I don't question that the money of the richest should go to the poor, but is it the government that should do it morally? You can make arguments against wealth redistribution by saying that the government isn't as efficient with the money as private citizens and private organizations. But assume a perfectly efficient government...would it be morally right for the gov't to redistribute?
no. because that money is yours. it does not belong to the whole society.
but you choose to live in that society. and if it's democratic, majority rules.
but certain rights trump the majority rule of democracy. freedom of religion. is possession of property at that level? no.
but does that mean that if, in this society you choose to live in, the majority decide that all your property should be taken away, that's ok?
Is there a moral argument you can make against wealth redistribution without saying that that money is YOURS?
because, thinking about this from a Biblical perspective, that money isn't yours. Give to Ceasar what is Ceaser's. But then you could say that you don't have complete freedom of speech either because Biblically we shouldn't say certain things. But that, I think is different. The heart and the mouth are not Ceaser's. A person isn't Ceaser's. Is their labor? no? so than neither is their money.
But gov't IS the people in a democracy.
WOAH. I'm stuck.
No comments:
Post a Comment