Resolved: Redistribution is ethical

My thanks to my opponent for the stimulating debate. P1: I Still Don"t Care Or Why You Should Not Either, Given The Arguments Presented In This Debate: Simple. Probability, and optimization. Ideally, everybody would have a 100% chance of reaching their optimal state. In many cases this will differ. My optimal state involves working as an architect while living outside a city in a semidesert area with a nice garden and my favorite cat. Other people may prefer other situations. But everybody has a way that they would like to live. Ideally, we would all be able to do so. In real life, then, we can"t. What, then, to do? Well, if everybody having a 100% chances of living in their own personal Hell is really bad, and everybody having a 100% chance of living in their optimal state is really good, then obviously we want to be closer to the latter option. That"s just common sense. Who wants to be miserable? But since we"re talking about an overarching ethical system, a transcendent one meant to guide many people, we"ve got to look beyond ourselves. My own pleasure and my own pain are not objectively more or less important than anyone else"s. The latter option I state involves everyone having the maximum possible welfare. I do not mean in the manner of government assistance. From this framework, we derive a basic ethical truth: Things that increase welfare are good. Things that decrease welfare are bad. So if I make someone permanently miserable to gain momentary pleasure, I have committed a heinous act. If I am too damn lazy or greedy to help someone, and they are made permanently miserable, die, or suffer great pain, I have also, by my negligence, committed a heinous act. My opponent then goes on to argue that we know theft is wrong because it is wrongfully taking someone"s earned property. The logic is circular, of course"that or unsupported, it could be interpreted either way. In any event, my opponent continues to ignore that a lot of people actually do think theft can be right" leaving aside Robin Hood fans for now, I challenge him to go to his town"s busiest district and ask people, randomly, to provide an answer to my scenario. No leading, challenging, or anything, just the question: "If the only way for the one you love the most was to steal medicine, after you had offered a fair price for it, would you do so?" I"ll wait. The probability my opponent gives here would have to be very low indeed. For instance, something like trying to untie someone securely tied to a train track when the train is a second and a half away from hitting you. Even then, if a person really is willing to risk it, then they may have their ideal state as living a life where they help other people, no matter the cost. P2: They Are Reached: If any money is moved between income groups by the government, that is redistribution, by definition. Taxing people who are higher income than the poor to give to the poor is redistributing money. Next my opponent argues that private property rights mean redistribution can"t happen. False. He admits as such when he says that they aren"t monetary; redistribution redistributes money, not non-monetary possessions. Rather, private property rights would be more concerned with eminent domain laws. Then he says that financial freedom is under limited government. False, again.[1] It"s true that government spending covers all aspects of spending by government. Nevertheless, when one examines the limited government scores, many of the countries with low scores for government spending do practice heavy redistribution. Examples include: 1. France has a minimum standard of living for everyone, with taxes dependent on income. Obviously, this is redistribution: The rich are taxed more so the poor can have a basic standard of living.[2] 2. Sweden provides housing to those who can"t afford it. Again, redistribution.[3] 3. Denmark uses "flexcurity", which is made-up word that basically means that they have a highly progressive tax rate coupled with benefits for those between jobs. There are other elements, but that"s the relevant part.[4] My opponent says that Sweden is increasing its score in fiscal freedom. True. Over five years it has increased by about four points and is still in what the Heritage Foundation calls "repressed".[5] If he doesn"t like my source, perhaps he would like Reuters?[6] Again, my opponent fails to understand. The rich continue to make income under redistributive systems. For that matter, they almost certainly will continue to gain money after income taxes and basic needs are deducted. The amount they pay in taxes merely is more than poor people pay, and poor people get benefits that are paid for, in large part, by taxes on richer people. P3: No, I Haven"t Conceded: I thought that that definition was to avoid something like arguing "Redistribution is ethical because X said so/I benefit from it/I feel like taxing rich people", not to say, "Let me compare redistribution to theft, and then argue that since people don"t like theft they don"t like redistribution." This is not a debate on popularity of redistribution. When people actually think about the underlying moral concerns that drive them, the prevailing view is not based on an absolute right to property; there"s a reason that libertarians are a minority, and I would point out that if there is an absolute right to money and property, and taking it is wrong for any reason, then no taxation should exist. The people who think this are very few in number, though. The fact is that theft is only generally viewed as wrong, and even then, as my opponent acknowledged, taxation is not the same as theft! People evidently don"t view it as immoral for the government to tax them so it can pay for basic welfare, roads, the military, et cetera. Yes, taxation and redistribution can be likened to theft. They are not the same as theft, and I did not admit to such. Rather, I took my preferred route and criticized the idea that theft is wrong in all circumstances. I then showed that people actually did want the results, by overwhelming margins. 1. http://www.heritage.org... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. http://denmark.dk... 5. http://www.heritage.org... 6. http://www.reuters.com...