> but basic logic tells us that several moderately well educated people should likely be more efficient overall than several uneducated people plus one exceptio

> but basic logic tells us that several moderately well educated people should likely be more efficient overall than several uneducated people plus one exceptionally well educated person. I'm not arguing that having a greater number of educated people wouldn't be more productive. I'm arguing that redistributing wealth involuntarily is less efficient. """ Economic efficiency implies an economic state in which every resource is optimally allocated to serve each individual or entity in the best way while minimizing waste and inefficiency. """ https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/economic_efficiency.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/economic_efficiency.asp Robbing Peter to pay Paul necessarily leaves Peter worse off. The solution is not pareto optimal, and therefore cannot be a solution in a maximal efficiency. Furthermore, in the daycare example, the solution necessarily creates deadweight loss. Robbing me to pay for someone else's daycare now increases daycare demand, which given a fixed supply, makes daycare more expensive for everyond, myself included. So not only am I paying for someone else's kids to go to daycare, but now I have to pay more for my kids to go to daycare to outcompete the demand they now present with their free money. > Taxation is not theft just because you voted against it and lost. If your city's population got together and voted to tax people who post on HN at 99% to fund banquets for children, would you similarly not consider that theft?