> Dragging welfare into this doesn’t even begin to make sense.

If the state feels it's appropriate to take from one and give to another, then it must also feel that it is appropriate to simply take and eventually, not to merely take property but life itself. It's the taking mindset and mentality that's the problem.

Yes, that is the ideological view exhibited here. A near perfect description of it, actually.

What you say is not, in any sense, the truth or self-evident or anything like that, it’s just one ideological view of many.

I feel there’s an excluded middle here. The state could perfectly reasonably consider it ok to take taxes, but not life. Or to take life in some circumstances (war), but not others (death penalty). Your argument appears to be that because something is a bit true, it has to be completely true. I don’t find this to be the case in practice. There are plenty of partly true things in life.

Everything is ideology if you are consistent in your train of thought ("An ideology is a set of ideas that constitute one's goals, expectations, and actions. An ideology is a comprehensive vision, a way of looking at things").

You attack his doing so purely for ideological reasons.

Exactly. And that’s the problem.

You can't escape having an ideology, so no that's not the problem. The problem is with hypocritical, contradictory ideologies, e.g. your anti-ideology ideology.

No, the problem is stating (known to be) extremely controversial axioms of an ideology as self-evident truths without reason and justification. It’s unnecessary bullshit.

As in how you just stated as self evident your ideology that one must always provide reason and justification? What's unnecessary bullshit is your own wild-eyed hypocrisy.