Redistribution of Wealth - is it really a bad thing?

[PaulaGem]

Before I came on this board I would occasionally use this term, but I thought of it as taxing the rich ( the really rich - the connected "them") to help those who are in need.

If this money was gotten by exploiting other men, shouldn't it be redistributed?

How does the libertarian model go about solving this problem?

[awake]

Private Property is paramount. Taxes and other forced confiscation is theft.

[PaulaGem]

Private Property is paramount. Wealth distribution is theft.

How about reading the OP before you open your mouth? Try responding to it, but my suspicion is that you are one of those gadflys who just hangs around pestering people.

[Original_Intent]

I have absolutley no problem with taking money from the wealthy if it can be shown it was gathered through dishonest means. Meaning, the Kennedy fortune, while gained at least partly within "the letter of the law" there is really no question that many of the laws that were made regarding trading with insider knowledge and so forth were put on the books due to the practices of Joe Kennedy.

I think there are some people who have amassed great wealth legitimately. I am no fan of Bill Gates, I think "Pirates of Silicon Valley" is probably pretty accurate, but I think the majority of his wealth was legitimately earned. I guess the problem is it is irrelevant because it is not like someone is going to sit down and pass judgement on a case by case basis and either take someone welath to redistribute of not. I am just saying as a mental exercise, if it could be done in a fair manner I would not be opposed.

But as far as someone just saying "You have more money than you will ever use, and we are taking some of it to help those in need....no way, theft is theft, and using the government as the redistribution method doesn;t change that.

[rp08orbust]

How about reading the OP before you open your mouth? Try responding to it, but my suspicion is that you are one of those gadflys who just hangs around pestering people.

The OP wasn't all that clear. You say


If this money was gotten by exploiting other men, shouldn't it be redistributed?

What money, and redistributed how? Can you give a concrete example?

[awake]

The Libertarian goes about solving this problem by proving it is theft and getting the property returned to its rightful owner through the courts.

But since government is legalized theft, backed by the masses, good luck.

[MsDoodahs]

First, Paula has to define "exploiting other men."

[PaulaGem]

The OP wasn't all that clear. You say



What money, and redistributed how? Can you give a concrete example?

Post #4 addressed the issue quite succinctly.

Perhaps it is not the OP but the skill or intent of those reading it.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

How about reading the OP before you open your mouth? Try responding to it, but my suspicion is that you are one of those gadflys who just hangs around pestering people.

Your speech has been really inflammatory lately, why don't you take some time to calm down?

[LibertyEagle]

How about reading the OP before you open your mouth? Try responding to it, but my suspicion is that you are one of those gadflys who just hangs around pestering people.

That was pretty rude, Paula.

He was responding to your question. You mentioned redistributing someone's wealth. The thing is, their wealth is their private property. To redistribute is to steal. Since the vast majority of our liberty is based off of the ability to own private property, it's not something that a lover of liberty should dismiss easily.

The Property Basis of Rights
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/the-property-basis-of-rights/

[Dojo]

when they say redistributing the wealth, it really means taking from the almost poor and giving it to the dirt poor. Extremely wealthy don't pay taxes, or find ways to not pay their share, just look at all the wealthy tax evaders in Washington. They only pay their taxes after they are caught,

People think the Uba rich are the ones they are talking about.... NOT

[rp08orbust]

Post #4 addressed the issue quite succinctly.

Then I think better terms for what you're describing is compensation and restitution for theft and fraud.

If so, then I don't think you'll find any disagreement with us, or anyone for that matter. Does there exist *any* political ideology that does not advocate these things?


Perhaps it is not the OP but the skill or intent of those reading it.

May I suggest that you lurk a bit longer before your next post? You don't seem like you have much experience communicating in online discussion forums.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

I think the world today is a prime example of my theory for people to be relatively rich, others have to be relatively poor. Just like how a lot of us here live comfortable lives with plenty of food and what not, while there's many chinese that can't even buy a toaster.

