Tom Woods on redistributionist left-wing arguments

One of the major left-wing arguments (famously advanced by John Rawls but not exclusively by him); in support of redistribution is this: you don't deserve your talents, so neither do you deserve their fruits.

Translation: it's morally acceptable for us to seize your dough from you and distribute it to people who weren't so fortunate as to be born with your talents.

[...]

If the emphasis is on who is "deserving," then answer me this. Suppose eye transplants are possible. My child is blind. Your child has two functioning eyes. Does your child "deserve" those eyes more than my child? If not, then you are required to transfer one of your child's eyes to my child.

Even though the example is preposterous, the principle is the same. That's why philosophers have used this example to show the problems with the "you don't deserve X more than I do!" school of thought.

I think the eye example is a very good one. If I don't "deserve," say, my golf talents that earn me big bucks, I am equally undeserving of my healthy eyes, which are just as much a matter of luck as my golf talent.

~ Tom Woods, December 1, 2019