Evaluate the libertarian claim that redistribution of wealth by the state cannot be justified The libertarian claim that redistribution of wealth by the state is theft, and that freedom trumps all is a classically held approach that still has influence in parts of the Western world. This view espouses an emphasis on the ability of each individual within a state to have absolute control over their own economic standings, without the intervention of any state powers. This is justified on the basis of desert, suggesting that those who have grown wealthy and powerful deserve the rewards for their investment and efforts, as is the classical economic model. To this group of people the free market is seen as an absolute, creating the most efficient and the most just distribution of a society’s wealth through this view of desert.
However this idea is fairly easy to create holes in, such is the cause of its downfall over the last 200 years in favour of modern welfare liberalism. The main problem with such thinking is that it does not take into account the unjust nature of an unregulated market. On a very short term, using a hypothetical scenario of a one generation society, in which all members of the society start with the same opportunities and abilities, such a system does work, as it allows each member of this society from the start to create their own wealth using their input into the wider economy. However this is obviously an incredibly unrealistic scenario, as it only works for the first generation and in reality there is no such position currently of equal opportunity and ability for individuals to exist in. The first issue of multigenerational advantages is a fairly obvious one to most, as it is the basis for much of the forced redistribution of wealth over history. This criticism of the libertarian system suggests that over time, even in a hypothetical society in which each individual is equally skill with equal opportunities, there will be a gravitation of wealth to an extreme due to the accelerant nature of free market economics. After the first generation is over, and the second hypothetical generation is born, there will likely be some discrepancy between each individuals starting position, as their parent’s wealth will dictate their education opportunities, resource allocation, and inheritances through no input of their own. As such, this advantage will build up over generations in a cumulative manner, leading to a widening, and eventually disparaging gap in the wealth of the denizens of this once potentially just society. This is reflected in reality most aptly through observation of the feudal era, where a noble would have untold advantage over a peasant at birth, simply through luck of parentage. This is clearly unjust to anyone that would place any value in equality, and as such this is the first objection to such a free market system.
Secondly, the issue of opportunity is one that is closely tied to that of the multigenerational system, as using the same hypothetical society, but tweaking it so that it is once again a short term, one generation system, keeping the clause of equal ability and making it so that opportunity is instead staggered, shows again how uneven such a system is. In this scenario it is easiest to imagine a kind of garden of Eden in which the equally able, immortal beings are placed, but having the garden divided up arbitrarily into subsections of ownership between the beings. Each subsection would have a random allocation of natural value, such as water, flora and terrestrial resources. Obviously those blessed with a plot of land containing an abundance of goods would flourish over those with less viable lands. This scenario is most easily understood in real terms as a hereditary issue such as that of the first criticism, but more easily highlights that in fact not only is equality lost in this system, but liberty too, is compromised by this system, as each of the equally able beings is not equally opportune to exercise their ability to create value for a society because they must first deal with the issue of acquiring natural resources from their peers with their only ensured resource, their labour. In the long term this would necessarily lead to inefficiency, as there is not only wasted potential in the case of the ability being used on menial tasks for necessity, but also the wasted potential of the wealth beings who would be less incentivised to create due to their natural advantage giving them leverage over their peers.
The third clear criticism of this system is ability. This is the most difficult to grasp criticism as it is so inherently a part of our psychology that each and every human is fundamentally less or more able due to a process of evolution. However, when returning to my favourite hypothetical, and tweaking it once more to have a one generational, equally opportune garden, but giving each immortal being a random smattering of natural abilities, be those strength, attractiveness or intelligence in any amount, it is obvious what would happen. This criticism is a more subtle and perhaps unrealistically egalitarian one, but one that must be made none the less. It is clearly unjust to equality, even if perhaps not liberty, to allow for this discrepancy between different levels of natural ability to exist at an unregulated level. However approaching this problem in reality has often lead to unsatisfactory results such as those in the Soviet Union, where aims to bring about equality simply lead to an inefficient and punishing system of ensuring equality. This is most famously tackled by Rawls, who suggested not that those who are more able should be brought down to the level of those less able, but rather they should be allowed to prosper, as that is what is best for society as a whole. However, to ensure that some restitution of equality is brought about to allow for a just society, there must be some redistribution of wealth from the wealthy through tiered taxation, which would benefit those who were not born with the same natural ability advantages as them.
These three combined criticisms of Libertarianism provide the best reasoning for avoiding a return to Libertarian thinking, as they demonstrate that such a system would lead to inefficiency, inequality and ironically, a lessening of personal liberties. As such it is fairly clear that some form of redistribution of wealth would be just, as is favoured by modern welfare liberalism. It does not go so far as to punish those who receive the advantages of opportunity, ability or hereditary wealth, but does attempt to do something about each of these advantages to ensure that they don’t get out of hand and cause an unacceptable level of inequality that must be remedied with the use of civil force.
As such the claim that redistribution of wealth cannot be justified, cannot be justified. It is a statement that ignores many of the implications of what it suggests, and can only be said to be just with the strangest views on what justice is once informed of the issues it entails.