The notion that seizing wealth or interfering with property rights has no consequences is a dangerous fallacy.  Stripping individuals of their earned property under the guise of fairness is a thinly veiled act of coercion.  Those championing such measures often label them “just” or “equitable,” but at its core, it is the forced transfer of wealth, with the middleman—the state or governing body—ensuring they get their share.

Walter Williams once articulated this clearly, “I keep what I earn, and you keep what you earn.  Disagree?  Then tell me how much of what I earn belongs to you—and why?” This sentiment underscores the principle of property rights and personal accountability.  Goods and wealth are not some abstract pool, floating in circulation to be divided at whim.  They are produced, owned, and exchanged through voluntary cooperation.  Redistribution is not justice, it’s confiscation dressed in moral rhetoric.

When individuals anticipate the seizure of their property, their behavior shifts.  The incentive to save, invest, and produce diminishes.  Why safeguard wealth or strive for excellence when it will be confiscated to serve another’s interests?  This mindset ripples through the economy, punishing those who excel at serving the needs of society.  The very mechanisms that elevate living standards are stifled, and the result is collective mediocrity.

The language of redistribution is often cloaked in terms like “fairness” and “progress.” Progressive taxation is discriminatory at its core.  It penalizes those who have successfully met the demands of the market, siphoning their earnings to fund political agendas.  Consumers affirm their approval of entrepreneurs and businesses through their purchases.  To punish success is to punish the very process that raises the standard of living for all.

Karl Marx recognized progressive taxation as a cornerstone for advancing collectivism.  The redistribution of wealth isn’t merely an economic act.  It’s a tool for centralizing control, eroding individual liberty under the pretense of equality.  The consequences for the market are severe.  Entrepreneurs and producers, facing the inevitability of confiscation, limit their contributions, knowing greater effort invites greater expropriation.

The “bad economist,” as Frédéric Bastiat described, focuses solely on the seen—the wealth transferred from A to B.  They ignore the unseen—the wealth that A would have generated if left unburdened.  This narrow-minded view, often embraced by politicians and their supporters, neglects the broader implications of redistribution.  By dampening incentives and distorting the natural rewards of production, confiscation undermines the very foundation of a thriving economy.

In the end, redistribution is not about justice or fairness.  It is about control, cloaked in euphemisms and bolstered by envy.  The price of such policies is a society that achieves less, lives poorer, and grows increasingly dependent on the very mechanisms that stifle its potential.  True fairness lies in respecting property rights and allowing individuals to reap the rewards of their labor, not in confiscating wealth to appease fleeting notions of equality.

Reference

Ludwig von Mises; Human Action