I dislike the term "redistribute" This implies that wealth is the result of "distribution" rather than work. "Wealth transfer" is a more honest term, and "plunder" a more honest term yet.
The only reason the rich keep getting richer out of proportion is from government sanctions and protections, you know “crony capitalism”. If we really had a free market, we would have a much more vigorous economy all around and income inequality would not be nearly so extreme. New start-ups would be able to compete with the established businesses.
It’s like what we’re seeing with tea party candidates. They may not win many, but they are making the incumbents and their supporters spend a whole lot of money. We will keep up our work and eventually, it will cease being cost effective to keep spending so much on incumbents.
Generally good article. One partial criticism.
The article assumes that those who have “more” acquired that more in a “fair” way.
Yet this is merely an assumption, and one that is rejected by most of those who agree with Piketty.
The US has generally had a more or less free market system, so immense wealth here has generally been acquired working within that system. Fairly, IOW.
But let’s consider Mexico in 1910. Practically the entire wealth of the country was in the hands of about 200 families. They had acquired this wealth not by providing goods and services to others, but by using the power of the State to acquire title to land, mineral rights, and other valuable things. In practical terms, they also acquired title to the people who lived on that land.
Is redistribution of wealth, acquired in such an illegitimate and (morally) criminal way, wrong in and of itself? Is not that wealth, morally if not legally, stolen property?
I would contend not. Though I certainly would not agree with many of the methods resorted to in the Mexican Revolution.
IOW, redistribution of wealth is legal plunder, in the terms of the author, when it is used to redistribute wealth acquired in a legitimate and moral way. Not so much if it is merely reversing wealth acquired by earlier legal plunder.
If the state decides it can take your money because you have to much of it, there is no limit to how much it can take. It’s outright theft. When I was growing up me and my five siblings were poor. At that time, the Kennedy’s and other wealthy east coast families lived the life of luxury. So did they owe us anything? No, they didn’t owe us diddly squat. Taking their money would have been theft. Which is what the people who back Piketty are now proposing. Theft, no matter how prettied up, is still theft.
Liberals want wealth redistributed, just not theirs.
Read the following essay by Nathaniel Chipman who, in 1793, pursued the idea of equality in a republic, as published in The Founders' Constitution.
Nathaniel Chipman, Sketches of the Principles of Government 177--82
Volume 1, Chapter 15, Document 51
Of the Nature of Equality in Republics.
Some of the most eminent writers on government, have supposed an equality of property, as well as of rights to be necessary in a republic. They have, therefore, prescribed limits to individual acquisition. The Reason given is, that riches give power to those who possess them, and that those who possess power, will always abuse it to the oppression of others. If this be a good reason for limiting the acquisition of riches, there is equal reason for limiting the improvement of bodily strength and mental abilities. Such a step would be an abridgement of the primary rights of man, and counteract almost all the laws of his nature. It would, perhaps, could it be reduced to practice, place the whole human race in a state of fearless quietude; but it would be a state of tasteless enjoyment, of stupid inactivity, not to be envied by the lowest tribes of the animal creation.
If such be the principles of a republican government, it is a government out of nature. Those have made a wiser choice, who have submitted to the less tyrannical principles of absolute monarchy. These are not the principles of a republic. They are the principles of anarchy, and of popular tyranny.
We have just now enquired into the nature of equality among men, and have seen in what it consists; a free and equal enjoyment of the primary rights, which are, the intellectual rights, and the right which men have of using their powers and faculties, under certain reciprocal modifications, for their own convenience and happiness. The equality necessary in a republic, requires nothing more, than this equality of primary rights. I shall here instance in the right of acquisition only, as being sufficient for my present purpose.
To the security of this right, certain regulations, as to the modes and conditions of enjoying the secondary rights, or in other words, of holding property, are necessary. Not, indeed, as to the quantity, but the freedom of acquisition, use, and disposal. To give to any individual, or class of men, a monopoly, an exclusive right of acquisition in those things, which nature has made the subjects of property, to perpetuate, and render them unalienable in their hands, is an exclusion of the rights of others. It is a violation of the equal rights of man. Of this nature are all exclusive privileges; all perpetuities of riches and honor, and all the pretended rights of primogeniture. Inequality of property, in the possession of individuals, is not directly, nor by inevitable consequence, subversive of genuine liberty. Those laws are, indeed, subversive of liberty, which, by establishing perpetuities, deprive the owner of a right of disposal, and others, so far as they extend, of the right of acquisition; which annex privileges to property, and by making it a qualification in government, create a powerful aristocracy.
