The concept of "redistribution" falsely implies that the existence of property is prior to the existence of the state. #mythofownership
— Matt Yglesias (@mattyglesias) September 18, 2012
Special repost for state-worshipping @mattyglesias: In the beginning Govt createdthe Heavens and the Earth iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2012/…I knew Matt Yglesias was short, but who knew that he was a dwarf? Matt sure knows how to dig, doesn't he? Keep digging Matt! Keep telling voters that property is a myth and that it all belongs to the state!
— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) September 19, 2012
I wish Andrew Breitbart were here to see this.
As Smitty at TOM notes, Barack Obama's words on believing in redistribution are coming back to haunt him. Matt Yglesias (above) explains (in his opinion) why Obama is correct. This is an example that Christopher Hitchens mentioned on why having people state idiotic positions and then proving their assumptions wrong is a good thing. It keeps you sharp on the fundamentals.
And this is an ideological battle that Barack Obama and Mitt Romney should be having. Why or why not is the redistribution theory of Barack Obama wrong? Mitt Romney has stated he is against redistribution of wealth. Barack Obama needs to respond why redistribution is a good thing.
Milton Friedman deals with this issue with a young student who is a pretty good stand in for Barack Obama:
The student uses the example of India. And what has India done since the 1980s? It has moved more to a market economy and abandoned socialism. And wealth has increased in India. And the same is happening in Eastern Europe and the Asian Rim counties. Northern Europe have also moved away from the socialist redistribution model.
But Barack Obama wants to move against the tide, toward a system that has proven to be less productive. Why?