3 ms·

I guess my biggest problem with your point is the fact that you say: > The free market does not provide forcible wealth redistribution. The fact that you draw

I guess my biggest problem with your point is the fact that you say: > The free market does not provide forcible wealth redistribution. The fact that you draw this distinction seems to imply that you simultaneously concede that some redistribution of wealth is necessary, but also believe that this distribution can be possible without forcible intervention. If this is not your position, I apologize. But if it is, I think it's naive at best. If the recent economic crisis has shown us anything, it is that, without force, not a penny will be pried from the hands of the financial institutions and corporations that control most of this country's wealth, let alone redistributed.

xenophanes 17y ago
Non-forcible wealth redistribution is voluntary charity. I am not opposed to charity. I am also not making any claims about how much charity will be provided in a free market society. I don't assume there will be plenty, or any, though I actually would expect some, look at Bill Gates. I do not consider any wealth redistribution necessary which people can't be persuaded to do completely voluntarily. What charity is good to do is a very controversial matter, but fortunately I don't have to get into that to oppose the use of force against rich people. Persuade people to donate, and if you can't, don't assume you're right and they're wrong about the best use of their money. Hope that's clear.