Friedrich Hayek on Redistribution of Wealth

For more videos:
Facebook: FreeToChooseNetwork
Media Website: freetochoosemedia.org/index.php
Twitter: / freetochoosenet
Company: freetochoosenetwork.org
Shop: www.freetochoose.net
Stream: freetochoose.tv

[@GigaTrope]

This intellectual giant would crush the dreams of any social engineer.

[@TheHonestBroker]

Marz10 Wrong. He openly favored a wage subsidy.

[@monsterhunter445]

Well Hayeks idea failed in Chile. So there is that

[@tomnguen4200]

@@monsterhunter445 how it is failed ? www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-50123494 this article said it is getting better just because people are economically illiterate doesn't mean it is worst

[@wesleydeter8493]

Hayek didn't say liberalism will improve society. He said that liberalism is the least worst system.

[@coolkidcrypto386]

@@monsterhunter445 please explain??

[@1080lights]

If you are a fluent English speaker and really have so much difficulty with his accent, you must have lived a profoundly blinkered and provincial life.

[@rgorsch]

I am puzzled that people have so much difficulty understanding him. His English is accented, yes, but it is very precise. He is a very precise and considered speaker of English (he had been lecturing and speaking to English language audiences since about 1940); you just have to get used to his pronunciation of English. I find that after I listen for a bit and get in the groove I understand 100%. A little bit of patience is required, and he is worth it.

[@glennoc8585]

He's coherent enough but he lacks the use of pause and tend to run on.

[@DREwestcoast]

oh god... Hayek utterly shatters the social justice concept at 1:40

[@jaygerlach6884]

His book "The Road to Serfdom" is nothing but a take down of the entire collectivist world view. Published in 1944. It's as appropriate then as it is now.

[@paulandreigillesania5359]

Reading his Road to Serfdom, i have to say, the things he's saying r still exact from a book he wrote decades ago.

[@teecee3428]

Warren Buffett himself states openly that he is not a philanthropist for similar reasons. I recently listened to his son re-affirm his views. He donates a lot of money but realizes that nobody is actually smart enough to realize the full consequences of philanthropy. Very often the outcome is much worse than the startpoint.

[@glennoc8585]

Depends how philanthropy is targeted and delivered I suppose. Buffet probably meant his charity might not reflect a change just a short term positive.

[@zackcash4941]

His accent is so thick even KZbin thinks it's German

[@jeanrenetournecuillert2449]

Yea it's problematic i wanted these subtitles...

[@tobiassander3995]

His accent may be thick, but his English is nearly perfect and is intellect stellar.

[@dominicdannies7482]

@@tobiassander3995 I was pleasently surprised as well.

[@cristianluna5568]

Most austrians are german people. Ethnically speaking.

[@maambomumba6123]

Wow! He demolished the concept of social justice. Thanks Hayek.

[@jgesselberty]

The only fair distribution of wealth is that you get to keep what you work for; and I get to keep what I work for. To take from one to give to another is injustice and thievery.

[@TheIrishny]

Von Hayek makes great points here, but he overlooks(perhaps for the sake of this particular argument) that even if a small state like Bermuda COULD distribute more efficiently,that it is STILL wrong to initiate force upon people, thereby Making them contribute, for something they may not agree with.

[@theGuilherme36]

He is an economist, not an ethicist

[@TheReaper569]

distribute more efficiently, no such a thing.

[@tomlaureys1734]

That's a good point because it is something that often gets lost in this discussion. Even if you could install the collectivist idea in a small society like Bermuda, it is still immoral because it is partial slavery. Slavery is immoral therefore collectivism is immoral. Slavery is stealing another person's labor. It is forcing a person to work for another person against their will. When you steal a person's wages you are stealing their labor. That's slavery. Thus taxing one person to give those earned wages to another person is slavery. You effectively make the recipient of those wages the slave owner. That is quite different from taxing people to pay for the services that we all use such as roads police the court system, the national defense.

[@glennoc8585]

@@tomlaureys1734 some people are kept in a wage slavery, you might argue that a service industry worker relying on the generous nature of a customer to offer a tip is kept indebted to a system.

[@Adrian-fe8js]

Justice is an attribute of individual action...

[@TXMEDRGR]

"This is what we believe!" M. Thatcher

[@nothing45830]

two of the greatest accents of 20th century intellectuals

[@Tenebrousable]

My granny was alive, while this was talked about. It is 30 years ago now. Did she think it about this? What did she did think about this? Propably nothing. Or, I wouldn't know either way.

