You set the stage to call redistribution a moral public good based on a representative agent for each class. I don’t think that gets you there so essentially you assume this moral public good conclusion and then draw out some implications.
I question that you argument offered does imply redistribution can behave like a public good in a real world setting. I might but I don’t think your approach get you there. If so, then the rest of the post is just musing about a possible implications if one just assumes redistribution dynamics have some similarity with those of public goods.
I think Dagon points out might not even be the case, it may purely be threshold funding that is driving the behavior in which case applying the logic of public goods may lead one astray.
Similarly, I’m not sure that adding “moral” is actually doing any real work. Seems more of a mood setting rhetorical device.
You set the stage to call redistribution a moral public good based on a representative agent for each class. I don’t think that gets you there so essentially you assume this moral public good conclusion and then draw out some implications.
I question that you argument offered does imply redistribution can behave like a public good in a real world setting. I might but I don’t think your approach get you there. If so, then the rest of the post is just musing about a possible implications if one just assumes redistribution dynamics have some similarity with those of public goods.
I think Dagon points out might not even be the case, it may purely be threshold funding that is driving the behavior in which case applying the logic of public goods may lead one astray.
Similarly, I’m not sure that adding “moral” is actually doing any real work. Seems more of a mood setting rhetorical device.