Promoters of a strong, powerful centralized government are inherently in favor of state wealth redistribution, which Bastiat famously referred to as “legalized plunder.” The government does this by distributing tax revenue from one group to another. Libertarian critics of this sort of system classify the redistribution of wealth as theft–yet it is the means by which the state funds itself and provides the illusion of security for its people. The right of the government to perform such actions, especially at such an exorbitant frequency, should be called into question.

The state’s redistribution of wealth is carried out under the pretense that it will be used to assist those in need, as well as benefit the general public. Such government actions can be accurately viewed as positive sanctions. While these may seem desirable to some people, small government philosophers, on the contrary, propose that government should be limited to the imposition of negative sanctions; that is, a system in which the sole purpose of the state is to defend against anything that may threaten the lives and natural liberties of its people. Moreover, under a limited government with minimal state intervention, the free market would be responsible for all of that which falls under the positive sanctions category.

Whether or not one believes the government inherently possesses the “right” to redistribute wealth depends widely upon worldview, but it is worth considering that the inhibition of liberties necessary in a system heavily reliant upon legalized plunder are great, and that natural property rights are violated when the government insists upon taking possession of any form of wealth for the purposes of promoting equality–or any other reason, for that matter. Taxation in America feeds an inefficient system of wealth redistribution that is continuously expanding; as government intervention in the lives of its people grows in size, so does the loss of freedom at a similar rate.🔹