[awake]

There are those who earn wealth and there are those who have some one steal wealth on their behalf. The distinction should be made. And since taxation is theft, the party stealing it and the persons and organizations benefiting from it should be prosecuted. It just so happens in our case that most are blinded from the fact that the government is a group of people stealing from the other group who are not government, it is the God state that can do no wrong.

[SelfTaught]

If we're going to talk about people receiving money illegitimately, we have to talk about people that get money from government today.

People that are on welfare today receive illegitimate money. I pay federal income taxes, maybe you do too Paula. Was none of the money that welfare recipients received earned legitimately by taxpayers? So a welfare recipient today has without a doubt received money from us, the taxpayer, making that welfare check illegitimate because that recipient did not earn it.

I like the example Walter E Williams makes. In the 10 commandments, does it say "Thou shalt not steal" or does it say "Thou shalt not steal, unless you have a majority vote in Congress?" If you were to ask God if it is a sin to be the recipient of stolen property, he would probably say that is a sin as well.

And in a couple threads I was reading today, you stated that we were embarrassing ourselves by posting that particular thread. You embarrass yourself by posting this one, when any liberty lover can tell you redistribution is evil.

[Pericles]

Isn't the real question behind this what causes a disparity of wealth?

A capitalistic system requires the ability for everyone to to able to accumulate capital in order for society to work well. The problem is that society currently is not working well, and I attribute that to two causes.

1. The income tax prevents the low and middle income earners from accumulating capital to invest.

2. Trade policies depress wages by placing less skilled citizens in competition with workers from countries with extreme poverty.

[Bucjason]

You are asking the libertarian solution to stealing ??

The rule of law.

It is illegal to steal , the same way it is illegal for the government to do the same ( which is what spreading the wealth is ) .

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison

[jsu718]

Those who are in need NEED to get a job. If they can't get a job they NEED family to help them. If they have no family there are churches and private charities all over the country that are perfectly willing to help them. Redistribution serves no legitimate purpose.

And yes, the 10 commandments says "Don't Steal"... Thesselonians 3:10 says "He who does not work shall not eat"... which oddly enough Lenin said was the first principle of socialism.

[Imperial]

Before I came on this board I would occasionally use this term, but I thought of it as taxing the rich ( the really rich - the connected "them") to help those who are in need.

If this money was gotten by exploiting other men, shouldn't it be redistributed?

How does the libertarian model go about solving this problem?

Maybe academically we could have this debate. But I think the most important thing to note is we do have one effective and moral way to redistribute wealth in the real world and a short period of time. Remove barriers that the state places on people. For example, mandates to have health insurance, ability to sue for environmental damage, decriminalize drugs to not retard those in poverty's progress for some mistake they made early in life.


If we're going to talk about people receiving money illegitimately, we have to talk about people that get money from government today.

Right, that's the second point. Eliminate corporate welfare (and corporate personhood for that matter) in order to not give a type of subsidy to the rich.

This is a way to lower the bureaucracy while removing barriers to a more egalitarian society.

[SelfTaught]

I think the world today is a prime example of my theory for people to be relatively rich, others have to be relatively poor. Just like how a lot of us here live comfortable lives with plenty of food and what not, while there's many chinese that can't even buy a toaster.

I think you are wrong. Capitalism is not a zero-sum game. It's not like a big pie where if someone takes more, others have to make due with less.

Capitalism is a positive-sum game because it involves voluntary exchange. In order for a voluntary exchange to take place, both parties have to benefit in their own estimation. Zero-sum games involve involuntary exchange whereby one person benefits at the expense of another. Is China poorer than we are because we stole from them.

I know some of you may make the case that there is sweat shop labor in China. Almost all of the workers work voluntarily in China. They may make just a fraction of the US worker, but that is their decision to do so. If working in the "sweat shop" is better than their other alternative employment opportunities, you can bet they'll be lining up to work.

[PaulaGem]

Boy, this one brought out the trolls and the Kool-aid kids again. One reasonable answer and it seems the rest is regurgitation -


If we're going to talk about people receiving money illegitimately, we have to talk about people that get money from government today.

