[kfk]

If you want to look at things from a humanitarian perspective, then sure, let's talk re-distribution. But it should be in form of education and competitive markets (free milk quotas, anyone?). I struggle with the idea of making war to make peace (aka "democratization"). I also struggle with domestic re-distribution through "citizen income", because it makes life worst for all that pay taxes and those that are not "citizen" (foreigners, immigrants, etc.).

If we want to help the "poor", then we should make things more competitive, starting with relaxing immigration policies as much as possible...

[AnthonyMouse]

> I also struggle with domestic re-distribution through "citizen income", because it makes life worst for all that pay taxes and those that are not "citizen" (foreigners, immigrants, etc.).

It has very little real effect on middle income taxpayers who both pay for and receive it, because in the middle range the benefit cancels the tax.

And the consequence for immigrants is hugely advantageous to nearly everyone. The problem we have today is that we have a large number of undocumented immigrants, which consume the capacity we have to absorb immigrants and therefore reduce the number of documented immigrants we can reasonably accept.

Something that makes it economically infeasible to be an undocumented immigrant would allow us to accept that many more documented immigrants through official channels and give them the basic income, thereby allowing much the same people to immigrate, modulo the few criminals who can't pass the background check and we don't want anyway. And then they're above board and don't have to live in the shadows, which is clearly much better for them. But meanwhile it allows us to affirmatively choose how much immigration we want instead of having people who break the law choose for us.

[RobertoG]

The issue is far for being so white and black.

Not all the growth come from free markets. More efficient use of resources and the discovery of new technologies come from improving our knowledge. Sometimes this is done by business, sometimes no.

Also, there are economic theories (even mainstream economic theories) that express the view that some kind of redistribution is necessary for keeping the engines of growth working.

[tn13]

As a free market guy, I don't think free market ideas are anti-redistribution. They are against redistribution through the coercive power of government as moral principle and utilitarian argument.

I think private charity is far more effective in helping people in need. The government redistribution is merely a ploy to steal our wealth in the name of fighting poverty. I am totally surprised to see the amount of money US government wasted on Iraq war for which no one ever got punished.

[RobertoG]

Redistribution and charity are very different things. Redistribution comes from the idea that societies have goals, and that those goals are better served by thinking about where to spend resources instead of leaving it to blind markets.

I can see that you think of the government as 'them' instead of 'us', instead of something that we do as a society. We differ there.

Also, it worries me that you think (maybe I'm reading you wrong here) that is the spending of money, of all the things, what is the main problem with the war on Iraq.

[tn13]

We do disagree on the definition of redistribution. I do not accept that government=society. I also do not accept that society should have any goals and I would put individual liberty over everything else.

I do think spending money on Iraq war was bigger problem for Americans.I think you are referring to destabilization of middle east as another problem. We have essentially borrowed money from our children to simply waste it or rather on creating even huge problems for our children.