| Observing the status quo isn't the same as rationalizing it. Many things exist in the world today which are unjust. Some are even common. If it is possible for taxation to be egregious, then at some point there must be a boundary which is crossed. How can we define what is a just amount of property to confiscate with our subjective judgment? It is a moral issue in principle. In practice it amounts to whatever politicians can get away with. Ideologues present wealth as evidence of greed. Envy is celebrated. The person with a bigger slice of pie is blamed for other's perceptions of insufficient portions, as if markets represent a zero-sum game. Cries of, "You didn't build that" are overly simplistic and misleading. If they were valid, collectives and central planners could produce surpluses without need for individualized incentives. Yet history tells us a different story. That slice of pie which so many here seem unhappy with is much bigger than what was eaten in years before. This is the result of individual profit incentives, competition and innovation, not taxation or central planning. If it is to be a moral issue, perhaps we should start from the point of not coercing others or violating their property rights? |
> not coercing others or violating their property rights
Property rights always involve coercion, at least when you get beyond the basics of personal property. How does, say, Jeff Bezos own a variety of lavish properties across the country [1] when a half-million people in the US are homeless?
The short answer is that he depends on coercion. He expects that both private and state actors will coerce people into staying away from stuff he has claimed. Violently if necessary. And we're not even getting into the many flavors of coercion that underlie his enormous wealth.
The fundamentalist libertarian position always ends up in these sorts of incoherencies, because it makes ardent demands of a society it wants no part of otherwise.
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/jeff-bezos-owns-five-massive...