The new administration is almost certainly going to increase taxes on the wealthy to pay for additional spending on poor and middle-class people. This attempt to increase equality of outcomes clearly reduces negative freedom for affluent people. But what about freedom as a whole?
If you’re a CL, you never reach that question, because using the state to reduce inequality of outcomes is inappropriate and possibly even immoral. Maximizing negative freedom is all that matters. Most of us are not CLs, however; we care about positive as well as negative freedom. How should we analyze the issue?
You start with the concept of marginal utility. A dollar in the pocket of a wealthy person, in general, contributes less to the well-being of society as a whole, and certainly to the individual, than an additional dollar in the pocket of someone who desperately needs to spend it for essentials. Not only is the service provided more valuable; the immediate impact on the economy is greater, as well. Under current conditions, it sounds like a fairly simple calculation.
Conditions can change, however. If the program is run poorly, the dollar could disappear into the unworthy pocket of a bureaucrat. In some countries, the welfare state is already so large, the dollar might just encourage more dependency. And what if that dollar, in the pocket of a wealthy man, would be invested in a company which creates tremendous social value–not just a government bond? Wouldn’t that change the equation?
It would. The bottom line is that each attempt by the state to decrease inequality has to be judged on the totality of the facts. There is no general rule that always works here.