Riches are the fruit of industry. Honor the fruit of merit. Both ought, as to their continuance, and the influence which attends them, to be left to the conduct of the possessor. If a man, who, by industry and economy, has acquired riches, become indolent, or profligate, let him sink into poverty. Let those who are still industrious and economical, succeed to his enjoyments, as to their just reward. If a man, who, by noble and virtuous actions, has acquired honor, the esteem of mankind, will behave infamously, let him sink into contempt. To exclude the meritorious from riches and honors, and to perpetuate either to the undeserving, are equally injurious to the rights of man in society. In both it is to counteract the laws of nature, which have, by the connection of cause and effect, annexed the proper rewards and punishments to the actions of men. Wealth, or at least, a competency, is the reward, provided by the laws of nature, for prudent industry; want, the punishment of idleness and profligacy.
If we make equality of property necessary in a society, we must employ force, against both the industrious and the indolent. On the one hand, the industrious must be restrained, from every exertion, which may exceed the power, or inclination of common capacities; on the other hand, the indolent must be forcibly stimulated to common exertions. This would be acting the fable of Procrustes, who, by stretching, or lopping to his iron bedstead, would reduce every man to his own standard length.
If this method should be deemed ineligible, the only alternative will be, either by open violence, or the secret fraud of the law, to turn a certain portion of the well-earned acquisitions of the vigilant and industrious, to the use of the indolent and neglectful.
Let us not, in a Republic, attempt the extreme of equality: It verges on the extreme of tyranny. Guarantee to every man, the full enjoyment of his natural rights. Banish all exclusive privileges; all perpetuities of riches and honors. Leave free the acquisition and disposal of property to supply the occasions of the owner, and to answer all claims of right, both of the society, and of individuals. To give a stimulus to industry, to provide solace and assistance, in the last helpless stages of life, and a reward for the attentions of humanity, confirm to the owner the power of directing, who shall succeed to his right of property after his death; but let it be without any limitation, or restraint upon the future use, or disposal. Divert not the consequences of actions, as to the individual actors, from their proper course. Let no preference be given to any one in government, but what his conduct can secure, from the sentiments of his fellow citizens. Of property, left to the disposal of the law, let a descent from parents to children, in equal portions, be held a sacred principle of the constitution. Secure but these, and every thing will flow in the channel intended by nature. The operation of the equal laws of nature, tend to exclude, or correct every dangerous excess.
Thus industry will be excited; arts will flourish, and virtuous conduct meet its just reward, the esteem and confidence of mankind. Am I deceived? or are these the true principles of equality in a democratic republic? Principles, which will secure its prosperity, and, if any thing in this stage of existence can be durable, its perpetual duration.
The Founders' Constitution
Volume 1, Chapter 15, Document 51
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch15s51.html
The University of Chicago Press
The book, when you take away all the charts and graphs, says that capitalism is bad because some people get very very rich. Which as we all know is very very bad.
So to stop people from getting rich there should be this big bureaucratic unaccountable European Union-like body that encompasses the entire globe and takes away all those undeserved riches and gives them to those more deserving, namely the bureaucrats who do the taking.
That this appeals to our “elites” is both worrisome and absurd, but does go to show just how degenerate the Beltway types have become.
At the count of three, you will step off 20 paces each, turn and fire......
It it weren’t for freedom and free enterprise and taking chances and succeeding, Progressives wouldnt have a leg to stand on.
IMHO
AHA! What we have here is a teachable moment!
All the teeth gnashing and wailing about “income inequality” can be resolved, and quite simply: replace the Marxist inspired steeply progressive income tax with the FairTax and abolish the IRS!
But then the nattering nabobs of negativsm (that would be those of the LIEberal/Socialist/Marxist/Fascist persuasion) would say that there is “NO WAY!” FairTax would end income inequality; “It would only make it worse!”
Well, think it through, my fellow FReepers: if ALL Americans, irrespective of their income, were able to work, save and invest FRee of the heavy hand of government, what might they do?
Why, they would work harder, save more, and invest more, would they not?
They would, after all, get to keep 100% of what they earn, paying no taxes until they purchased a needed or wanted good or service.
IOW, they would INCREASE THEIR NET WORTH EVERY WORKING DAY OF THEIR LIFE!
I’m not going to do the math for you - it is an easy concept to grasp: without the burden of income taxation, working Americans would be able to save money for the down payment for homes, autos, etc. etc. much faster.
They would be able to invest in stocks, bonds, mutual funds, gold, silver, etc. etc. TAX FREE!
How long do you think it would take hard working people to amass growing assets in a tax FRee environment?
Just some food for thought.
I do believe that we should 1099 all government benefits. Not that they should be taxed, but that those receiving benefits should be made aware. Also, it would be easier to track fraud. (at least a little easier) Oh, what am I saying, it’s the government!
“Rather than going after Piketty’s numbers, we need to go after his philosophy.”
Indeed.
HOORAY George Leef! “Legal Plunder” BUMP!
Socialism Is Legal Plunder - Bastiat
BIG GOVERNMENT IS CRONY SOCIALISM
http://www.usa.gov/directory/federal/index.shtml?query
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
Bump