It was refreshing to hear a Western world leader say it is "morally acceptable" for citizens to avoid paying excessive taxes.

But Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, running for president of the European Commission, didn't quite go far enough.

"With taxes that are too high it is morally acceptable to evade them," he said. "We will announce a first cut of taxes in the 2005 budget and a second in 2006."

Berlusconi's statement is raising eyebrows throughout Europe. But it's tame compared to the question I think should be asked of civilized people around the world: "How can it be moral for government to force people to hand over their wealth, their property, their hard-earned income at any level?"

Let's face it. Taxation is a form of legalized theft. Legalizing stealing doesn't make it any more moral. It just makes it legal.

Berlusconi is not questioning the morality of taking money away from people by force. He's questioning the morality of taking away too much of it.

If Berlusconi was a U.S. politician, he'd no doubt be a Republican. Republicans say they are for smaller government. They say they are for lower taxation. What they really mean to say to voters is: "We'll steal less of your money than the other guys."

Worse yet, they don't mean it, and they seldom live up to the promise.

While the Democrats promise a virtual utopia for the masses by taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor, the Republicans argue only over the percentage of taxpayer dollars that should be redistributed.

Republicans fail to challenge the legality, the constitutionality and the morality of the system of "legalized theft" we have accepted in this country – a system that confiscates private property by brute force.

I just can't get excited about a party that accepts theft – even if it advocates cutting back the theft by 5 percent or 10 percent. Theft is wrong. It needs to be stopped. And precious few in either party are stating that obvious fact.

Some Republicans claim to oppose the federal income tax. Some even agree it is immoral and unconstitutional. But, they say, taking a hard-line stance against it won't achieve any results. It's not the politically savvy move. It takes time to undo a system that has been in place for 90 years.

I disagree. If something is morally wrong, you should oppose it categorically and not pull any punches. If it means election defeat, so be it. Courageous leadership means saying and doing right no matter the results. Compromise with immorality and illegality is not a recipe for righteousness nor success.

Other Republicans say they are simply afraid to take a strong stand against the Internal Revenue Service for it has become akin to America's "Gestapo." There is a big price to pay for confronting the IRS, they explain. Even a member of Congress can and will be taken down – imprisoned, expelled and disgraced – if he crosses the line and becomes too critical of the tax man.

To those Republicans, I say, "Get out of the way. If you are afraid to lead, if you are afraid to do what's right, what good are you?" Why do we need timid politicians who are going to pull punches when it comes to real evil within the government? If we can't trust politicians to criticize the government, can we really trust them to make laws affecting our businesses, our property, our families and our personal lives?

America is great because of founders who stood up and risked everything to fight tyranny. Today we have politicians who are scared of their shadows. We have politicians interested only in featherbedding, in building their own power bases and securing their own futures and legacies.

We're now in a presidential election year. We'll be bombarded with millions of dollars of paid, political propaganda in the next few months from both major political parties. Yet, I doubt you will see many politicians of either party really telling it like it is: You are getting ripped off. You are no longer a self-governing individual. You no longer live in a sovereign state. You no longer live in "a nation of the people, by the people and for the people." Rather, it is a nation of the elite, by the elite and for the elite.

Is it immoral to minimize the taxes you pay under these circumstances? It would be immoral not to minimize them.