Why is wealth redistribution inherently wrong?

[Aabo- Karl]

I have always been interested about some people's stance that any form of wealth distribution from upper-income individuals to the lower income levels is inherently wrong. I am wondering how people could believe that any seizure of wealth, no matter for how good a cause for the poor, must be dismissed.

My question also isn't about how welfare programs harm the economy by harming those who can generate large amounts of money, but when people are just inherently against welfare programs because they feel that it unfairly steals someone's hard earned money. I am curious about the almost moral injustice some people see when any amount of wealth is redistributed because alot of the times those "socialist" policies are thrown away before the economics of them is even looked into.

[zulaika]

i think it all comes down to "don't feed a man a fish for a day" rule. distribute wealth rationally but also distribute the labor. a good society balances wealth and labor relations.... that said, there are members of society who will..for the greater good of their lives..be dependent on others to feed them..hence the need for Zakah, as for the rest... resorting to "robin hood" tactics will not solve the problems of the poor.

[Padishah]

Its immoral, because some people are forcibly deprived of their property in order for Government to distribute to others. No amount of 'social justice' blather will get around the fact that it is forcible, arbitrary seizure of property. The fact that it is seized by bureaucrats, a little skimmed off for 'administration purposes', and the rest arbitrarily handed out, really does Government Wealth Redistribution Programmes no credit.

Now, were this property given up voluntarily, in the form of charity or Zakah, then there is no moral quandary.

Zulaika, explain how government can distribute anything rationally, whether is wealth or labour, when it is incapable of economic calculation?

[Navy9]

I guess it depends on individual ideologies! Is it okay to strip a person from a percentage of his/her belongings to please 99 have nots? To have a healthy, productive society sacrifices should be made. It's quite immoral to see homeless people of all ages sleeping in DC parks and few miles away there are others living at large! A pure form of Laissez faire is not possible and Karl's beautiful ideas lack the right ingredient to motivate people!

[Cawar]

Naagihi somalida..xooga bay schoolka duruus ka soo barteen and now they think they know it all.

You want an ex.? who the fokk is abo-Karl?? he has 5-6 posts..no 1 questionde who he is..
but he asked what seems to be or intended to be an intellectual Q...lol

and he got replies from those who claim that they know what and why he said.

PS. the only place you excell at(if ever) is in the kitchen..so stay there plz.

[SummerRain]

[Cawar]

??? Rolling eyes at???

[Padishah]

In such a situation, Navy9, it would be utterly stupid to begin a re-distribution scheme. to begin with, the re-distributed money would be split 99 ways, which does not lead to any qualitative improvement in the lives of the 99 have nots. The wealth could be put to much better use, like investing in wealth creating ventures that would employ the some of the 99 have nots.

[Cawar]

^ Like you really care..

Anyhoe, 99 or 99.9% of the time...women do have their point to proof...their shi.t to promote , and their gossip to advance.

[Voltage]

Cawar the only men who have a problem with women being educated are uneducated men.

Aabo-Karl (the name itself is form of discussion ) wealth distribution is inherently wrong because it is un-Islamic. In Islam, everyone has the right to their wealth and properties.

When a person succeeds and becomes wealthy, Islam has alms-giving stipulations that transfer a portion of the wealth from the rich to the needy but government has no right laying claim and managing the wealth of individuals. It is un-Islamic.

[Aabo- Karl]

guys I am against large welfare programs that purely punish the rich and allow the poor to not work, but I recognize that a safety net for the poor and programs to give the poor tools to compete with the rich is a necessity. A small tax to provide education and some unemployment benefits. So I don't see the problem.

I am wondering how people could believe that any seizure of wealth, no matter for how good a cause for the poor, must be immediately dismissed.

[Padishah]

Precisely because its a seizure. Nothing more, nothing less.

'Public' indoctrination ... erm, 'education' is bollocks, and so are unemployment non-benefits.

[Navy9]

In such a situation, Navy9, it would be utterly stupid to begin a re-distribution scheme. to begin with, the re-distributed money would be split 99 ways, which does not lead to any qualitative improvement in the lives of the 99 have nots. The wealth could be put to much better use, like investing in wealth creating ventures that would employ the some of the 99 have nots.

Again it depends on personal idealogies, what you see it as stupid another person might see it an ultimate justice! The governemt should not cater for only one group/class of its citizens but again with this world of scarcity, each and every economic design has some trade off to make!

But again dont get me wrong, I am not favoring socialist economic systems indeed it has many pitfalls but again pure capitalism is nothing but the survival for the fittest design!


You said:

The wealth could be put to much better use, like investing in wealth creating ventures that would employ the some of the 99 have nots

Nice but tell me who would employ those homeless people whom i see them daily in DC parks? Don't you think they need first a place to sleep, a meal to eat and a skill to learn before they are fit to be employed. Who will do all that if the government does not step in?

The wealth will only circulate in that special class where the poor will get poorer and rich richer unless there is some governmental intervention.

[Voltage]

The wealth will only circulate in that special class where the poor will get poorer and rich richer unless there is some governmental intervention.

Don't say that or greedy extreme capitalists like Padishah will have your head. Ever wondered why the Scandinavian countries have been declared the prime enemy by extreme capitalists?

[Cawar]

Cawar the only men who have a problem with women being educated are uneducated men.

Ok mr 20 yr old forever..I do have a problme wih SOME educated women..and I am also an educated man..if edcation means attending schools.

I have srtudied at a universtiy level..just(at least) fo 12 yrs without failing a course..so..under what category would you put me now..kiddo??