the argument they use is a superweapon and can be applied to any distribution of resources including their preferred one. i guess if the takeaway is people havi

the argument they use is a superweapon and can be applied to any distribution of resources including their preferred one. i guess if the takeaway is people having a moral right to some X% of their pre-tax income is implausible and government having a moral right to some X% of subject's pre-tax income is implausible then that would be coherent. but they don't seem to be biting the second bullet.