Redistribution is fine - being aware of how that distribution occurs is important, though.
Otherwise you end up with situations where "redistribution" essentially becomes handouts to those most influential with the ones making the distribution decisions, instead of meaningful improvements to society as a whole.
Is it a good thing if Besos gets a rocket every minute if that means climate change destroys my local community?
Is it a good thing if we excessively bail out companies that make poor decisions at tax payer expense?
Is it a good thing to promote school systems that ignore and underfund certain neighborhoods along racial lines?
---
My argument is not that redistribution is bad in itself, my argument is that social groups depend on "fairness" to operate.
And those definitions are certainly challenging (one person's fair might be another person's horror story). But they are critical to how a society decides to exist and cooperate.
Like - this isn't a new idea... it's what a social contract is. I also don't sign contracts without reading them, and an educated populace should care about what's in the fine print.
It's not about making sure I get personal wealth or advantages from that contract, it's about making sure I find that contract morally acceptable. Because if enough people reach that stage where they don't... you have a civil war or a rebellion. They will try to write a new contract.
Otherwise you end up with situations where "redistribution" essentially becomes handouts to those most influential with the ones making the distribution decisions, instead of meaningful improvements to society as a whole.
Is it a good thing if Besos gets a rocket every minute if that means climate change destroys my local community?
Is it a good thing if we excessively bail out companies that make poor decisions at tax payer expense?
Is it a good thing to promote school systems that ignore and underfund certain neighborhoods along racial lines?
---
My argument is not that redistribution is bad in itself, my argument is that social groups depend on "fairness" to operate.
And those definitions are certainly challenging (one person's fair might be another person's horror story). But they are critical to how a society decides to exist and cooperate.
Like - this isn't a new idea... it's what a social contract is. I also don't sign contracts without reading them, and an educated populace should care about what's in the fine print.
It's not about making sure I get personal wealth or advantages from that contract, it's about making sure I find that contract morally acceptable. Because if enough people reach that stage where they don't... you have a civil war or a rebellion. They will try to write a new contract.