« Steve Sailor's paternalistic school discipline comment | Main | Prof. Kling previews his presentation against the stimulus bill »

January 30, 2009



Redistribution is quite a different thing from regulation. There are a significant number of libertarians who want to abolish all regulations but aren't too bothered but a large amount of redistribution, perhaps along the lines of Milton Friedman's negative income tax (aka guaranteed minimum income).

Hopefully Anonymous

I guess I look at all coercive and selectively beneficient state action as regulation from a consequentialist perspective. So I'd place redistribution, along with criminal law, civil liberties law, and everything already traditionally seen as regulatory law within the larger category of regulation.

I'm interested in experts that have explored this more thoroughly.


I guess I think of regulation as being about rules. A lot of libertarians think there are correct rules and then whatever happens with those rules is just because the rules are. Nozick's Wilt Chamberlain example is well known. Redistribution is concern over an outcome, a pattern of holding.

David Dzidzikashvili

Redistribution and regulation are too different policies. Redistribution is bad and proved it can not fairly work in any socio-economic system, while regulations can adopt to public and change over time, at times increasing and at times decreasing. Redistribution is very aggressive approach to any economic problems and I don't think there is a precedent where redistribution has positively solved any economic issues.

Hopefully Anonymous

I think you both have a naive view of regulation/redistubution. Most regulations are redistributionist from a consequential perspective (they have consequences of redistributing resources from one sector of society to another, where they wouldn't go absent the regulation).

The comments to this entry are closed.