|
|
By Bertrand de Jouvenel, (Indianapolis: Liberty press, 1990) 118 pages
Reviewed by Richard M. Ebeling
 "In the 20th century, governments increasingly have become great engines for the redistribution of wealth. Indeed, most of the activity of modern governments centers around taking from some and giving to others, regardless of whether or not those from whom the wealth is being taken wish it to occur. This has caused numerous economic side effects, not the least of which are tax evasion and avoidance. But it has also long been a key argument against such policies that higher and higher rates of taxation for wealth redistribution create significant disincentives to work, save and invest on the part of the productive members of the society. Why should I produce, or produce as much as I could, the argument goes, if I am not allowed to keep the fruits of my own labor?
The debate has, therefore, often been couched in terms of "equality vs. efficiency" and the optimal trade-off between these two goals. Almost forty years ago, the French political philosopher, Bertrand de Jouvenel, decided to ask some important questions. Suppose that income redistribution had no disincentive effects on people's productive activities. Under those circumstances, would income equality through income redistribution be a desirable goal? Would there be an argument against it? His answers are offered in his book, The Ethics Of Redistribution, originally published in 1951, and, after being unavailable for many Years, recently reprinted by Liberty Fund of Indianapolis. In principle, redistribution should be a simple matter. A decision is made concerning what is "an essential minimum" of income; then another decision is made concerning what is a "reasonable maximum" of income; and then the redistribution is put into effect. As de Jouvenel points out, however, the ideas of a "minimum" and a "maximum," far from being objective concepts, are instead quite slippery notions..."
To continue reading click here: fff.org
|
|
|
