Resolved: Redistribution is ethical

C1: Redistribution is theftFirst, I would point out that my opponent concedes that redistribution is theft. While I understand that his argument is far more complex than this, this specific concession will come into play later. Next, my opponent argues that theft is only wrong when the harm it does outweighs the good. I disagree. How can we scale what is "more good" or "more bad"? We cannot. There are moral actions and immoral ones. Like I stated in my previous analogy, a wrongful action for a good purpose doesn't justify the wrongful action. (See R2's analogy in C1 about harassing someone who is annoying your friend). The moral part of redistribution is the fact that it intends to do good. But, as even my opponent conceded, the right intent does not justify the action. My opponent tried to rationalize his way of thinking with his own analogy, which states that "Would it be wrong to steal a medicinal sample in an attempt to cure a loved one? ". My answer is this. Yes. Does that seem cruel? It might. But let's think about this, shall we? The intent is to save the loved one. The action is to steal the medicinal sample. The intent is moral. The action taken is immoral. It's that simple. The act of theft deprived the pharmacist of his rightful property. He had worked and gained, poured in some amount of time, and acquired that medicine. Now, you, as someone trying to save a loved one, have taken this away from him, without his consent; effectively stealing the medicine and his time that he spent acquiring it. Yes, you did so to save a life, but that is what you intend to do with the stolen property. (As my opponent stated, intentions don't justify actions)We cannot rationalize the whole process as moral. We must examine each step of the journey. So, again, redistribution is wrong, because it deprives people of their rightfully earned property. No matter if the thief intends to use the stolen property selflessly or selfishly, the action of theft is still wrong. C2: The goals of redistribution aren't reached (Stop renaming my points! lol)I would like to remind everyone that this point is not consequential to this debate. Let me explain. We are debating whether or not redistribution is an ethical action, not if the intentions or results of redistribution are ethical. So, whether or not redistribution is successful at meeting its goals is irrelevant. It is an immoral act. But I'll argue this point some, anyways. .. I remind my opponent that we are not debating welfare, so much as redistribution. Welfare is where the state aids those who are handicapped, in order to protect their safety. Redistribution is, as defined in R1, the act of raising taxes on the wealthier only in order to provide a higher standard of basic living. Redistribution may use the ill-acquired money in welfare programs, but welfare itself is not redistribution. Therefore, a better standard to weigh countries by is financial and property freedom. If a country's government respects the finances and property of its people, it is not a redistributive state. Also, government spending is a poor standard to weigh redistribution's merits by, because there is no telling where high government spending is going towards (it could be the military, border security, government payroll etc. .. )If we are to go by the official OECD index for best living standards (the agreed upon goal for redistribution by definition), then Australia is the leader in this category. [1]However, if we return to the Heritage index, which shows the economic side of the situation, then Australia is shown to have an incredible score in both property and financial freedom. [2]The next five highest OECD scorers are Sweden, Canada, Norway, Switzerland, and the United States (respectively). All of these score over the average in financial freedom. All of these score FAR over average in property freedom. [3][4][5][6][7]The rest of my opponent's arguments seem to be more arguments favoring welfare and less favoring redistribution of wealth. Again, while sometimes compatible, welfare can exist without redistribution. If a country decides to use rightfully gotten tax revenue to support the handicapped and impoverished, that is okay. But for a country to unjustly tax welathy citizens, intending to support those with low living standards, is both unethical and ineffective. For welfare to work, the government needs to let the wealthy become wealthy and tax them so that they both stay wealthy, and the government can earn money off the taxes. If the government is going to tax the wealthy until the wealthy are as average as everyone else, there will be no one to tax to support the redistributive method. Business will screech to a halt, because gaining income will be punished. If the wealthy are taxed (fairly) just enough to stay wealthy, then the government can continue to gain revenue from them, and support those with lower income for better living. Redistribution may try and use welfare programs, but welfare isn't redistribution. C3: My opponent has essentially conceded the resolutionBack to the resolution! My opponent, earlier, stated the redistribution is, in fact, theft. (At least in method) This is essentially a concession, as I will show. The resolution states that my opponent must prove that redistribution is ethical. Ethical was definied as "In accordance with prevailing concepts of morality"Redistribution was conceded to be theft. Theft is not in accordance with prevailing concepts of morality. (My opponent tried to argue if theft was actually immoral, but this doesn't matter. Theft is prevalalently viewed as immoral. )Therefore, redistribution (or theft) is not in accordance with prevailing concepts of morality. Therefore, redistribution is not ethical. Logical. Sensical. True. Well, this wraps up my speech for R3. I look forward to my opponent's response. Sources:1. . http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org... (Organize by rank for convenience)(For 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7: Use icons to organize by specific freedoms)2. . http://www.heritage.org... |&src=country3. . http://www.heritage.org... |canada&src=country4. . http://www.heritage.org... |switzerland&src=country5. . http://www.heritage.org... |&src=country 6. . http://www.heritage.org... |&src=ranking7. . http://www.heritage.org... |&src=ranking