Wed. 12/07/04 21:13 EDT
.post #202
Another way to answer your question is to try this thought experiment:
Imagine the Total Redistributive State, the purpose of which is to make everyone, everywhere, at all times, financially equal.
Incomes must be equal.
Net worth must be equal.
Profits and losses must be equal.
The state has the power to transfer money between bank accounts instantaneously and without notice or even permission.
It can sell your property if it becomes “overvalued” and redistribute the proceeds.
No pay raises allowed. Everyone is paid an equal salary, no matter what his job is.
If you win the lottery, proceeds are immediately distributed evenly throughout the population.
If you make a bad investment and lose half your net worth, your bank account is “topped up” within a few minutes, by the state.
And so on. Total financial equality, every minute, 24/7.
Do you think this is likely to lead to a greater degree of overall wealth in the society than would result by simply allowing people to control their own wealth?
If “no,” then what is the argument that some degree of redistribution between 100% and 0% is likely to?