I am not fully libertarian. As such, I am not totally against redistribution of wealth. However, reading Britain's most feckless father Keith MacDonald splits from latest pregnant girlfriend | Daily Mail Online makes me think. Some guy produce 20 children, tax payers pay all the tap. Then what? We have 20 other children just like him in the next generation. Instead of eliminating poverty, we are breeding it. So the problem is not redistribution of wealth by itself. Thing about it. If you have a company, you get dividend. If you are a citizen in a country, and your country is well run, shouldn't you get something? So some redistribution of wealth have a case here. Libertarians are correct that the main purpose of government is security. At least, that's the main use I get from my government. Well, that and infrastructure. However, libertarians grossly underestimate of "security" and "peace". The true cost of security and peace is not just the cost of paying for armies and polices. The true cost also involve "appeasement" that powers that be choose to hold the status quo. If I am a feudal emperor, security and peace means I got to keep my feudal lords happy. The problem with feudalism is that too many people try to seize power from one another rather than making the pie bigger. In a democratic country, security and peace means we need to keep at least the majority of people happy. So people don't get more powah just because they can scam others or commit a coup against the current king. However, democracy also have it's flaws. Any voting blocs can get bigger share of the state through breeding. For example, if some people believe in a strategy that produce higher birth rate but lower economic contribution, democratic countries are pretty much hapless against such strategy. Such people will just out breed the productive and vote in favor of rules more favorable of breeding. And yet, that kind of strategy is the kind of strategy that is encouraged by the libtards. So I am not totally against redistribution of wealth. Like most libertarians I think it should be much less. More importantly, I think the way we redistribute wealth is grossly inefficient. Look at companies. The way a company share dividend is different than the way citizens got redistribution of wealth. Company doesn't share dividend out of mercy. Poorer share holders do not get more dividend than the rich ones. Companies give dividend mainly based on whether the business run well or not. Then it gives dividend when it realizes that the money do not earn more return in the company. So companies will have list of investments and compute the return. If by investing in the company the return is 4% and typical return of the market is 10% then of course, share holders will be happier to get dividend than having the money reinvested in the company. If anything, dividend, and increase valuation of stocks, provide incentives for shareholders to vote for CEO that govern companies well. That is not so in states. Every time liberals want more redistribution of wealth, they demand things that actually increase poverty. Raising income tax. That means reducing incentive to work and encouraging people to be lazy. Welfare given to only the poor give incentives to be poor. Welfare check increase incentive for the poor to breed and breed and breed and breed. No sane women would want to get knocked up by some poor guys if there is no welfare. Knowing that if she pop babies like machine guns the rest of tax payers will pay for the cost is the precise reason why we have so much poverty despite capitalism The poor simply produce too many poor people. Capitalism doesn't hurt the poor. All transactions under capitalism is consensual and tend to be mutually beneficial. However, poverty will never be eliminated if the poor outbreed the rich . No matter how prosperous we are, no matter how much money capitalism bring, if people are actually rewarded for being lazy we're fucked. Also liberals say that redistribution of wealth is based on mercy. That is a complete lie. If redistribution of wealth is based on mercy, you would be paying huge welfare check to some starving kids in Africa. No. Redistribution of wealth is not mercy. It's a political game where the poor that can vote uses their powah to take your money. I am not saying it's wrong or right, but can't we come up with something better. The liberals want higher income tax and welfare and the conservative wants lower income tax and lower welfare. Why not come up with a way to help the poor that actually reduce or eliminate poverty. Imagine that conservatives get what they want, namely lower income taxes. And libtards also get what they want, namely elimination of poverty. Imagine if the rich pay less tax and the each welfare recipient actually get more cash? Enough money that they can use to start a business should they fail to get a job. I personally understand this because I too can't get a job. And that's why I become a businessman. Fortunately I was thrifty and had capital 20 years ago. Can we pull this up? Sure. 1. Change income tax into land tax, consumption tax, and head taxes. You wanna make babies? Pay. The rich can just pay huge head taxes. No problem. The poor cannot and will just postpone breeding. Voila. Less poor people. 2. Do not reward poverty. Give citizen dividend in equal share for everyone. Why should Anne gets more money because she is poorer than Jane? You give Anne incentive to be poor here. 3. Give more money to citizens with less children. Actually pay people to postpone breeding. The rich will not care. The poor will. This will greatly reduce number of poor people. 4. Eliminate child support laws that penalize the rich. Charlie Sheen is bankrupted by $20k a month child support. Productive people make money. If those people don't breed, they go extinct. Now why should richer guy pay higher child support amount? Either let them and the girl to decide before hand what the child support amount is. The government can set minimum amount that's equal for everyone. Say government think every child "deserve" $10k a year. Then any parents, irrelevant of income, should have at least $10k a year before breeding. Simple right? So yea, poverty will be gone in no time. The rich will be benefited. Less poor people means less welfare spending, and that means lower tax. The poor will also benefited. Less poor people means for the same welfare spending, each get more. In fact, as I suggested, government can just give all money to all citizen irrelevant of poverty and everyone, including the poor still get more. Any poor people can easily become rich by postponing producing children. Not only they get more money, they don't have to support a child and can have more capital for business. Once they're rich, they can just produce 10 children and pay child tax. Somewhere in the middle there is a win win sweet spot deals that should benefit the current poor and current rich. Poverty in a country, or even the world will be so low in no time.