[@Allen1029]

It's bizarre to watch Buckley argue from the left, as it were.

[@Atanu]

Buckley was deliberately doing so to give Hayek the opportunity to elucidate his argument. Buckley was pretty clever.

[@jaygerlach6884]

It's called steelmanning an argument. The intent is to as accurately as you can, restate the opposing argument, and even try to make a stronger argument, before you dismantle the argument. In this case Buckley was playing devil's Advocate.

[@monsterhunter445]

@@jaygerlach6884 but by not having an actual person from the left making the argument.still leaves the mistake of Buckley to misconstrue or worst case bad faith make a straw man argument. Intending to make the lefts position look shit to dismantle it.

[@adamesd3699]

Buckley did a respectable job arguing the opposing side.

[@gerrilevin279]

easily understandable

[@borisdatzar]

Yes, that says a lot about you. Rest assured, not understanding the actual words he is saying is the least of your problems - even if it was written down, the ideas would still be too complicated for you to understand.

[@mdasifelkayam2871]

I am very grateful to meet with Fredrick Hayek Sir He was such a great political economist.

[@51MontyPython]

Why are the captions in German but not English? I can't understand most of what he says with that thick accent, and I don't speak German.

[@kainebishop3970]

I understand every word perfectly and I am not used to German accents. Maybe you just don't know what the words he is saying are.

[@JohnHicks]

+51MontyPython I'm in the same boat. Can't understand him (and apparently KZbin's automatic captioning couldn't understand him either and assumed he was speaking in German :) ).

[@51MontyPython]

John Hicks lol Isn't that crazy? And the vid isn't even from a German channel. O_o Oh, I know, because it's _"Austrian"_ economics; get it? ;) ha ha

[@bogi003]

I speak german and clearly that's not a german translation 😂

[@ActuarialNinja]

At 1:33, social justice easily and effortlessly refuted. Boom!

[@brainxtc2171]

ActuarialNinja yes. We should give our money to Hard workers like Donald trump jr.

[@chesshooligan1282]

@@brainxtc2171 Wrong. We shouldn't give or take from anybody but allow all transactions to be voluntary, including donations. Envy won't take you far in life. I know people like you who, rather than work hard and invest, have spent their entire lives worrying about how much more than them other people make. They have died miserable and broke. I foresee a similar fate for you.

[@TheRosa63]

no matter how they slice it, justify it you cannot honor justice by injustice of theft and involuntary servitude (your funding the poor and serving others without contract is involuntary servitude which is slavery)the more you produce and more get to keep the more the poor will be motivated to put forth the effort to not be poor (depending on defintion of poor which is subjective) because they see they can keep most if not all of their fruits. but if you steal what incentive for htem to reach?

[@swordslicer56]

I would argue that there has to be some taxation or "thievery" because if there wasn't then everyone would suffer including owners of businesses. If we had no taxation, then public schools, roads, and infrastructure would greatly suffer as a consequence. On top of this, if we had no enforcement of property rights, than there would be no point in owning a business since your rights to property would not be enforced. Due to this, even if you consider taxation a moral wrong, it leads to more freedom and prosperity for literally everyone.

[@billmelater6470]

I don't understand why people can't understand Hayek through his accent. Then again, I deal with way worse quite often. At any rate, people need to understand that taxes are not some immaterial mana from heaven as they so often appear to think. Tax money should be thought of as other people's earnings. These earnings are their effort and their limited time they have on this earth that have, being traded for other means. The idea that voting to take someone's earnings would make the taking morally right is simply delusional.

[@uptoapoint7157]

Hayek's economic philosophy has worn well. Government interference in the economy in the pursuit of social justice has led to farcical energy strategies, politicized environmentalism and highly-questionable medical policies.

[@IvBerto]

Don't be so harsh, not everyone is native english speaker so that they have no problem understanding him, it took me a few of his vids to get used to his voice to be able to understand what he's saying

[@rrrrrrktjtj]

is there a transcript of this, Im having a very difficult time with his luscious Austrian accent.

[@scopeless22]

Where have all the good economist gone? Why must they disappear in our time of need?

[@rooney3102]

Cbeck out my boy Bob Murphy

[@blobbyblob2573]

I would not work hard in school and hard in a job to support those who bunk off school and refuse to work. You go to school, work hard, end up with huge student loans and paying extra tax.. no thanks, easier answers NO ONE WORK... we can all be poor then

[@tahasahin8408]

dude looks like a young anthony hopkins

[@edgarsigfridosotoaparicio2275]

Can someone male a video of this, but with subtitles?

