> I would lose money. I disagree. I'd argue the amount of money you "lose" due to redistribution is actually MUCH less than the additional value you are able t

> I would lose money. I disagree. I'd argue the amount of money you "lose" due to redistribution is actually MUCH less than the additional value you are able to output due to social stability. You cannot be entirely decoupled from your environment - and that environment is rapidly globalizing. That's not to say that balance can't become skewed in the future, or that other communities haven't had bad balances elsewhere otherwise. But, its not a one or the other, its more of a balancing act. Some redistribution is likely good - too much is definitely bad. Specifically, sister comments are arguing redistribution is likely net-positive for everyone at least up to the point of providing basic needs (food, water, shelter) exactly because without those things people become disruptive. To argue that "I/we can fight anyone becoming disruptive" ignores the fact that that fighting takes away from other productive ventures (and not to mention is a wee arrogant). EG: I can make 100$ of value a day if I don't have to constantly fight for me and mine. Forfeiting 30$ of it makes sure that everyone around me is happy enough not to threaten me. If they were starving and began threatening me (or my tools), my output drops to 10$ because i spend most of my efforts in looking out for myself/mine rather than collaborating. I'm now MUCH worse off than if i participated in some well-moderated redistribution. If you disagree with the $100-$10 output reduction, i recommend you go try to do the same job you do now in a war-torn or economically repressed country (odds are you won't be able to find it, or it'll pay much, much less). I believe every developed nation has social safety nets precisely because of the economic sweet spot it enables.