Wealth redistribution: -1 + 1 > 0

[QuantumTroll]

Mdsimpson92 said: "doesn't the welfare first take then redistribute to those who need it?"

Yes, yes it does. Consider this:

To a moderately rich man, $10 isn't much. A moderately rich man might earn this amount every hour of every day. It's his lunch, and he earns it during the morning commute. It's a family dinner if you cook it yourself, and he earns it while eating lunch. It's what he spends each month on haircuts, and he earns it in less than the time spent on the john each week.

To a poor man, $10 is a lot. He earns six of these every day. One he uses to buy food. One is for gas. One is laid aside for rent. Now only half is left, and his kids need school supplies and want to go to camp. Health insurance consumes another bill, and only one $10 bill is left today.

So when we take a $10 bill from a moderately rich man, we take very little. When we give it to a poor man, we give much much more. So the net sum is positive. I think we actually create something, as surprising as that sounds. And I think one can argue that the rich man will benefit from this, too, because he'll live in a society of equals, rather than one strained by class differences. He'll also feel comfort knowing that if his business for some reason crashes, he and his family will not be left to the wolves.

[mdsimpson92]

Oh, I don't deny the general benefit that would come from having a natural safety net (I am not sure if the US can implement it properly right now what with the state of our economy). I was just noting the fact that you first have to "take" and then "give". I wouldn't mind that that much. Though maybe people like Friedman and Nozick might object because it violates some rule of theirs, but hey libertarians.

Though If you want me to start playing devil's advocate on this being a Moderate Republican (tea party scares me) I could easily play that role.