What those people get is spit in the ocean compared to corporate welfare and systematic extortion by the Fed.

Let's forget the ants at the picnic right now and concentrate on the elephant in the room shall we?

By the way - the vote is broken - those people can't vote themselves squat.

[PaulaGem]

Your speech has been really inflammatory lately, why don't you take some time to calm down?

I have problems with those who substitute foolishness for wisdom, blindness for insight, and bigotry for liberty.

[LibertyEagle]

First, Paula has to define "exploiting other men."

Please answer this, Paula.

[PaulaGem]

The question was redistribution of property that was stolen in the first place. I was looking for an intelligent response and so far I've only gotten one person who has even attempted to address the OP.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Boy, this one brought out the trolls and the Kool-aid kids again. One reasonable answer and it seems the rest is regurgitation -



What those people get is spit in the ocean compared to corporate welfare and systematic extortion by the Fed.

Let's forget the ants at the picnic right now and concentrate on the elephant in the room shall we?

By the way - the vote is broken - those people can't vote themselves squat.

Ok Paula, if you want equal distribution of wealth, I found the system for you.

http://i35.tinypic.com/jpkghc.jpg

Under communism, people own the means of production, and everyone gets a equal cut.

Now go to the cpusa and stop flaming the members here.

[awake]

Most also see money as its face value, when they should be fully aware of its purchasing power instead. Chinese make far less but their purchasing power is what is truly important.

[rp08orbust]

So a welfare recipient today has without a doubt received money from us, the taxpayer, making that welfare check illegitimate because that recipient did not earn it.

By this logic, Ron Paul's congressional salary is then illegitimate as well. And so is your use of roads, police, courts, etc. Even by voting, you're causing a state employee to spend time counting your ballot, and that employee is paid with money stolen from taxpayers.

Thus, I don't think you can condemn the *receiving* of government benefits by anyone. Instead, our focus should be on condemning the theft in the first place.

I recommend my posts in this thread: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=201547

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

By this logic, Ron Paul's congressional salary is then illegitimate as well. And so is your use of roads, police, courts, etc. Even by voting, you're causing a state employee to spend time counting your ballot, and that employee is paid with money stolen from taxpayers.

Thus, I don't think you can condemn the *receiving* of government benefits by anyone. Instead, our focus should be on condemning the theft in the first place.

I recommend my posts in this thread: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=201547

I would like to add, if someone has worked for years and became unemployed, then collected welfare, I think it is rude to say we are paying for them, when they well paid their fair share of taxes. I think that's one of the main reasons it even exists, not the perversion today, where dynasties of welfare families are created.

[MsDoodahs]

Paula is taking a break for a few days.

Carry on.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Paula is taking a break for a few days.

Carry on.

LOL, well may as well just move or lock this topic then.

[RevolutionSD]

Before I came on this board I would occasionally use this term, but I thought of it as taxing the rich ( the really rich - the connected "them") to help those who are in need.

If this money was gotten by exploiting other men, shouldn't it be redistributed?

How does the libertarian model go about solving this problem?

Let's start with the basics.

Is it moral to steal?
Do you think anyone in the world should steal?

Do you think if someone is given the title of "government official" that it's okay for them to steal but not anyone else?

And, is it okay to steal from one group, but not another?

[Original_Intent]

Ok Paula, if you want equal distribution of wealth, I found the system for you.

http://i35.tinypic.com/jpkghc.jpg

Under communism, people own the means of production, and everyone gets a equal cut.

Now go to the cpusa and stop flaming the members here.

I am not prone to side with PaulaGem but she never called for the equal distribution of wealth (at least no in this thread).

[Bucjason]

If a wealthy person steals your money you get it back the same as if a poor person steals your money. That's why we have laws.

You sure as hell don't do it by raising taxes on ALL wealthy people , including the ones who EARNED thier money.

[SelfTaught]

Boy, this one brought out the trolls and the Kool-aid kids again. One reasonable answer and it seems the rest is regurgitation -



What those people get is spit in the ocean compared to corporate welfare and systematic extortion by the Fed.

