[cyberjerkXX]

I’m constantly amazed at the socialist argument that forcibly taking the labor of some people to benefit other people is considered “efficient”

Also...

The idea that wealth hoarding inherently leads to inequality is flawed. If by “wealth” you mean capital, then unused capital doesn't distort markets or hinder wealth creation. If you're referring to wealth hoarding in the form of monopolies, it's important to note that monopolies tend to fail in truly free markets. Without innovation, they can't sustain themselves—unless they rely on government coercion to maintain control.

Government coercion is the primary force that inhibits both wealth creation and healthy competition. Overregulated markets and protectionist policies stifle innovation and prevent new players from entering the market. The most corrupt governments and corporations benefit from these systems because they reinforce existing power structures and shield them from competition.

[Kbelicius]

> I’m constantly amazed at the socialist argument that forcibly taking the labor of some people to benefit other people is considered “efficient”

That is also the stance of the capitalists. Have you heard of welfare? Now, have you heard about a successful capitalist society without some form of welfare?

[adgjlsfhk1]

the reason for this is simple.

1. "truly free markets" don't and can't exist.

In the absence of a strong government to create rules, companies and individuals will fill the power vacuum (e.g. the east India company). "free markets" are just as much of a fantasy as "Communist utopia".

2. Redistribution is less inefficient than the alternative

Without sufficiently redistributave policy, the alternatives arise. The French revolution and various communist revolutions throughout the world over the 20th century are the alternative to a populace that thinks inequality is too high.