Conservative Libertarians oppose redistribution because it inevitably results in an increase in the power of the state, and a decrease in freedom. Are they right?
It depends on how you define “freedom.” Redistribution is, in fact, associated with additional legal restraints on individuals (particularly wealthy ones) within society; that is commonly known as “negative freedom.” However, due to the operation of the principle of marginal utility, which I discussed in a previous post, redistribution may actually increase the practical alternatives available to members of society as a whole; that is called “positive freedom.”
A negative freedom guy argues that a poor person and a rich person are equally free to buy a Lexus in a just society, because the government puts no legal barriers in front of either one of them. He would further maintain, in all likelihood, that redistribution is a slippery slope, and once you start it, you’re on the road to serfdom. Personally, I would say that experience shows we have enough judgment to stop before we reach serfdom, and the marginal utility/positive freedom position is the stronger of the two. That’s why I’m not a CL.