This Slate article has some good points regarding McCain's claim that Obama is running for redistributor-in-chief.
In the last lap of his limping campaign, John McCain is claiming that
Barack Obama "believes in redistributing wealth." The problem with this charge is not that it's untrue. It's that McCain—and most of his supporters—favor redistribution, too.
Government redistributes wealth to some extent by its very
existence, since it's impractical for citizens to pay for or benefit
from it in equal proportion, even if that were desirable. So long as
you have a system of taxation and a spending on public goods like
education and roads, some people will do better in the bargain than
others. The real questions are whether public policy consciously tries
to affect the distribution of wealth, how much it tries to change it,
and in what direction.
Redistribution has a "from"
side—taxation—and a "to" side—spending. On the "from" side, the notion
that government should use taxation to increase rather than decrease
equality is hardly Marxist. In The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith begins his section on taxation
with the following maxim: "The subjects of every state ought to
contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as
possible, in proportion to their respective abilities." To ask
otherwise, Smith writes, would be obviously unfair.
When you point out to a right-winger that Obama is not a socialist, they immediately assume that you are only objecting to the charge because you support Obama. But, no, in my case it's just that I happen to know a few very basic points about political philosophy. Calling somebody that is not in favor of the collective control of the means of production a socialist is like calling somebody that does not believe in the resurrection of Jesus a Christian.
Recent Comments