Resolved: Redistribution is ethical

I will now deliver my final say in this debate. P1: Redistribution is theftMy opponent's argument is that all that matters are consequences. I disagree completely. He states that, in the case of stealing medicine to aid a loved one, the only thing that matters is that everyone is ok in the end. However, how does he reconcile this with real life situations? Are things only immoral when someone dies? If I steal all of one person's posessions to aid another, am I really wrong in doing so? Are all cases where a life is taken essentially immoral? Rather, I think we know theft is wrong because it is wrongfull taking someone's earned property. No matter what one intends to do with that property next, it was still illegitmately gained. Correct? Redistribution is the act of taxing the rich greater than the rest of the populace, to pay for better living standards. However, is the act right? Is theft right? Theft, where one intentioally harms another person by wrongfull taking their property, is moral? I don't think so. However, my opponent continues to argue that redistribution, which uses the same immoral method of acquisition, is right. Why? Intentions. Intentions and actions aren't the same, as much as my opponent would like to say otherwise, due to two things. First, intentions have no guarantee. Intentions are great if they're good. However, my opponent argues that probability is the key to morality. If you intend to do something with immorally gained item, and it's a moral action, (despite having done immoral things to get the item) and you'll probably succeed, then it's okay. However, by this logic, taking huge risks in an effort to help people, with a low probablitiy of success, is immoral. Even if this action was completely selfless, it'd be immoral. This doesn't line up with prevalent views of morality, nor does it line up with what morality is. Second, intentions are only future planned actions. If I buy a gun with the intent to rob a bank with it, does it make my purchase immoral? Not at all! However, my action in which I rob the bank is still completely wrong, even if I intend to use the money to benefit the poor of my community. My opponent finally argues that the pharmacist is implicit in any immoral action by refusing to sell medication to said dying family member at a fair price. However, I never argued that this was moral. This is certainly immoral. But that doesn't mean the act of taking his property is moral. The bottom line is, if (as admitted) redistribution is theft, than it is immoral. This is because theft wronfully takes the property of someone who earned that legitimately. It is depriving them of their rights to own what they can make/earn. All of a sudden, this becomes moral because we plan on giving it away? No. P2: The Goals of redistribution are not reachedFirst, addressing that this point is indeed inconsequential. My opponent references our agreement on the resolution. However, A) we are arguing if the act of taxing the rich to pay for a higher basic standard of living is ethical (not if it's effective. .. which it isn't) and B) there is nothing in that definition which would suggest we are debating welfare. Welfare can be paid for with legitimate and fair taxation of every citizen, no matter the income. There is no logical argument that states all welfare must use the method of redistribution. Moving on. .. .The definition of private property rights is exactly one of the things we are debating. It's possesions (not monetary) that people own personally. They are the rights of the citizens to own their own items, without fear of them being taken by any means. If a nation scores high in private property, it obviously can't endorse a method like redistribution. My opponent also ignored what I stated about financial freedom! This has to do directly with the monetary side of posessions. It is also under the "limited government" tab. [1]I think my opponent's silence on this is more telling than any argument could be. Limited government scores, especially with low scores on government spending, can be skewed as if to show that countries prefer redistributive methods. However, as I stated before, government spending has to do with ALL spending by the government. This doesn't just have to do with social policies. (And even if it did, the financial scores show that taxes aren't heavily imposed or unfairly imposed on one specific "class")As for my opponent's statements on Sweden's redistributive methods, he uses the source of "wordpress" a blogging site, as evidence. Now, while I trust him as far as the facts go, I would remind him this isn't necessarily a very reputable nor legitimate source. But the fact still remains, this is one country. Circumstancial evidence could point any which way, and the mere fact that Sweden is trending back towards financial freedom (to where they score high on the scale again) and that they still have a crazy high OECD score, shows that the impacts of redistribution aren't proven to be beneficial or unbeneficial by this specific point. Lastly, I am not under the impression that redistribution immediately makes everyone financially equal. However, I am merely showing the only logical way that such a method could drive the economy. If the rich keep being taxed to help the poor, then eventually we will run out of people with higher financial assets (or lower) and it will become completely equal, thereby effectively ruining the economy. P3: ConcessionMy opponent states that he didn't agree to the definition. However, he was given numerous opportunities to do so before this round started and in the past few rounds. Before the debate, as I outlined in the R1 opening, I encouraged my opponent to address anything he didn't agree with. Even in the debate, the definitions did not irk my opponent until now. If my opponent had thought them unfair, he should've brought that up before the round. If he had thought them to not give him enough of an advantage, then he could've argued for more advantageous definitions in the round. He did neither, and therefore, must come to terms with his indirect concession. He may fight it, and I assume he won't go down without a fight, but it still remains. He admitted that redistribution was something that was immoral by prevalent standards in society, due to the immoral actions it takes to get to its goals (or not get to them). He argues that his lack of objection was due to his assumption that I actually couldn't be trying this. I wasn't. I even used the definition he gave me for redistribution, and the Merriam Webster definition (which I always use for official definitions) for Ethical. I merely argued off the resolution and the definitions that made up the words of the resolution. If I did not, this debate would be pointless. .. I made no definitions that automatically gave me any advantage. I just saw the opportunity my opponent presented me when he chose to admit there was no distinction between theft (percieved as immoral) and redistribution. Therefore, by the definition of ethical in this round, redistribution, as conceded by my opponent, is not ethical. To conclude:Redistribution is unethical because it deprives people of rightfully gained property. Intent on future actions with said property after it is wrongfully taken are not consequential. Redistribution doesn't work anyways, despite having noble goals. (This doens't matter in the big scheme of the debate, but it is my personal beliefs on redistribution anyways, and I've shown why)My opponent has conceded (admittedly indirectly) to the Con position of the resolution. Therefore, I believe a Con ballot is warranted. I look forward to seeing my opponent's final response, and I thank him for being an incredible opponent in this debate. Thank you. Sources:1. . http://www.heritage.org...