To look at this in a macro sense from a different perspective, it may be more productive to redistribute wealth through shaming instead of laws. What I mean is basically peer pressure. It's very real and it is the backbone of tribal societies. Foraging tribes, for example, have zero laws about anything, yet they still have wealth accumulation. This accumulation, however, is never for the purpose of rising above the other tribesmen, but is a part of the process of creating great prestige by giving it to everybody else
I think the same mechanism functions in civilization, but it looks like it doesn't partly because there are so many coercive laws that people hate, and this creates divisions in the culture where people have more of an "us vs them" mentality. Even still, a lot of very wealthy people spend most of their time in charity. The reason they do it is the same as why the most basic hunter/gatherer societies also do it.
Guys like the Kochs are viewed as spinsters who are taking as much wealth for themselves as possible, but even that isn't true. They believe what they're doing is charitable to everybody else. They believe that crushing the government is the best charity they know how to give. They're not wrong. I tend to not agree with the "ends justifies the means" approach, and maybe the Kochs are different, but it could be said that the principle still applies. The "Scrooge McDuck" fable is kinda just a fable. The only agency that steals cash and "sits on it" en masse is the government
Reply With Quote