[@Armando7654]

I could listen to Hayek for 10 hours straight and not understood a single sentence. what language is he speaking in?

[@RayLRhodes]

Didn't Hayek favour social safety nets?

[@Aphoresis]

Yes, and Milton Friedman also expressed a tolerance for them. He said there was a difference between government acting to relieve distress and government acting to remedy "income inequality".

[@higharcangle]

+MelvinThe42 Net =/= tempurpedic bed

[@theGuilherme36]

For Hayek, the problem with social justice is mainly that we cannot know what kind of pattern of distribution of resources in society is just or not, because of our lack of knowledge of concrete circunstances which brings it about. The market can bring it in a better way than a mind trying to organize it. Also, justice is about equal law for all, and redistribution is disrespetcing the rule of law. Trying to make it by progressive taxation is discourage people to do their best for society, and is arbitrary - cause the state has to define who have to pay less or more in their proportion -, and define it by distinguishing the merits of richs and poors is a fatal conceit due to the lack of knowledge. For Hayek, justice and rule of law is about coercion, and it has to be predictable and equal for all. So that, as taxation is coercion, it has to be proportiona, and prospective. Income redistribution is coercion ad hoc, progressive taxation is coercion which violates the rule of law. For him, proportional taxation is a kind of coercion which does not violate the rule of law and all the attributes expressed by him (like knowledge, predicability and incentive). He favoured a mininum income for all, but it's not coercion and not violate the rule of law which is only about coercion. Once the tax is respecting the rule of law - the taxation is proportional -, the state can make this impersonal kind relief for the poor, and it also doesn't suffer with the ad hoc problem of social justice and the knowledge problem which exists only when people aim with concrete ends.

[@Morz44]

Hayek is for social safety nets and government oversight on industry and work when it is for the safety and health of workers, what Hayek is opposing is primarily government trying to control the free market. Also, he opposes government planning in just about every instance, arguing that it is impossible due to the number of variables to effectively plan out anything justly, and instead let the free market do its thing,

[@molotovcocktail9]

boy have we fallen a long way from solid journalism, now i have to watch madcow or oreilley or anderson pooper tell me what to think... where did the intelligent debate go and when will it return??? sigh

[@galaxy-star-me]

Much worse in 2021. The decline of the West is inevitable because we have so Many progressive left

[@Bigturns33]

I love heyek but i have great distain that his prize aim is utility and not morality of a free enterprise system. Though i will conceed free enterprise surly will bring greater utility... it stands firm that you have to persuade its morality first.

[@thomasmolitor8020]

Society does not have *rights*. Individuals have rights. Income is the personal property of individuals. To take income away under threat of jail is a violation of property rights. Buckley is dead wrong.

[@deponensvogel7261]

And rights exist in law heaven?

[@AvidiaNirvana]

Where the fuck is the William F Buckley of our time? TV has become propaganda for pay! Our generation has been robbed!

[@EGarrett01]

You have to "persuade" it's morality? The free market system is not a living thing or a person, there's nothing to persuade. Your attempt to use pretty language has made your comment nonsensical. Don't do that.

[@fabricio_santana]

Holy shit his accent is almost impenetrable

[@Sposchy]

OK, so let's take Hayek's assumption to be true. If you tax a company or entrepreneur at a higher rate to redistribute wealth, then they'll pursue the activities that generated the wealth with less vigour. Why is this reduction in activity necessarily a bad thing? Sure, if you taxed the Elon Musks of the world at a higher rate you'd slow down technological development and less creation of wealth. But what about Carlos Slim? He got rich sabotaging the efficiency of Mexico's telecommunications systems. He reduced his country's wealth in order to ensure he received a greater share of it. Why wouldn't a government want to discourage that?

[@abreknoxcho]

The problem with Mexico is not the corporate tax rates (some American companies are even outsourcing production to Mexico because it's cheaper). The problem with Mexico is its lack of efficient anti-trust laws that encourage monopolies, such as with Carlos Slim. Mexico recently passed anti-trust legislature in 2016, but it has had little to no effect on Slim's business, effectively ruling out any healthy market competition to challenge Slim.

