> My experience is that most progressive causes want to redistribute income from high earners to low earners. Policies such as government supported housing, daycare, support this.

Oh absolutely. This is the way to make a more fair and balanced society.

If the US doesn't want that, fine but it is of course also the reason for the no-go areas/ghettos, the amount of violent crime etc. Because people who are in the lowest class and have no upward mobility will tend to spiral away in crime, because that does pay.

> These policies actively restrict freedoms by removing the freedom of choice from consumers. They introduce deadweight loss and moral hazard.

We don't believe in unrestricted free-market capitalism anyway.

▲

hellojesus 3 days ago | parent [-]

> Oh absolutely. This is the way to make a more fair and balanced society.

I understand its purpose, but it does restrict freedom. Personally I am much more a fan of charity because its voluntary nature preserves freedom, but I accept the duality of freedom is the potential for lousy initial conditions in life.

> We don't believe in unrestricted free-market capitalism anyway.

I think we should strive to push society to freer markets. Neither leading party seems to have interest, however.

	▲	wkat4242 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		As a socialist I don't think all markets should be free. Only the ones that aren't necessary for living. Energy, healthcare, public transport, even telecoms should be in government hands (as they all were in Holland in the 80s)