In my opinion it is not ok to take money from somebody who has earned to and give it to somebody who has not. We have equal opportunity in this country so the choice of one person should not result in "stealing" from another.
Redistribution of wealth is a complicated issue. In Biblical society, the church was entitled to 10% of the income of every person in the nation, and the church was mandated by scriptures to use that money to care for widows and orphans. I don't think that even the most cold-hearted, tight-fisted conservative is against some form of program like this, whether it be implemented through their own church, or through the government in a secular society such as ours.
Ironically, one of the things Jesus took issue with the Pharisees over during his ministry was a program much like Social Security. Torah dictates that children care for their parents in their old age, but the church created a program that allowed children to pay money to the church to have the church care for those parents.
Other forms of redistribution are more controversial. Most people would agree that completely providing all the needs of a person while asking nothing in return creates a cycle of dependence and entitlement that is unhealthy. On the other hand, even many conservatives approve of programs that promote education and forms of self-improvement that provide "a hand up, not a handout".
My personal opinion is that no entitlement program should be implemented at the federal level. Entitlements are not within the mandate of the Constitution, and even if they were, implementing them at the federal level creates a program that is harder to kill than a flesh eating zombie virus, even when the resulting effects of that program on society are similar. Programs like Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid are based on noble and admirable intentions, but they are so wasteful and inefficient that they are bankrupting our society. If our currency collapses, nobody will be able to afford healthcare, and we will all be so poor we can't support ourselves.
Not that those programs should not exist, mind you. Those programs do good things for society. If state and local governments were to take on those programs, they would likely be able to do so with less bureaucratic overhead, and a greater ability to adapt to the varying needs of the communities they exist in. The result would be either a better program at the same cost, or a lower cost to achieve a similar result to the federal programs.
On balance, I favor redistribution on a very limited basis. I think that all social safety nets should be implemented at the local level. I think that unemployment insurance should require that the worker to work with the employment agency for 8 hours a day, divided between working on projects assigned by the community government, and supervised job seeking/job counseling at the discretion of the job seeker (but at least 50% labor).
I think the only entitlements that should be given without requiring compensation should be school vouchers. I approve of a school voucher system that takes a portion of the funds from wealthy school districts to supplement the funds in poor districts, so that the children of poor families are able to attend any school that they can qualify for on their merits, on an equal footing with the children of wealthy parents (unless the wealthy parents choose to spend additional money beyond the voucher value to send their children to more expensive schools).
I do not believe that education is a right, but I do believe that it is a privilege that yields such an undeniable and consistent return on investment, that no reasonable expense should be spared in making it as accessible as possible.
