Power is always expressed through violence. Someone wants to use the land you're currently using. They leave it alone, even if their situation is miserable. Why? You can call in the cops who will subject them to violence and make their lives worse. What if they can take the cops? Well, wherever you happen to be, it used to be part of someone else's domain; it was taken away by violence. Violence shapes society, it shapes history, the threat of violence keeps the world ticking along smoothly, and responding properly to danger helps to ensure that smooth action. your sympathies don't matter.

You're probably right to not be afraid, but things can kick off when the circumstances are right for it. And we haven't arrived at this historical moment by being nice.

Only one of the two reasons I put forward came down to violence and that's just reality. Humanity is the product of 3-4 billion years of evolution and most of that time has been an extremely violent struggle for survival and advancement. That is what we are. We live in a paper-thin veneer of sophistication and civility while we are comfortable and our bellies are full, but every last one of us is still an animal. We're dangerous animals too and all it takes is a tiny bit of hopelessness and fewer than a dozen missed meals for that to become evident.

You might not be sympathetic to your fellow animals, but you can bet that if a bunch of them frightened, angry, and hungry start circling because they see you as all that stands between them and survival they won't be very sympathetic to you either.

We already make a number of concessions to preserve a polite society. Keeping your fellow animals fed and making sure they have a chance to advance (something to work for) is a small price for security and stability because otherwise those things are impossible.

You can think of it as ransom, but I prefer to think of it as an investment in and routine maintenance of society itself and ultimately we all benefit and see returns on that investment.

I get what you mean and I do sympathize somewhat.

The fact is, however, that modern society doesn't fit everyone. Since we won't allow people to withdraw from society that means we're actively forcing people to live a specific way of life that some simply cannot handle.

Simply putting more pressure on those groups will result in the forming of parallel societies and in the long run that means that those parallel societies will form a separate culture and try to secede. If we stop that there will be conflict. History tells us such conflict will be very bloody, no matter who ends up on top.

This is a cycle that Western Civilization has dealt with for thousands of years. Personally, I wouldn't mind trying to break it this time.

Let's look at this from another view then.

Those rabid unproductive people are rabid and unproductive because society can't provide basic necessities such as 'housing' or 'food' or 'water'. They are being made rabid by people that would deny them the basics needed to survive.

Your argument is essentially 'Let them eat cake' and if you're at all familiar with history, I need not mention the possible origin of that phrase. When you create a desperate class of people willing to do anything to survive, you shouldn't be surprised when they show up at your doorstep seeking to drag you out into the streets.

Australia has clean streets as is reasonably christian.

If you want the poor to live in hell, move to the UK, the bottom end of the class system is exactly that even with free healthcare.

Where do you draw the line on unproductive? Hitler was a bum until he got into politics after trying and failing to 'be productive' in art. Your metric does not protect you from poverty, you can become ill and unproductive yourself, nor does it protect you from Mao/Hitler. They all became "productive" at some point.

The poor will always be with us, it's not actually possible to draw the line such that they leave.

> I would lose money.

I disagree. I'd argue the amount of money you "lose" due to redistribution is actually MUCH less than the additional value you are able to output due to social stability. You cannot be entirely decoupled from your environment - and that environment is rapidly globalizing. That's not to say that balance can't become skewed in the future, or that other communities haven't had bad balances elsewhere otherwise. But, its not a one or the other, its more of a balancing act. Some redistribution is likely good - too much is definitely bad.

Specifically, sister comments are arguing redistribution is likely net-positive for everyone at least up to the point of providing basic needs (food, water, shelter) exactly because without those things people become disruptive. To argue that "I/we can fight anyone becoming disruptive" ignores the fact that that fighting takes away from other productive ventures (and not to mention is a wee arrogant).

EG: I can make 100$ of value a day if I don't have to constantly fight for me and mine. Forfeiting 30$ of it makes sure that everyone around me is happy enough not to threaten me. If they were starving and began threatening me (or my tools), my output drops to 10$ because i spend most of my efforts in looking out for myself/mine rather than collaborating. I'm now MUCH worse off than if i participated in some well-moderated redistribution.

If you disagree with the $100-$10 output reduction, i recommend you go try to do the same job you do now in a war-torn or economically repressed country (odds are you won't be able to find it, or it'll pay much, much less). I believe every developed nation has social safety nets precisely because of the economic sweet spot it enables.