re: #710 itellu3times

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.

That’s another theory to base it on, the “moral” argument. But again (and just to be a tad argumentative) it assumes the peons can’t make their own, that the have takes from the have nots. The taking may be opportunity or product, the assumption of; Because the Haves have, the have nots don’t have is still there.