[@jameslovering9158]

Plenty of examples where "monopolistic positions" are exploiting markets that do not benefit the population. Oil Industry / Pharma / GMO Foods / Software companies. There needs to be a balance to stop excessive wealth as it's not all benefiting the society. If not government who will "police" the markets who will invest in public places for the enrichment of the community as a whole. To think that the benevolence of the super-rich will provide is clearly not now nor ever been the case. The fear that governments will collude with wealthy donors is always a risk needing constant review, power corrupts we know that.

[@bristolfashion4421]

Bloke hasn't quite worked out the simple notion that we're all slightly different - some folks are mean and some are not; some folks are genereous and some folks are not. Some folks are carnivores and some folks, veggie... that's how it is - a whole host of variety... !! We don't all confirm to his silly Austrian inflexible rules.

[@scottsolomon9802]

Hayek's argument is kinda stupid. If a guy owns a firm that basically "runs on its" own, and the firm generates (say) $2MM/yr. in profits that the guy keeps, why would he slow down the machine if his tax rate went up? These guys aren't doing something that gives them money, then they'll do less of the thing they're doing if they're taxed.

[@mitchkazin8259]

Scott Solomon he probably wouldn't slow down production but he might not be motivated to continue to expand his business and invest more capital to increase productivity if he knew that the return wouldn't be worth the cost or the effort

[@scottsolomon9802]

I think you're thinking exclusively of a sole proprietor model. Large firms are just run by the managers. Hayek is very focused on the coercive powers of the state, but he seems not to care much about the coercion coming from other institutions

[@mitchkazin8259]

Scott Solomon I think the logic still hold for any type of firm because ultimately someone draws profits. but what coercion are you referring to? because basically the key libertarian principle is that no one should be forced to do something they don't want to so I'm just curious what examples you have in mind because I would probably agree with you. I can't speak for hayek tho

[@scottsolomon9802]

Well I would say the primary "wellspring" of coercion is employers. You can argue an employee is free to quit the employer, but there exists a very toxic calibration of the structure stemming from most individuals needing to work to generate income combined with a chronic, mass shortage of jobs. And an even larger shortage of jobs that people find fulfilling.

[@mitchkazin8259]

Scott Solomon I think there's a very important distinction between coercion from an employer and being forced by circumstance to do something. if you're desperate enough you'll do pretty much anything. it doesn't mean that an employer won't take advantage of you situation but that doesn't change the fact that it's still a voluntary agreement between two people in which both benefit. But I agree, the best hope for people in a situation like that would be more jobs. how do we get that? I would say lower the corporate tax rate, get rid of the minimum wage, make it far easier to open a business by getting rid of many restrictions and regulation, and offer more school choice in the form or vouchers or charter school to allow young kids in the poorest areas a chance to escape the horrible public schools so they have a chance to get better, higher skilled jobs when they graduate.

[@ericbader7998]

Your profile picture tells a lot on your cognitive capabilities... I suggest you to listens to some native English media and give up on foreign things.

[@bradneece2409]

Yeah, taking a percentage of an already inconceivable amount of wealth will unmotivate people...🙄 If you don't redistribute wealth, it hurts the market by allowing monopolies to dominate over smaller businesses, and grows an underclass of highly exploited wage-slaves. Markets themselves aren't even a moral system, nor nessessaraly the best, but for as long as scarcity is a problem, they will still need to exist to some degree, though ideally with mostly democratic workplaces where the people own their businesses through shares and vote on decisions and managers.

[@ScandinavianHeretic]

You haven't understood what hes saying and the implications of it - You aren't considering the reaction of a free market to that kind of pressure. Stability in such a market requires doing your job well, the second you fall behind, or get lazy or start abusing your customers, then people will compete with you because now an increasing amount of your customers start wondering if they have alternate options...The issue we are having, is that the government grants monopolies, makes towering requirements and tons of paper work and taxation...Being a small business owner is hard, mostly because of government's interference.

[@tomlaureys1734]

