Doesn't wealth always get redistributed?
Isn’t the whole point of money that it flows? What good would it be to anyone if it just stayed frozen in position, never being spent or earned?
Why is redistribution of wealth terrible when it is done by a democratically elected government to enhance the common good but wonderful when done by the most greedy and powerful among us in order to concentrate all wealth in their hands? Since wealth is going to be redistributed anyway, doesn’t it make sense for society to exercise some control over its accumulation in order to assure the common good? Can’t this be done without resorting to pure socialism (government ownership of all means of production and distribution of wealth)?
Was the redistribution of wealth during the age of the robber barons and trusts inherently more equitable than it was after Teddy Roosevelt broke up the trusts? Do we really want to go back to the Gilded Age, robber barons and monopolies with all redistribution of wealth going to the richest families on Earth? Why would we peons vote to do that?