Let's forget the ants at the picnic right now and concentrate on the elephant in the room shall we?

By the way - the vote is broken - those people can't vote themselves squat.

I'm not trying ot say that welfare for the poor is any worse than the welfare for the rich.

I used the example of poor welfare recipients to show that even the people you describe as "in need" can also be recipients of stolen property. And how can we know for sure that those people "in need" aren't just lazy or trying to get a free ride.....anymore than we can know for sure that those ultra-rich didn't earn their money legitimately?

[awake]

The answer to the problem is that there is no good way to redistribute stolen money back to its original owners. The point is to stop the stealing machine.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

If someone is really rich and hoards all their money without spending it, doesn't that theoretically make everyone else's money worth more since there is less money in circulation?

[amy31416]

If someone is really rich and hoards all their money without spending it, doesn't that theoretically make everyone else's money worth more since there is less money in circulation?

I suppose if we didn't have the Federal Reserve it might, but I'm no economist.

[awake]

"If someone is really rich and hoards all their money without spending it, doesn't that theoretically make everyone else's money worth more since there is less money in circulation?"

That's called saving... and interest is used to entice those savers to lend.

[SelfTaught]

If someone is really rich and hoards all their money without spending it, doesn't that theoretically make everyone else's money worth more since there is less money in circulation?

It can mean that eventually if that rich person puts the money in a banking institution that loans out the money for capital investment.

In practice wealthy people normally don't hoard every dime they make in a vibrant economy. We can reasonably assume that most people want to make lots of money to enjoy a better standard of living -- that's the incentive -- you don't see a whole lot of multi-millionaires living in one room shacks. People can hoard gold though, because the bad money, fiat dollars will drive out the good money. But once gold returns an actual usable unit of money in daily transactions, it will be spent eventually.

[legion]

If this money was gotten by exploiting other men, shouldn't it be redistributed?

How does the libertarian model go about solving this problem?

Yes, if money is gotten by exploiting it should be redistributed.

For instance: if there is a "brain damaged" SSI recipient, that annoyed the right doctors enough to collect a check, but seems to be mentally capable enough to run multiple internet businesses. Additionally, if this person were to claim to be an expert on precious metals and gemstones, then yes, this person should have their exploited wealth redistributed.

[awake]

"Yes, if money is gotten by exploiting it should be redistributed."

By this you mean returned to the proper owners...? Marxists make it quite clear who they think are the exploiters (Capitalists) and the idea of liberty has been constantly under assault from this backward view.

[muh_roads]

The money paid out by the government to various recipients at taxpayer expense should be collected back but instead of redistributing it, the money should be destroyed so we can put more value back into the dollar. That is the best way of redistributing wealth back to the people if you believe inflation is a tax.

I would temporarily get the hell out of holding assets like gold and silver if that was the case. Buy back in lower.

The problem is a lot of the poor wouldn't have the money to pay back the grants they received. To be honest the best way to do this without taking money from others by force is to just reintroduce the gold standard or allow gold/silver to compete with FRN's.

[pcosmar]

PaulaGem
Banned

Not sorry to see this. PaulaGem has been posting pro -socalist /pro- globalist crap on this board for some time. I don't believe that he/she has any understanding of individual liberty.

If you want to see a great example, look at Robert Gilmore LeTourneau .
http://www.letourneau-inc.com/about/RG_bio.htm


Robert Gilmore LeTourneau
Robert Gilmore LeTourneau was born on November 30, 1888, in Richford, Vermont, in the United States of America. Traditional education held little interest for LeTourneau and in 1902, at the age of 14, he left school. In 1958, at the age of 70, LeTourneau re-entered the earthmoving equipment manufacturing business, offering contractors a range of high capacity earthmoving, transportation, and materials handling machines based on the revolutionary electric wheel drive system he had developed. R. G. LeTourneau held many respected positions throughout his life as a Christian layman, including leader of the Christian and Missionary Alliance Church, president of the Christian Business Men’s Association and President of the International Gideon Society. Throughout his career, he was the recipient of more than 30 awards and honors relating to engineering, manufacturing, and the development of heavy equipment. For many years, he lived on ten percent of his income and gave away ninety percent to Christian work, especially missionary efforts in Africa and South America. Even when his business was in financial jeopardy, he continued giving his sacrificial pledges to Christ’s work. “The question” he said, “is not how much of my money I give to God, but rather how much of God’s money I keep for myself.”


