Redistribution of wealth is something that we’ve had going back to the entire history of the United States. And is something that perhaps only Anarcho-Libertarians are against but the fact is it’s always been with us and it isn’t going anywhere anytime soon. When right-wingers talk about redistribution of wealth they tend to talk in terms of taking from the successful to take care of. Poor or the unsuccessful in America through welfare-programs and so forth. That we punish the successful to take care of the unsuccessful as if that’s all that wealth-redistribution of wealth. Is about and Progressives actually tend to do the same thing but use different terms then punish the successful to subsidize the unsuccessful. And say things like why should the wealthy be allowed to have so much money why we have so many people who can’t feed their families and so forth. But the fact is the safety-net that we all pay into is only part of wealth-redistribution and. Wealth-redistribution really covers the whole economy in every developed country.
The fact is anytime an American is taxed and that money is then later spent to build a road or a bridge. Or pay for law-enforcement, the military, the justice-system and so forth. Government is redistributing wealth in America and the overwhelming majority of the country is in favor of that. Form of wealth-redistribution because we are all protected by police, the military, we all use roads. Hospitals at some point most likely will be in court for one reason or another. And all of these public-services that Americans use all have to be paid for, as Milton Friedman said there’s. No such thing as a free-lunch the money has to come from somewhere to pay for everything that government does for us. And unless you are an Anarchist or an Anarcho-Libertarian, you want government providing these services. And you know they have to be funded and chances are you are willing to pay your share for if even if that means taking money from you that you earned.
So if the young person in this video who I’m guessing was in his early twenties if that at this point. Was more experienced or more knowledgable about wealth-redistribution he would’ve laid out the whole history and existence of wealth-redistribution and made that as part of his argument. With Milton but Milton would’ve still disagreed with him because he knew exactly what wealth-redistribution was. And made some case that we should do something else instead but this young guy would’ve had a very good case to make.