re: #635 jcm

Redistribution is based on the fundamentally flawed notion of zero sum. (Total wealth in the World is fixed and finite). When you make that flawed assumption, it’s easy to make the supposition that because A has wealth, A deprives B of wealth. When that is accepted it’s easy to make the moral argument that it is “right” therefore to take wealth from A and give it to B.

I don’t think that’s always the case, jcm. An alternative argument is non-economic, that society should seek happiness for the greatest number. So, rather than have one happy billionaire (used to be millionaire!) and a thousand starving peons, we do a redistribution.

I’m not saying that works (it mostly doesn’t), but that’s the theory, and it’s basically non-economic.