Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I'm having a hard time parsing your comment.

You seem to be equating "redistributing wealth" with "any government action". It is certainly true that almost any government action changes something and thus can affect the economy in general but that doesn't mean those two phrases are interchangeable. For me, your formulation is just confusing.

You are also throwing up a straw-man argument of "unfettered capitalism". Advocating for a limited government with proscribed powers that don't involve a primary goal of "redistributing wealth" is not a statement about "capitalism" or advocating for "unfettered capitalism". It is a statement about the role of government.

It's not a particularly subtle or difficult point. Every time the government touches anything having to do with money, it has a redistributive effect.

For example, if the government limits who has standing to sue under environmental statutes, and decreases enforcement, it redistributes wealth from the poor who were using a natural resource to any company that may have polluted or depleted it.

The comment to which I was responding said explicitly that "capitalism has drastically increased quality of life" and that "[m]ost of the 20th century’s biggest failures were due to government intervention." Talking about the weaknesses of capitalism when it is unfettered by government intervention is clearly on-point.

On the other hand, I don't see anyone saying redistribution should be "a primary goal," as you characterize it. Where are you seeing that?

I'm seeing that here in the first message I replied to:

> And start demanding that our government do what it's supposed to do: ensure that the wealth generated by corporations is adequately shared by all.

Fair enough, mea culpa.

Registration is open for Startup School 2019. Classes start July 22nd.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact