I don't visit message boards much anymore, although I did use them as a witnessing platform in their infancy. After a while, the trolls took over so I lost interest and patience with it.
Having said that, I have kept in touch with a few people whom I "met" via the boards, and one of them just passed on to me the following comment made on those message boards long ago about coerced government compassion, i.e. redistribution of wealth. It was so good that I wanted to repost it here. I am not sure who originally wrote it, but kudos to you, whoever you are.
The only viable way for a society to assist those in need is voluntarily. When one group of people demand that the rest of society give them money so that they can distribute it to the needy, one can be certain that those people will, as they do, keep the lion's share of the money for themselves, and only distribute the bare minimum necessary in order to maintain the illusion that they are actually accomplishing anything, and thereby to justify further theft. One can also be sure that that group of people will soon come to the realization that the maintenance of their positions of power demands a constant supply of needy people, and that, fortunately, needy people will also have too little power to knock them from their perch.
The more a government redistributes wealth, the more power they hold over everyone, the more wealth they keep for themselves, and the less everyone else has.
People, left to their own devices, will take care of each other until they're compelled to be a part of a society that's predicated on theft, at which point they'll jealously guard what little they have, and will always be looking for more to steal.
The single greatest fallacy behind government is the irrational belief that those who desire power enough to pursue it could ever value anything more than they value their own interests.
People are the solution, but first the people must be free.