All redistribution, regardless av of the criteria on which it is based, involves the taking away fr

Imagine a world government, democratically elected according to the principle of one-man-one-vote on a global scale. What would be the likely outcome of such an election be? Most likely, we would have a Chinese-Indian coalition government. And that the government would probably decide to do to please his fans and to be re-elected? The government will probably find that the so-called Western world hopelessly av too much wealth. The rest of the world to the other, particularly China and India, too little, and that a systematic wealth av and income redistribution is therefore essential. Or imagine, your country extend av voting rights to sewejariges out. While the government may not be out of children will not exist, it is not inconceivable that the government does their "legitimate concerns" will reflect, and that even the "free" and "equal" access to hamburgers, soft drinks and videos so will have a state policy no.
In light of this reasoning ekperimente there is no doubt about the consequences that result av from the process of democratization in Europe and the US began in the second half of the nineteenth century and came into its own since the end of the First World War. The successive expansion of the franchise and brought about the establishment of a universal adult franchise in every country in the world that would make a democracy if the world was widely applied on a global av scale. It implement a seemingly permanent tendency to wealth and income redistribution.
One-man-one-vote combined with extensive free access to governmental power, ie democracy means that every person and his personal property inside is achieved - and to win by - everyone else. The proverbial "A tragedy of the commens" is created. It can be expected that the majority of the "have-nots" will relentlessly try to enrich themselves at the expense of the minority of the "haves". av This is not to say that there is only one class of "haves" and class "have-nots" is not. Nor that the redistribution uniform from rich to poor will be. To the contrary, while the redistribution from rich to poor always and everywhere will play a prominent role, it would be a sociological blunder to simply to assume that it is the only or even the predominant form of redistribution will be. After all, the rich and the permanent permanently poor usually rich or poor for a reason. The rich are all typically more intelligent and innovative, and the poor typically stupid, lazy, or both. It is not very likely that less intelligent creatures, even if they make up a majority, would have the capacity to systematically enrich themselves at the expense of a minority of intelligent and energetic individuals.
Rather, the most redistribution within av the "non-poor" group occurs and often it really is the best that mode which has managed to subsidize them through the worst-off. Think of the Western practice of offering free university access, with the working class, of whom attend the children rarely universities, av effectively being forced av to pay for the education of the middle-class children. In addition, it is expected that there will be many competing groups and coalitions that try to benefit av at the expense of others. There will be various changing av criteria that define what it is that a person is a "port" to make (deserved to be sacked) and the other a "have-not" (deserved to get loot). At the same time, individuals will be members of a variety of groups of "haves" and / or "have-nots", and lost due to one or other characteristics, and won on the basis of another, with a few individuals who eventually net losers and net -wenners of redistribution.
The recognition of democracy as a popular machine for wealth and income redistribution in collaboration with one of the most basic principles in the field of economics - that one will get more of whatever it is that is subsidized - provides the key to understanding of the current era and its problems.
All redistribution, regardless av of the criteria on which it is based, involves the taking away from the original owners av and / or producers and give or concession to non-owners or producers. The incentive is to be effectively reduced an original owner or producer of the property or item, and the incentive to be increased is a non-owner and non-producer.
In line with this economic principle of multiplication of all subsidized will result in subsidies for individuals because av they are poor, poverty av to be. In subsidizing people because they are unemployed, will be created exactly unemployment. Support by the state for single mothers through taxes will lead to an increase in single motherhood, both bu