5 votes

Dinesh D'Sousa is in favor of some redistribution of wealth.

Bright conservative thinker and author Dinesh D'Sousa is in favor of some redistribution of wealth even though he thinks Government should be limited to protecting the citizens and agrees that the government is not protecting the citizens when it redistributes their wealth but he still favors some redistribtion; he favors redistribution of wealth even though he agrees it creates a perverse incentive and is morally wrong. Go figure. Interestingly, he agrees there is a fundamental difference between taxing citizen for a service that he wants and needs on the one hand, and taxing him to give his money to someone else. But still, he is in favor of some redistribution of wealth which he defends as tensions in the system. I call them contradictions. He says that these tensions are inherent in a democracy, and when I point out that our original system was not a democracy but a Constitutional Republic he agrees. Part one


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

D'Sousa seems reasonable.

D'Sousa seems reasonable. Where is part two?

There is a way to ensure just sharing of national wealth.

The way to do this is through a Land Value Tax as mooted by political economist Henry George in his major work entitled Progress and Poverty. This can be morally supported by recognising that Land in the economic sense belongs to everyone in the nation since it is a free gift from God.

Ownership of Land as private property is secure but the economic Rent associated with that Land is a community property since it is the community that bestows any value to the privately owned Land. By the same token any natural resources or natural produce from the Land are gifts from God to the nation as a whole and a tithe can be levied on them for the benefit of the community.

This is the ONLY tax that would be paid by the residents of any country and it could be collected by a Community Land Trust rather than the government. The funds received from that tax would then be distributed equally to every lawful citizen of the nation every month as collected.

From that point onwards everyone would be responsible for their own lives and for the lives of others only to the extent that they wished to be responsible for them. This responsibility would be governed by moral standards agreed upon by the community and would not be enforceable by any agency of government.

"Jesus answered them: 'Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.'" (John 8:34-36)

He's also in favor of....

....perpetual war which is in and of itself a redistribution of wealth to the myriad of military-industrial corporations and the banks who underwrite their operations and loan the money to the government which is used to buy their products.

Back in 2008 at the Freedom Fest in Las Vegas, Ron Paul debated him and made him look like the petulant child he is. D'Sousa is a neocon and all neocons to a man favor wealth redistribution even for personal welfare as it keeps the masses quiet about all of the war spending. I never cease to be amazed that pseudo-intellectuals like D'Sousa and Kristol are able to pass themselves off as bright thinkers and yet the only intellectual activity in which they engage is the repackaging of tyranny.

Since your article exists to

Since your article exists to point out one contradiction, I thought I'd bring one of your own to your attention.

You talk of taxation as if differed substantially from theft, when actually no such difference exists.

And since theft represents a violation of property, and the government here is the agent, and yet you claim the government exists to protect property...

how do you square the idea of a property-violating property-protector?

I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts on this.


Sign in the background

Did you see the sign in the background?

Bloggers and columnists wanted
Let your voice be heard at:

Time to start posting the word of Liberty on mainstream republican websites... Go Go!

“Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.” —Thomas Jefferson

great interview Jan

I am not a Dinesh D'Souza fan, but I think he represented himself well in this discussion and argued his points well. He engaged Jan and didn't dodge the discussion; stand up guy, even if he is a war-mongering neocon.

2 things

1) It's a good thing Dinesh's opinion carries about as much practical clout as any post on here, if that. To be clear, I mean that in a good way to ALL of you, and not in any bad way toward Dinesh. Part 2 continues about putting people on pedestals and judging them to be superior to you.

2) edit: edited for reasons of self preservation over promoting the public good of people I dont know :)


is the redistribution of wealth. The question is not whether or not wealth should be redistributed. Wealth is always in a state of redistribution. The real question is: who and how shall wealth be redistributed?

reedr3v's picture

the question I ask is whether or not

redistribution is voluntary or coerced. If people want to trade and exchange wealth or goods or charity or gifts, fantastic. If a small group of tyrants want to confiscate wealth from peaceable people and give it to themselves or others, it is straight out theft and oppression, no matter the excuse, and must have bad consequences even beyond the immorality.

Taxation IS redistribution of

Taxation IS redistribution of wealth. Hadn't realised this was an anarcho-capitalist revolution all along...


Helfeld always asks everyone the same questions, sort of like Ray Comfort. Maybe that's what makes his interviews so entertaining.

