An often mentioned subject that I'd like to gauge DP's general opinion on. Is redistribution of wealth a valid exercise of government authority?
Personally, the term "redistribution of wealth" is one I've always found very offensive - and for reasons as you've worded it - as an "exercise of government authority."
Another poster asked what the term meant. I know what it means - driving it is the philosophy of a few that believes they have the authority, the right to take from some in order to give it to others (redistribute) - and that for the expressed purpose of achieving "equality" in wealth, equality in outcome.
I am adamantly opposed to this philosophy for it presumes:
1) The government has such a right, that such a right has been explicitly conferred on it. It hasn't. Nowhere in our Constitution will you find such a right explicitly or implicitly mentioned or listed.
2) The government has such an ability, such that it can equitably take from some and give it to others. No one has such abilities.
Government has neither the right nor the ability to equitably "redistribute" anything.
A few in government however may possess the raw power to try, that is, to exercise the power it takes to forcibly take from some to [ostensibly] give it to others. Such an abuse of power however is inimical to the longevity of a free society. What inevitably happens is that the few in government with the power to forcibly take from some will do just that - but keep [the vast bulk of] it. Maneuvering under the banner of "equality for all" their machinations always results in a shift of wealth... to them, who end up being the only possessors of both wealth and power, and always at the expense of everyone else.
So things like education, roads, hospitals, sewers, clean water to drink, police fire and rescue.......those things should only be available to the people who can afford it? The rich?
I don't think he said, or even implied that. Roads, sewers, clean water, fire/police are what he was talking about for all are legitimate and explicitly sanctioned functions of government.
Moreover, none of them have anything to do with the philosophy of redistributing wealth; nor can I imagine anyone believing roads, sewers, clean water, police/fire etc. are remotely associated with the philosophy of reducing inequalities in society.
Taxation is for the expressed purpose of funding legitimate government functions, such as the above and are therefore necessary.
Even certain "social safety nets" - while I agree
some are necessary - are nevertheless unrelated to the philosophy of "redistribution of wealth" except perhaps as an excuse used by the few to sell the unsanctioned use of force they're seeking.