We already have massive (forced) redistribution of wealth in the form of corporate welfare. Tariffs, patents, copyrights, land grants, competition-prohibiting regulation, direct subsidies, indirect subsidization of capital inputs via compulsory state education, roads, communication infrastructure, etc, etc, etc.
I fully agree with you that government intervention hinders technological progress, derails economic progress, and ultimately destroys the economy. The concentration of wealth through political rather than economic means is a huge problem.
But, saying you want to cut welfare to the poor is what I would call vulgar libertarianism, and ineffective anti-state propaganda. The poor and middle classes are already getting royally screwed. Ameliorating the disastrous effects that corporate privilege has on the poor isn't where we should be directing our righteous indignation, in my opinion.
I think it'd be more constructive to focus on cutting welfare from the top down, and cutting taxes from the bottom up.
I also support the abolition of corporate welfare as a first step. After that, there will be time to talk about other forms of welfare. But that's not what Sam's Marxist-inspired essay is advocating, on the contrary.
I fully agree with you that government intervention hinders technological progress, derails economic progress, and ultimately destroys the economy. The concentration of wealth through political rather than economic means is a huge problem.
But, saying you want to cut welfare to the poor is what I would call vulgar libertarianism, and ineffective anti-state propaganda. The poor and middle classes are already getting royally screwed. Ameliorating the disastrous effects that corporate privilege has on the poor isn't where we should be directing our righteous indignation, in my opinion.
I think it'd be more constructive to focus on cutting welfare from the top down, and cutting taxes from the bottom up.