Wealth spreading
Everybody agrees that having a wealth spread to a large number of people is a better economic situation than having wealth concentrated in a small number of people.
The hard core, libertarian capitalists argue that their position is best because it is an effective mechanism to … spread the wealth… .
This libertarian—and other libertarians I know—believe that the state shouldn’t have any role in the the redistribution of wealth. In other words, we believe that the state shouldn’t use force to take property from some in order to give it to others. I think this idea has more resonance than you’d think. The Kelo decision upset people precisely because they object to the government taking property from someone to give to another:
Quinnipiac University poll taken in Connecticut found that 89 percent of respondents opposed the taking of private property for private uses, even if it promotes the “public good.”
(Report here). Now, you might rightly note that people don’t mind the spreading of wealth so much when they are the ones receiving and not giving, and that’s true. People got mad when New London took Susette Kelo’s house to give it to Pfizer. Pfizer, however, wasn’t the least bit upset, since it was receiving the house.
There’s a difference between taxing people to support government functions that broadly serve the populace (streets, armies, etc) and taxing people to give their money directly to other people. But even if you accept the notion that there should be a safety net (as libertarians like Milton Friedman believed), there’s a difference between a net that catches within it the the young, the poor, and the disabled, and a net that catches within it the approximately 48% of the population who would be exempt from paying income taxes under Obama. Obama’s tax “credits” are given to people regardless of whether they pay income taxes or not … they are simply welfare handouts, beyond any scope previously known. I don’t think voters actually like this. And if McCain weren’t only one step behind Obama in spreading the wealth, voters might actually be able to do something about it.
