More redistribution = more fairness?
Is that really what's keeping the world spinning? Let as assume that this would be true.
Then there could be just one way. Every income (well what worth would it be?) must be 100 % taxed away.
And then everyone get's the same amount of "money" and then?
You want a car. Well unluckily enough it costs more than you earn in a year. And you can't save for anything. At the end of the year
the money will be confiscated. And bad enough even if you buy it at the end of the year ....
You got it.
It's a contradiction in terms.
The word redistribution, just has a meaning if you can say what you like to redistribute. It offers a clear picture of things which are owned by someone.
If you don't have anything you can't redistribute anything. So there is a clear edge between, things which one owns and things someone else "owns".
Now then there must be a thing which is "higher" than ownership. Because if it is fair to take away from someone, than there must be higher "reasons".
Now who will be the judge of this higher reasons? The "Partei" or who else? And it also means it is ok to use force against someone to disappropriate him/her.
What's the criterion for this? More gun power? Nuclear weapons or what else? Someone must be the "more superior" and if we accept that some are superior then there would be no reason for one person one vote, the base principle of democracys. So does this redistribution camp talks about abolishing the systems?
No in fact they want to live within this system but they also want their reasons to be accepted as superior, in the end they want to profit from other peoples work without
risk. How much more distasteful could it get?