Here is a story of a man of great wealth, and of charity.

[legion]

"Yes, if money is gotten by exploiting it should be redistributed."

By this you mean returned to the proper owners...? Marxists make it quite clear who they think are the exploiters (Capitalists) and the idea of liberty has been constantly under assault from this backward view.


If you read through PaulaGem's post history you will understand my post a lot better. I understand if you don't want to. She doesn't have a lot of meaningful things to say.

[Dionysus]

Well, if we were living in a small tribe in an unpopulated area, and I had made a tee-pee to shelter my family out of deer hides from deer I'd killed with a bow and arrow I'd made ( I had to educate myself how to do this, which took time), and I had collected fish from the sea with a net my wife had made, do you think some whining communists ought to be able to take my possessions in the name of "social justice"? And if I had taken 30 years learning medicine and testing which plants had medicinal properties, should some morbidly obese lazy person in the tribe demand that he had a right to my services because he has a right to healthcare?

[Flash]

If a rich man or poor man stole from you, then it would be against the law and dealt with. However if you want to tax (steal) money from what the rich entrepreneur earned then that would be immoral. If you or others who wish to help people in need wish to donate to them, then that is obviously acceptable.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Well, if we were living in a small tribe in an unpopulated area, and I had made a tee-pee to shelter my family out of deer hides from deer I'd killed with a bow and arrow I'd made ( I had to educate myself how to do this, which took time), and I had collected fish from the sea with a net my wife had made, do you think some whining communists ought to be able to take my possessions in the name of "social justice"? And if I had taken 30 years learning medicine and testing which plants had medicinal properties, should some morbidly obese lazy person in the tribe demand that he had a right to my services because he has a right to healthcare?

No, but you should help him out of good will. You shouldn't be asking a dying man what he can give you in exchange for saving his life.

[Dionysus]

No, but you should help him out of good will. You shouldn't be asking a dying man what he can give you in exchange for saving his life.

Totally different issue. If he's actually dying, or even not, he has a right to ASK me if I want to help him. And I probably would. Or he could ask for a loan to pay me with. Or he could ask his family to help him help me. But he can't compel me against my will to help him, that makes me his slave. And why should the hardworking, productive man be a slave to his inferior, or to any man? What has he to offer me in return? That is the question.

Capitalism isn't unchecked tyranny of the strong over the weak, either. There are rules which channel the strong man's energy into productive activity, as opposed to oppressive activity. It's better for everyone in the end. As evidenced by America's poor, which has the leisure time to get drunk, smoke weed, and play video games to an excessive degree.

[PaulaGem]

This thread started with a specific question. There were 48 responses to this thread. Only three attempted to discuss the question actually asked. (see response #4 for an example) A fourth was a civil, thougtful response to another poster.

The rest responded with the routine "theft" meme without even considering what was asked. For this reason I will no longer expect rational dialog on this forum. Moderators asked me to define what had already been defined - I was jumped on by a gang who started squealing "theft" - but what was asked posed taking what had already been stolen. I was later libeled- accused of breaking laws and insulted far worse than anything I had said.

Paula was being "rude" - but I didn't see anything in the rules about having to be constantly polite. I responded rudely to those who were rude enough to respond to a post without reading it or thinking about it. A board that comes up with 90% flaming responses to a legitimate question has a problem.

There is a culture of prejudice here, just as there is in most groups that don't wear a "libertarian" t-shirt. There are also quite a few people who are gadflys, who never really try to contribute but just bicker. I think their interference in dialog is intentionally disruptive.

