"To demonstrate the difference between the two meanings, consider the following. Suppose at time one we distribute things a certain way. Then at time two we increase taxes and increase food stamps. Then at time three we decrease taxes and decrease food stamps. So at time four we are back at the distribution in time one.
If redistribution means deviations from the Everyday Libertarian baseline, then you will say time two was redistribution, but time three was not. Time three was unwinding redistribution. It was unredistribution.
If redistribution means Every Change, then you would say time two was redistribution and time three was redistribution. Both changed the distribution. So both were redistribution."
'Every Change' is philosophically invalid.
How could time three be redistribution? If my employer voluntarily agrees to pay me $500 per week in exchange for my labor and some third party uses force against me to claim a portion of the fruits of that labor as their own (effectively making me their slave), then that is wealth being redistributed. But, when the next week that third party stops using force against me to claim a portion of the fruits of my labor then nothing is being redistributed. Specifically, let's say that third party made $450 a week before what was redistributed to them from my labor, giving up their claim to my labor can't be said to be another case of redistribution because nothing is redistributed from their labor to others. They're keeping all the fruits of their labor. It is impossible to redistribute something that doesn't exist, it could only be said to be redistribution if the first party makes a claim to the fruits of the second parties labor, so instead of $450 the second party ends up with $400 while say, $50 is redistributed back to the first party making their income $550. But, if there's no transaction then there's no redistribution happening.
The initial distribution is a voluntary one from individual A to individual B, the redistribution is a forced one from individual B to individual C, ending this can't be said to be a redistribution from individual C to individual B as nothing is being distributed any longer from B to C or from C to B. There's no transaction of property, and therefor no distribution at all.
No comments:
Post a Comment