...[A]ll compulsory wealth or income redistribution, regardless of the criteria on which it is based, involves taking from some—the havers of something—and giving it to others—the non-havers of something. Accordingly, the incentive to be a haver is reduced, and the incentive to be a non-haver increased. What the haver has is characteristically something considered "good," and what the non-haver does not have is something "bad" or a deficiency. Indeed, this is the very idea underlying any redistribution: some have too much good stuff and others not enough. The result of every redistribution is that one will thereby produce less good and increasingly more bad, less perfection and more deficiencies. By subsidizing with tax funds (with funds taken from others) people who are poor, more poverty (bad) will be created. By subsidizing people because they are unemployed, more unemployment (bad) will be created. By subsidizing unwed mothers, there will be more unwed mothers and more illegitimate births (bad), etc.
I doubt that my wife, a former debate coach (and debater, lest you doubt--if you've had any experience with high school coaching assignments, you might), and current teacher of pregnant teens, would find anything here to argue with.
Her experience turned her from a Democrat to a Republican. I'm still working on the next step to Libertarian.
How hard am I working on it, you ask?
Well, not very.