I may get slammed for this again - but a statement of truth is not an insult unless the party who feels insulted refuses to address the truth.

I really care for the Constitution and what this country stands for. I am fighting my own private battle for rights. Denver federal court 1:09-cv-01723-BNB Nelson v. Skehan.

I believe that if we are to salvage this country it is going to take some sort of revolution and pain and struggle equal to that which brought about the birth of the country.

What many here don't seem to grasp is that the Founding Fathers disagreed greatly on what the country should be like and what was needed, but through listening to each other, compromise, and mutual respect they came up with a workable solution. I don't find that willingness to listen or that respect of other viewpoints on this board.

[PaulaGem]

Yes, if money is gotten by exploiting it should be redistributed.

For instance: if there is a "brain damaged" SSI recipient, that annoyed the right doctors enough to collect a check, but seems to be mentally capable enough to run multiple internet businesses. Additionally, if this person were to claim to be an expert on precious metals and gemstones, then yes, this person should have their exploited wealth redistributed.

Legion - that is legally actionable libel. I suggest you remove that post and formally retract your statement.

[Ninja Homer]

Before I came on this board I would occasionally use this term, but I thought of it as taxing the rich ( the really rich - the connected "them") to help those who are in need.

If this money was gotten by exploiting other men, shouldn't it be redistributed?

How does the libertarian model go about solving this problem?

Paula, I think all the flames could have been avoided if you'd give a specific example of what you're talking about. Every case is going to be different.

If you're talking about something like the Madoff ponzi scheme, then the wealth should be redistributed back to the people who lost money in it.

If you're talking about the Federal Reserve ponzi scheme, then it's something completely different... so what exactly are you talking about? Be as descriptive as possible, or you're probably going to just get flamed again.

[PaulaGem]

I will not continue this thread. Post #4 got it, so I believe if people took the time to read and think they also could have gotten it.

[TGGRV]

Not only it leads to inefficiency, but it is IMMORAL! Ha, I said it.

[legion]

Legion - that is legally actionable libel. I suggest you remove that post and formally retract your statement.

How is my hypothetical statement legally actionable libel?

Here come the men in black...

[legion]

Yes, if money is gotten by exploiting it should be redistributed.

For instance: if there is a "brain damaged" SSI recipient, that annoyed the right doctors enough to collect a check, but seems to be mentally capable enough to run multiple internet businesses. Additionally, if this person were to claim to be an expert on precious metals and gemstones, then yes, this person should have their exploited wealth redistributed.

Is this thing on? Tap. Tap.

[fisharmor]

Huh... well, I'll take a stab at the topic at hand.
There are two cases where I could say that one's gains were ill-gotten.

One is theft.
The other is fraud.

In all other cases, I would say that a person amassing wealth is doing so as part of a voluntary exchange. Meaning, the people giving that person wealth are voluntarily giving that person the wealth.

Thus, if there is not a clear case of theft or fraud, I don't see a reason to have the legal system pass judgment on the situation.

Even if a company started selling "suicide pills" that were specifically for the purpose of committing suicide painlessly, I would not have a legal objection. There is no theft, and there is no fraud, since they would be marketed for an express purpose. Of course I disagree with the need for such a product, and would probably campaign against its use. But there would be zero need for the state to get involved.

Likewise, high "sin" taxes and government harassment of tobacco and alcohol and firearms companies is out of the question. There is no responsibility on the part of the producer for what gets done with their product.

So I guess the short answer is that I don't see how a company can be exploitative, outside of fraud and theft.

Of course, if we are to judge the rightness or wrongness of an organizations actions based strictly on fraud and theft, it is not the corporations that require our scrutiny, but the governments. One can always patronize a competing organization after one has somehow screwed him. One does not have the option when it comes to government.

So in the case of whether it is right to take from those who have done wrong, I would say that the question, by examining only individuals or corporate entities, is fundamentally biased in favor of statism.

