[CPLX]

If the society you live in today decided to expropriate all of the money and resources owned by a randomly selected 5% of the population, so that 5% of the population was instantly destitute, but then distributed those resources evenly to everyone else, would you consider that society better off, worse off, or pretty much the same as the day before that happened?

[jstanley]

Stealing 5% of people's money is not OK.

Stopping 5% of people from stealing other people's money is a good thing, but might easily be confused with the first thing.

[CPLX]

It's just a factual question.

And it illustrates a basic concept, which is that redistributing money isn't value-neutral. Some distributions are better for society than others.

You can't just say free trade takes money from this group and gives it to that group and perhaps ekes out a modest efficiency gain and conclude your analysis there.

It matters who wins and who loses, and by how much.