@@ScandinavianHeretic you did a decent job of explaining it to this young person. But there are some things to add to that. It's a shame that these economic concepts are not taught to young people in our schools which could avoid a lot of the ignorance about how markets work and why the collectivist ideas do not work. I think that's why most people who believe in collectivism are young people who are idealistic but not knowledgeable about economics. One thing you forgot to include is that the profit motive is the only thing that gives an incentive to risk the capital. Nobody will invest in producing if they're going to lose money or break even. If you risk losing your life savings you deserve to earn a profit. The worker did not invest their life savings in the business so they do not deserve to reap the profit. However having the job working for the producer allows them to have an income that they can save to invest one day in their own business. So the people that they see as oppressors are actually the empowerers. Everybody who gave me a job in my life empowered me to save part of my earnings to start my own business. I have my own business now because of those employers who the collectivists see as my oppressors. Even on the lowest end of the wage scale the employer is empowering the worker by giving them an opportunity to develop some work experience that they can use to step up the ladder to a better job. As they continue to work their way up the ladder to better jobs they develop more opportunities to get better jobs and higher salaries and get to the point where they can save some of their earnings. That's how people like me can start out as a dishwasher in a restaurant eventually get to where I am now. If this system is dismantled and replaced with a collectivist system, all of that incentive and motivation vanishes and results in an inefficient society full of poverty, economic inequality, and Injustice, which is what we see in collectivist societies. It turns out to be quite the opposite of the "social justice" that's collectivist proponents intend.

[@the8u9]

Actually, the sad reality is that by redistributing wealth, it helps the major corporations destroy small businesses and become monopolies. The minimum wage law which is a wealth redistribution law, decimated private businesses while making megacorporations like Amazon look like "the good guy" for paying the high minimum wage, when in fact, they are SO happy that the government is killing all of their competition for them. "Exploited wage slaves" were born out of the free market for employment shrinking due to wealth redistribution. When less small businesses are around, there are less jobs, which increases competition between workers, and when the supply (workers) is bigger than the demand (job) then of course everyone's pay is going to shrink by the basic principle of economics.

[@jackmiddleton2080]

He assumes all the world is as selfish as himself.

[@fatfat1877]

How is he selfish?

[@jackmiddleton2080]

@@fatfat1877 He can't fathom people working for anything other than themselves because he himself would never do so.

[@pradyumnabanerjee3333]

@@jackmiddleton2080 Why would i work for others? Its my labor, my time, which was used and the income was given to me. So why should i work for others? And moreover, Selflessness comes from the bottom of the heart, not from the muzzle of a gun

[@jackmiddleton2080]

@@pradyumnabanerjee3333I think you are correct under certain circumstances. For example in a perfect utopian world where everyone gets exactly what they deserve. I'm not sure why you're telling specifically me your last statement. If the selflessness in the bottom of your heart tells you to shoot someone then there is not much difference.

[@pradyumnabanerjee3333]

@@jackmiddleton2080 Who decides who deserves what? The people or the State? And my last statement is to show the morality of welfare and taxation for "helping the poor". A forces B to give stuff to C while taking some comission on the way. Its based on a fundamental fallacy. To see the immediate effects on a certain demographic while neglecting the long term effect on everyone

[@suzegiljer3206]

The economic philosophy of this man influenced Raegan ,US president,.Now we can see how successful it has been.The wages for the common people has not increased in 30 yrs.

[@tomlaureys1734]

You wrote this comment 8 months ago. Do you have a source for that statement? I've read articles saying that real wages have been increasing for the last four years. Then we hit the point of the pandemic which ended that. But you wrote your comment eight months ago which was at the beginning of the pandemic. Wage data caused by the pandemic was not even available when you wrote your comment so where did you get it from? Are you denying that wages were increasing the previous years before the pandemic hit?

[@tomlaureys1734]

www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/awidevelop.html You can see here that the last several years and in fact most of the last 30 years wages increased more than the rate of inflation and even in 2016 the wage increase was about on a par with inflation.

[@gabbar51ngh]

His economic policies were barely tried. Reagan was Influenced by supply side economists. The laffer curve. If Thatcher or Reagan followed Hayek then there wouldn't Even be a central bank in those countries. Both politicians cherry picked policies.

[@roughhabit9085]

Potential wage increases are substituted by more financial support for the public sector which is getting bigger and bigger and generates no wealth.

[@canteluna]