And that is pretty much my libertarian response: stop looking in the wrong place for evidence of wrongdoing. That is not to say that corporations are all good: it is, as you say, an admonishment not to look at the ants, but the elephant.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Paula, why don't you ever stop? You act like a child. Did you really have to revive this topic? It's done and over with. Stop, just stop.

[agitator]

How is my hypothetical statement legally actionable libel?

Here come the men in black...

It's not. She is clueless.

[angelatc]

The question was redistribution of property that was stolen in the first place. I was looking for an intelligent response and so far I've only gotten one person who has even attempted to address the OP.

This place is a huge reflecting pool, Paula.

[TGGRV]

If an asset was stolen then getting it back isn't wealth redistribution. Duh.

[Dr.3D]

Before I came on this board I would occasionally use this term, but I thought of it as taxing the rich ( the really rich - the connected "them") to help those who are in need.

If this money was gotten by exploiting other men, shouldn't it be redistributed?

How does the libertarian model go about solving this problem?

Seems it should be given back to only those it was taken from. No one else should get a penny.

[mconder]

I think very harsh penalties should be introduced to the constitution for anyone involved in the Federal government who it proven to have aided any private corporation in any way. It should be up their with murder in my opinion. When you violate the public trust, you should go away for a very long time.

[mconder]

Seems it should be given back to only those it was taken from. No one else should get a penny.

True. Any profits earned by corporations being subsidized by government should all be redistributed back to the tax payer. If the company stops being profitable, it's assets should be seized, liquidated, and given back to the tax payer.

[angelatc]

I think very harsh penalties should be introduced to the constitution for anyone involved in the Federal government who it proven to have aided any private corporation in any way. It should be up their with murder in my opinion. When you violate the public trust, you should go away for a very long time.

I feel the same way. Public servants who criminally violate the public trust should face much stiffer penalties than the perpetrators of public on public crime.

It's just the opposite right now.

[MelissaWV]

Before I came on this board I would occasionally use this term, but I thought of it as taxing the rich ( the really rich - the connected "them") to help those who are in need.

If this money was gotten by exploiting other men, shouldn't it be redistributed?

How does the libertarian model go about solving this problem?

I read a few posts from each page, though I didn't read a lot of the arguing which I figured would plague the thread.

The trouble with using the word "redistribution" in this sense is that it's not what should occur. If someone got their wealth by exploiting others, then those others who were exploited should be the ones with claim to that wealth.

Redistribution gives the impression that the person with the ill-gotten gains has now forfeited it, and it is redistributed to the populace in general or put to a "better purpose".

Redistribution, with that definition in mind, is a bad thing because it leaves the originally wronged parties still wronged, and provides a high incentive to confiscate funds at the drop of a hat. This is largely what governments have historically done. The IRS is a grand example, since it's current. If there is a dispute as to your money, it's going to lean heavily in favor of the IRS. They will "repurpose" your money for you, don't worry.

Restitution and reparations are a bit more on point. The wronged party goes after the current possessor of the wealth and a third party with authority judges the case. This can be through mediation, not exclusively through a Government system.

[Bucjason]

I read a few posts from each page, though I didn't read a lot of the arguing which I figured would plague the thread.

The trouble with using the word "redistribution" in this sense is that it's not what should occur. If someone got their wealth by exploiting others, then those others who were exploited should be the ones with claim to that wealth.

Redistribution gives the impression that the person with the ill-gotten gains has now forfeited it, and it is redistributed to the populace in general or put to a "better purpose".

Redistribution, with that definition in mind, is a bad thing because it leaves the originally wronged parties still wronged, and provides a high incentive to confiscate funds at the drop of a hat. This is largely what governments have historically done. The IRS is a grand example, since it's current. If there is a dispute as to your money, it's going to lean heavily in favor of the IRS. They will "repurpose" your money for you, don't worry.

Restitution and reparations are a bit more on point. The wronged party goes after the current possessor of the wealth and a third party with authority judges the case. This can be through mediation, not exclusively through a Government system.

Correct! The correct term to use in Paula's example would be "refunded"

Is being "refunded" a bad thing..to which the answer is of course NO.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt