I didn’t link to Wil Wheaton’s first post in this saga, because nothing interested me out of the ordinary. But this post did interest me because of one sentence/quote:
W: So redistribution of wealth downward is bad, but redistribution of wealth upward is good?
My question is, “How do you redistribute wealth upwards“?
The easy answer is that you can’t. There are other answers though, like corporate welfare.
I’d like to go on record as saying that both forms of “welfare” are wrong. Morally wrong–let’s call it what it is. Theft. At the point of a gun. It doesn’t matter who you take the money from–rich or poor–if that person has earned that money, you are stealing it from them, taking their money to do what someone else deems to be “important”. If I did that as an individual, I’d be thrown in jail, why does it make it right if a collective does it?
As an addendum, this here post of mine doesn’t really have anything to do with what Wil is talking about in his posts, and I apologize for that, and hope that everyone reads Wil’s posts in their entirety.
December 30th, 2005 at 2:05 pm
I’m familiar with the Ayn Rand talking points, and since I consider myself a libertarian, I’ll just ask it this way: Are there other ways of looking at welfare? If so, why is calling it theft at the point of a gun the right description? Are there social benefits to welfare that the wealthy enjoy in return for their contribution? Do you think most of the wealthy, in the absence of any sort of social assistance whatsoever, would donate voluntarily? (Before you answer, go look up what percentage of the federal budget and your state budget are spent on “welfare”) Do you believe that the wealthy make their money in a vacuum, or that it is something done in a sort of partnership with society? Since that society is bound by law and those “guns” protect the rich and their wealth, is it reasonable to use the wealth to protect the unfortunate in society? Do you think most welfare recipients *are* unfortunate, or do you see them as lazy?
It’s a lot more complicated than Rand’s quote. Not so say it isn’t so, but if you’re going to take that line, you should be able to answer.
December 30th, 2005 at 4:14 pm
1) I’m not a Randite. (Although I have read her books, I disagree with the Objectivist philosophy on many points.)
Please don’t accuse me of quoting Rand, either, please, since nowhere did I mention her, and since she’s not the only person, nor the first, who’s ever mentioned taxation as violence, or theft.
2) I’m not a libertarian (either small or capital L)–I’m an anarchist.
Taxation is theft by gunpoint, and calling anything else is just sugarcoating–sorry. The welfare state lives by taxation, therefore it lives by the gun.
3) Do I think that most of the wealthy would donate voluntarily in the absence of the welfare state? Well the wealthy fund many charities now, so why would that change?
4) I’m well aware of what the taxes, taken from me by threat of force, are used for. I’m well aware that “welfare” is just a drop in the bucket.
5) Do I think that the wealthy make their money in a vacuum. Only if they manufacture it in space. But, seriously, does this question even mean anything? Do you make your money in a vacuum? (Are you wealthy?) The wealthy people who actually earned their money (as opposed to the corporate welfarists, who you’ll remember I mentioned, but which I can see now that I didn’t really make my point. Corporate welfare is when the government takes from the other people/companies, and gives to another corporation. Examples are eminent domain, which has been in the news quite a bit recently, subsidies, and bailouts. That’s wrong, also, for the same reason that other welfare is wrong.) do earn it, and should be able to keep it just like you should be able to keep the money you earn.
6) “protect the unfortunate in society”. Who’s unfortunate, define these people, does everyone agree on your definition? Doesn’t matter–see the New Orleans disaster as an example of the welfare state at it’s finest. Private (and corporate) donations, and private individuals, beat out the gov’t there, didn’t they?
7) “Do you think most welfare recipients *are* unfortunate, or do you see them as lazy?” Well see, I don’t think it’s an either or question.There are some “unfortunates”, and some “lazy” people, and some who grew up in the system, and don’t know how to do anything else. That’s the big problem with the welfare state, it breeds more welfae recipients. Since it began , in the US, the number of people it “helps” hasn’t grown smaller, but rather larger, do you really think that that is a good thing, regardless of whether or not you believe that taxation is done at gunpoint?