This wasn't directed at me, but I would like to respond to it.
Voluntary wealth redistribution can be a good thing. Use your your money to give to somebody in need and you have the satisfaction of being a good person while nobody else is required to agree with your choice or contribute to your project. That is freedom and results in a stronger, more satisfying social contract and quality of life.
Government forced wealth redistribution is something quite different. Now the government forces you to give up property that is legally and ethically yours and give it to somebody else who may or may not use it wisely or responsibly or to good advantage. That is a form of slavery that our Founders never intended to be imposed on a free people. Once the government has the power to do that, everything you own or will ever have will be at the disposal of the government. And you are no longer free.
Even if the government restricts such activities just enough so that the people don't rise up in rebellion, it is a hugely corrupting influence on both government and those receiving from the government.
Just because the rich are taxed 5% more then the middle class, that doesn't make them slaves.
The fact that a government can have different tax rates for different people doesn't mean that some individuals will be taxed at 100% (making them complete slaves). so I do not see a problem with progressive taxation.
I agree that wealth distribution causes people to sometimes spend money for negative ends, and can cause corruption and dependence. However, not all wealth distribution does that.
There can still be a limited government with small amounts of wealth distribution, for things like public education and unemployment insurance. It doesn't need to go overboard just because a small amount of progressive taxation is used.
You mean it makes some people happier to recieve stolen money?
Who gives a **** if they're "happy" or not?
because promoting happiness (among other things) is my goal of society
you apparently have a different goal. im a utilitarian
Because it has to be stolen from it's owner.
Duh!
I will not oppose any wealth re-distribution scheme that:
1) Takes only from people promoting the scheme,
2) Leaves the promoters of the scheme below the national poverty level,
3) and forever forbids those promoters the opportunity to receive stolen wealth.
If they can't put their own money where their big lying mouths are, their scams shouldn't be allowed.
that sounds like voluntary donations, that doesn't work well enough to generate the revenue to help the poor.
Here's a notion:
The people that founded the country didn't believe it was the government's job to plan people's lives or judge how they're lived, outside of obvious criminal behaviors.
That's what "freedom" is about.
It's freedom from government interference.
There's no promise that the government was going to pick up someone who falls down, not in the least.
But why is freedom from government interference so important?
If that is the most basic assumption you have about government, then so be it.
But I think promoting a certain goal, like freedom of people, does not always involve the government staying out of people's lives.
For instance, someone only has the freedom to learn how to play a piano if they either earn the money to buy a piano or they are given a piano from someone else.
In this scheme, if the government gives someone money to buy a piano, then they are actually more free with the government involvement.
But instead of using my example above as a rationale for completely socialism, we should use my example for freedom and your example of government staying out of people's lives to try and find a good equilibrium between the two.
So instead of the government taxing the rich to buy me a piano, the government can use a flat tax to pay for a cultural center with a piano that poor people can practice on. That is still wealth distribution, because the poor would use the cultural center more then the rich, but I think it maximizes freedom for the most amount of people, so should be promoted.
What is ethically wrong with this wealth distribution?
Why should I give up what I earn because you are to lazy to work and you expect others to support you?
see above.