"The concept of social justice, to expect from an impersonal process, which nobody can control, to bring about a just result is not only a meaningless conception, it's completely impossible." Hayek is wrong and when Buckley suggests a way to frame the issue in another way, Hayek brings up redistribution of wealth. This is a non sequitur. While wealth redistribution is one example of a social goal, it alone does not define social justice. He asks what it is and says that no one can tell him. That's because there is no one answer, justice (which is social by definition and so needn't be called "social justice") is a process and it is both personal and impersonal, as it must be. It is personal in that individuals are inspired to define it and engage with others in a dialectic that then informs our evolving concept of it, behavior, norms and laws. But the legal justice system that is an integral part of the process is necessarily impersonal -- to a degree (e.g. justice is blind means that there is no personal partiality) but is also personal in that lawyers and judges, people with personal attitudes and feelings about what is just, are part of this process. Hayek says that justice is a personal attitude. Justice is a social construct, we learn it. If two people want to resolve an issue justly they can negotiate a settlement that they agree on, fine but that is not justice in the sense we are talking about because "social justice" is something the society has a steak in and that potentially effects them (just as externalities in the market). If Hayek wants to say that justice has an instinctual basis, fine. But that is not all he is saying. We certainly have instinctual responses to certain interactions, they're called emotions. Do we want our emotions to serve as the basis for justice? Our emotions are no doubt the basis for everything social about us, but we've long ago decided that personal justice -- vengeance, retribution, revenge, are not ideal for dispensing justice. He says that we cannot determine what a just wage should be because people don't have an instinct about what is fair in this case. I do. Plenty of people do. And, more to the point, one needs more than an instinct. But if you want to speak to the instinctual aspect, I think we all have an instinct that if someone in the wealthiest society on the planet is working 40 hours a week and needs tax payer assistance to get by, there is a problem, that is an instinct, but so what, the instinct isn't the only part of the human response that is of value in this situation. What do you think the cerebral cortex is for, Mr Hayek? A fair wage should be determined not by instinct but by negotiation between employer and employee as relative equals. Unions served the function of creating a more just balance of power between employee and employer but of course the more powerful employer (and his lobbying efforts) have turned the tables back in their favor, which is why we have the level of inequality again that we do. Hayek is an embarrassing old fool. Of course libertarians and free market fanatics desperately cling to any old fogey (e.g. Ayn Rand) who tells them they are justified in their greed and that social justice is a matter of theft by the state. Such idiots should consider facts over ideology and read Fukuyama's The Origins of Political Order and any recent book by Hacker and Pierson. The first book expects the how and why of government and the latter are empirical studies of what actually works to make a society prosper.

[@canteluna]

Your comments, taste in lit and politics is immature. If you were capable of saying anything intelligent, you would. You didn't. You're not. Moron.

[@Polumetis]

" Hayek says that justice is a personal attitude. Wrong. Justice is a social construct, we learn it. " These two aren't mutually exclusive. Sure, from a very young age, we are taught right from wrong or so called justice, but experience has a lot to do in molding it into a personal idea of sorts.

[@Polumetis]

Do you actually think, that we live in a free market society?

[@Polumetis]

" But if not, let's get back to negotiating with a real neutral 3rd party arbiter. " Who's the 3rd party artbiter, the government? Government has a monopoly on coercion, so it would be immoral to have it involved in negotiations of two or more people.

[@canteluna]

Typical libertarian argument. Not really thought out. It is precisely the monopoly of authority of government that makes it the ideal arbiter because ideally, our government is simply a representation and reflection of the people, its culture and laws. Would you prefer justice to be determined by different entities, different standards, etc? Any party with the authority to adjudicate a dispute would require what you call coercion, otherwise the ruling would not be binding. When settling a dispute, the dispute requires a process that is established, with precedent, with rules or procedure, and one that is understood and respected by the parties involved. Who could establish such a system but government? Joe's Bar & Dispute Resolution? Even if the arbiter is not "government" it might as well be because it would essentially perform the same function. This is true with many institutions that libertarians would like to replace with private parties. The real question about entities we, the governed, allow to exercise a monopoly of authority, is whether and how they are accountable to us. This would be true whether it's government or de facto government. There are several parts of the world that have no "government" that nonetheless are governed. In the absence of the rule of law (enforced by the monopoly of a legitimate -- elected - government) there will still exist a de facto government. The difference is, this government is accountable to only to those who fund it. Our government resembles this type more and more. However, given our constitution and ability to make laws, we could change that over night if there existed the political will. If you're naive to think that you can create a society without government, that is totally voluntarist, AND that functions with relatively little conflict, then I suggest you first join a kibbutz or some other type of commune and see how you like it. See if there is no coercion or demands made on you. Of course you can always leave. That is called "exit" but exit where? The libertarian society is a society of one, possibly two. This is childish and deranged thinking.

[@hampusheh]

Hayek's answer doesn't really make sense, kind of the same drivel as any right wing ideologue you'll hear. Of course you can redistribute after the market process has had its course, there's certainly a point where productivity is not affected, as shown by the high marginal tax rate in Sweden, whose laborers at this high earning bracket shows no less productivity than any other country.

[@user-hu3iy9gz5j]

Then you distribute, not redistribute, implying that it was distributed to begin with