<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Cosmopolitan Redistribution</title>
	<atom:link href="http://theunbrokenwindow.com/2009/11/05/cosmopolitan-redistribution/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://theunbrokenwindow.com/2009/11/05/cosmopolitan-redistribution/</link>
	<description>The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design. - F.A. Hayek</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 09:58:44 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Larry Arbeiter</title>
		<link>http://theunbrokenwindow.com/2009/11/05/cosmopolitan-redistribution/comment-page-1/#comment-27318</link>
		<dc:creator>Larry Arbeiter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 May 2011 15:10:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://theunbrokenwindow.com/?p=1647#comment-27318</guid>
		<description>This is a thought-provoking post, Mike. I&#039;m intrigued by the metaphor you use to describe &quot;coercive  redistribution,&quot; namely &quot;stick a gun in my face.&quot; Sometimes the use of the strongest possible metaphor signals doubt in one&#039;s argument. At the least it can be divisive. If you have a strong case here, perhaps there is no need for overstatement? 
You describe persuasively some ways in which &quot;redistribution&quot; may be inequitable and therefore unjust. I wonder if one could make similar arguments that &quot;distribution&quot; can also in some cases be inequitable. If it is always perfectly just, then no imperfect redistribution could improve it. But until we all agree on that--and I suspect we do not--then perhaps we could also ask not just whether redistribution is imperfect, or even to what degree, but whether in combination with imperfect distribution it on balance can sometimes lead to more or less &quot;justice.&quot; 
Thanks again,
Larry</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is a thought-provoking post, Mike. I&#8217;m intrigued by the metaphor you use to describe &#8220;coercive  redistribution,&#8221; namely &#8220;stick a gun in my face.&#8221; Sometimes the use of the strongest possible metaphor signals doubt in one&#8217;s argument. At the least it can be divisive. If you have a strong case here, perhaps there is no need for overstatement?<br />
You describe persuasively some ways in which &#8220;redistribution&#8221; may be inequitable and therefore unjust. I wonder if one could make similar arguments that &#8220;distribution&#8221; can also in some cases be inequitable. If it is always perfectly just, then no imperfect redistribution could improve it. But until we all agree on that&#8211;and I suspect we do not&#8211;then perhaps we could also ask not just whether redistribution is imperfect, or even to what degree, but whether in combination with imperfect distribution it on balance can sometimes lead to more or less &#8220;justice.&#8221;<br />
Thanks again,<br />
Larry</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Speedmaster</title>
		<link>http://theunbrokenwindow.com/2009/11/05/cosmopolitan-redistribution/comment-page-1/#comment-10518</link>
		<dc:creator>Speedmaster</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:39:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://theunbrokenwindow.com/?p=1647#comment-10518</guid>
		<description>&gt;&gt; &quot;I am opposed to coercive redistribution on both moral and practical grounds.&quot;

When I am looking at any policy or action I consider it by asking three questions:
1. Is it moral?
2. Is it Constitutional?
3. Is it economically sound?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&gt;&gt; &#8220;I am opposed to coercive redistribution on both moral and practical grounds.&#8221;</p>
<p>When I am looking at any policy or action I consider it by asking three questions:<br />
1. Is it moral?<br />
2. Is it Constitutional?<br />
3. Is it economically sound?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

