3 ms·
I think there is some ambiguity here as to whether you are defending redistribution as a means to an end or as an end unto itself. To clarify, if you assert th
by gwright 7y ago
I think there is some ambiguity here as to whether you are defending redistribution as a means to an end or as an end unto itself.
To clarify, if you assert that a proper role of government is to provide a basic safety net for all citizens, then you could follow that up with the idea that some revenue is required to meet that goal and that might include "forced sharing" -- taxes of some sort.
On the other hand if you start out with the statement that redistributing wealth is the goal itself, then you are talking about something entirely different and it is this idea that I was suggesting as having an abysmal track record.
So my question remains, what philosophy of government starts with the idea that the proper role of government is to redistribute wealth forcibly?
- whack 7y ago"Providing a safety net for all citizens" is really just wealth redistribution. So too is progressive taxation (as opposed to flat taxes), which is something you're presumably in favor of.
- gwright 7y agoI tried to make it clear that there is a difference between taxation to further a legitimate government role (e.g. National Defense) and viewing redistribution itself as a goal (it isn't fair that some people have more money than others, lets fix that!). That distinction is what I wanted to clarify because the OP I replied to was suggestive of redistribution as a goal, which is worrisome.