Is Taxing the Rich to Give to the Poor Fair?

The libertarians have the idea that the right to liberty is fundamental to each of us and so governments' enforcement of law should be minimal as far as possible. Only in those areas such as maintaining the social contract, protecting private property from theft etc should be within the purview of government's law. It is because of this sense of right to liberty that they believe in a meritocratic idea of social system. Meritocratic sense of social system is the idea that distribution of goods and opportunities in society should be based on merits and individual capability. Government then is not supposed to tax the rich to give to the poor; there should not be SC/ST quota, government also should not legislate moral conviction of the majority and impose it on all the members of the society etc. The notion of freedom of the person thus poses as a key feature for the libertarians.

John Rawls has an argument against this form of idea. He argues that those who are rich and talented are so not solely because of their doings. If Amir Khan is making so much money as an actor, it is because he is born into an era where people have developed technonoly to make and market films. And this technological development is not really his doing; he just happens to be lucky enough to be born in this generation. If Rahul Gandhi is powerful and rich, it is not really his doing; He happened to be born into such a family that is powerful and rich. Amir Khan or Rahul Gandhi cannot claim that their status is solely because of their hard work. Since luck/contingent factor had played a role in their rise, they must not keep the fruit of their status only for themselves. Or for example, if one is born into a slum and therefore she has no access to education for which she is now at the bottom of the social ladder, it is not her doing; she did not choose to be born into such social circumstances. So she cannot really be "blamed" for the condition she got into.  Had all these people been born some 1000 years earlier in some other parts of the world, their situation would have been so different. Therefore, the less fortunate ones need to be 'compensated'.

Some people are more talented than others. Some are born with certain deformity. Considering these factors should everybody start at the same line to run the race of life? If unlucky ones are not compensated, they will forever remain at the lowest rung of the social ladder. Libertarians may reply “well, that's life”.

Envy and jealousy are natural propensity of human nature. Unless checked or rectified, wider social gap can engender stronger jealousy. Since natural resources are not unlimited, if the more talented and so richer and so powerful ones own too much, leaving aside nothing much for the less fortunate ones in the lottery of life, jealousy and anger will take over and social system will crumble. If the social contract is keeping some people at the lowest rung of the social ladder, what incentive is there to prevent them for taking everybody to the state of nature where there is no law and everybody is on his/her own?

So my is that imposing reasonable amount of tax on the rich that may result in giving subsidy to the poor is fair and just; society would be worse off without such taxation.

NB: I find the libertarians idea against moral legislation unsatisfying. Can human moral sentiment take anything that comes about? I think not. If state's legislation of moral conviction is not to be practised one has to allow consensual polygamy. What about suicide or selling of one's organ like kidney or an eye? What about consensual cannibalism? Are you okay about a person giving himself to be eaten by another person? ( This incident really took place in Germany in 2001.) I believe humans are morally hardwired and goal-directed being. Doing away these traits in the name of freedom will make human less human.