Redistribution is nothing less than a crime
Redistribution is nothing less than a crime

Everyone is entitled to distribute their wealth to others voluntarily, if they so wish. But there is no basis for anyone (leave alone a government) to seize this wealth and try to redistribute it to others.

Government can distribute only what it first taxes away from the productive efforts of individuals. Such re-distribution is nothing but theft (a crime), for by giving resources to someone who did not earn that resource, the government necessarily deprives somebody else of something that he did earn. Those whose property is taken are denied the freedom to use the fruits of their own labour. Those who get this stolen property are forfeiting the most important reason for living: the freedom to be responsible for self.

It is fundamentally immoral for the government to give to one individual or group the fruits of the labour of others.  The whole idea of re-distribution, which is endemic to the socialism mindset, is criminal. It is pure poison.

A government must never redistribute our wealth.

In fact, the term “income distribution” that is used in the economic literature is tendentious. It starts the economic story in the middle, with a body of income or wealth existing somehow, leaving only the question as to how that income or wealth is to be distributed or “apportioned”.

If there really were some pre-existing body of income or wealth, produced somehow—manna from heaven, as it were—then there would of course be a moral question as to how large a share each member of society should receive.

But wealth is produced. It does not just exist somehow.

Most people receive income as a result of what they produce, supplying other people with some goods or services that those people want, even if that service is only labour. Each recipient of these goods and services pays according to the value which that particular recipient puts on what is received, choosing among alternative suppliers to find the best combination of price and quality—both as judged by the individual who is paying.

The government must use the money we give it for its basic functions and stop then and there.

Indeed, there is evidence that the government often takes money from the poor and giving to the rich. This is what happens each time when someone demands that university education should be made free for all. That basically involves taking from the poor and giving to the rich since those who are educated in universities will, on average, earn much more than others.

Instead, we need to apply a means test for all support. Only the poorest of the poor must receive support through the government, and that support must form part of a well-thought out social insurance program.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here