion of "our" income it wants, as long as the percentage is set in a democratic (i.e., majority-vote) fashion. Once that portion or percentage is democratically set, the Internal Revenue Service is authorized to use force to collect the assigned take from everyone. The IRS then delivers the take to other government agencies, which then distribute the take to the poor and needy of the world. Voila! "We" are caring, compassionate, and good—well, as long as "our" government officials and agencies are caring, compassionate, and good. If they are "stingy," then "we" are stingy.

Indeed, the forced redistribution of wealth is considered by many as evidence of our compassion. Unfortunately, there is nothing inherently Christian or moral about that. If anyone can use scripture to support the notion that compassion is defined as taking from one person to give to another, I'm all ears.