But if we think about it, it becomes obvious that "redistribution" is one of those meaningless PC (Perception Control) words. The wealth never belonged to those to whom it's being given. It was created from thin air by those from whom it's being taken. so it's distribution, not re-distribution they're talkinng about. "Redistribution" is an apparent attempt to imply that those who create wealth somehow steal it from those who don't create wealth – and that is just plain liberal hogwash.
What we're really talking about here is even distribution of wealth –and that is just plain Socialism.
And Socialism has been shown again and again to be incapable of doing anything more than stifling the production of wealth. The most efficient wealth distribution system ever invented by man, in fact, is Capitalism. Capitalism requires three things – capital, customers, and co-workers. It turns put that the last two are one and the same. We pay our co-workers money for their efforts in producing wealth so that they will have the money to purchase the wealth we produce.
One of the problems liberals have in comprehending this simple and self-sustaining operation is that they confuse wealth and capital. Capital is not wealth. Capital is only the means of producing wealth. Capital is machines and money and man power. Wealth is cars and computers and shoes and bacon. Wealth is paved streets and police protection and potable tap water. Wealth is the fruits of Capitalism freely distributed through the population by the innate mechanism of Capitalism.
Another Perception Control word used by liberals to obfuscate their socialistic fantasies is "entitlement." "Entitlement" is meant to suggest that those who don't produce wealth are somehow "entitled" to the wealth I produce. In the real world, of course, entitlement is a self-induced condition. It cannot be bestowed upon you. It must be earned. I am entitled to only what I create. I am not entitled to what you create. This is a basic law driving everything from patents and copyrights to the evolution of species.
Finally, let's examine the phrase "social justice" itself. Unless "social" is shorthand for socialistic, it's meaningless. There is no social contact between those who are deprived of their wealth and those upon whom it is bestowed. The process is autonomous and, if anything, it engenders resentment and animosity between the two groups. It would seem "social" was just tacked on because it sounded good.
And justice is a natural and immutable attribute of nature, as embodied in such concepts as Karma. Justice is inarguable and inescapable. It is not an invention – or even a function – of human society. It existed long before mankind and it operates independently of his fantasies.
So whatever they may choose to call it, if it is forced upon you by the government, I guaran-damn-tee you it ain't justice.