All you said is that people support forcing others to give resources instead of themselves. Of course they do.
All the rest of that is political jargon that tries to obscure the simple fact. What you described falls under the latter of my examples. And yes it has broad support because most people are materialistic and don’t want to contribute themselves but would rather someone else pay for things.
Sorry - you’re making it a bit too simple.
First, you’re ignoring that modern societies are highly complex. Social security systems don’t exist because people are too stingy to help voluntarily, but because individual charity is simply unreliable. No one relies on spontaneous donations to fund roads, schools, or hospitals. Why should social security be any different?
Second, you’re portraying support for redistribution as pure selfishness. But if that were true, why are countries with strong welfare states economically stable and livable? Why do Scandinavian countries with high taxes thrive, while many countries with minimal welfare systems struggle with poverty and insecurity?
You say that government redistribution is a sign of materialism. But isn’t it just as materialistic to see taxes as a pure burden, rather than an investment in a functioning society?