Dinesh is War-monger,

is full of hate, favors pre-emptive attacks, nukes, & occupation of countries, all with tax-payer-money, or printing of fake money, = inflation, = hidden tax. his stance is that of a rat, and it has affected his looks too. This mole of the banksters is very well read and pretends to be well informed, probably he is, yet he propagates the official story of 911.

His theology

is also off

“It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till." -J.R.R. Tolkien

re Just War.

yes, Dinesh does Not follow the Christian "Just War" theory. You may recall the discussion /debate he had with Dr Ron Paul, mentioned in a post above. I will go up to post a comment.

Helfeld seems to be implying

that it was at one time illegal for farmers to lobby Congress to pass farm subsidies. I'm not aware of any time in U.S. history when federal subsidies were considered unconstitutional. I oppose ALL subsidies (except in rare cases for defense purposes as even Henry Hazlitt makes exception), but being legal and being right are two different things.

Is there any reason to be

Is there any reason to be surprised about this? Fundamentalist Christians are often Socialist. As are Fundamentalist Muslims (afterall, all muslim-majority countries are economically left)

That is sometimes true

But it's funny, since the Bible itself actually is anti-socialist and mandates free market capitalism.

“It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till." -J.R.R. Tolkien

Fundamentalist as Socialist ??

please elaborate.


Sadly it's idolatry, living by the sword. D'Souza is a Neocon. That's how they think, a fake commie "conservative" an Orwellian re-defining of the term to confuse.

I favor redistribution of

I favor redistribution of wealth too. I support giving people a minimum standard of living; after all, I'm not a monster who wants to watch them starve and die.

I also support investing in the people, by giving them access to colleges, medical care, and other opportunities to better themselves and be more productive. Naturally, this benefits all of us.

That being said, while I support giving the mythical "welfare queen" a minimum level of sustenance (i.e., gruel for breakfast and section eight housing), if they want to live in a nice house and drive a Mercedes, they'd better get off their asses and work for it.

I do not, however, support affirmative action. The last racial quotas were instituted as a national policy, white protestant men wound up running everything and personal merit was tossed out the window.

You favor robbery?

I favor redistribution of wealth, too. But FORCED redistribution of wealth is robbery. FORCED redistribution, because it's FORCED, as opposed to 'earned', or 'persuaded', results in corruption, inefficiency, waste, excesses, shortages, etc.

If you favor redistribution, then redistribute your OWN wealth, and persuade others to join you.

That's called 'charity'. That's what I favor.

Please stop advocating for robbery that prevents me from being charitable.

Would you rather we FORCE you

Would you rather we FORCE you to redistribute your money to the National Guard to suppress hunger riots? Would you rather we FORCIBLY redistribute your money to prison guards?

I don't understand why you're getting so uptight about redistribution of wealth. You don't have any wealth worth redistributing, and those of who do are doing so to help people like yourself.

Maybe you should stop reading that Ayn Rand trash and grow up.

Ron Paul believes in some redistribution too...

All taxation is redistribution and theft. Even the smaller amounts he advocates.

'The Anarchists are simply unterrified Jeffersonian Democrats. They believe that “the best government is that which governs least,” and that which governs least is no government at all.'
-Benjamin Tucker

In an ideal world, I suspect he would be OK with..

..using tariffs for national defense.
The states and local governments would levy fines for criminal and tort actions.
Everything else would be fee based, such as the civil court system and roads.

Until an ideal world pops up, I suspect everything else he supports legislatively is working toward that goal.

One of Dr. Paul's great strengths is an ability to recognize what actions put us toward or way from that goal. And a willingness to stand for it.

His Daddy taught him right.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty" TJ

Tariffs are still taxes...

...and extra disruptive economically speaking (as a general rule, the more specific the tax, the larger the deadweight loss).

'The Anarchists are simply unterrified Jeffersonian Democrats. They believe that “the best government is that which governs least,” and that which governs least is no government at all.'
-Benjamin Tucker

You are confused

A populist on the right usually attacks the tax system and offers fantastic schemes or a "fair" tax. Ron Paul understands that our tax is the result of Big government spending. Paul attacks the beast - spending. As spending is cut, we can stop printing paper money (inflation), borrow and tax.

I'm not confused...

Think about it. Tax is the result of government, not just Big government. It has nothing to do with spending. Once the money's stolen, it's gone. Whether they use it to pay for hookers or blow, or to justify more expensive recreation is irrelevant. It's the theft that matters.

When someone robs you, do you sit there and think to yourself: "Looks like this person has a spending problem." Of course not.

And who makes up the "we" you speak of? Are you printing money and using the guise of "authority" to steal from your neighbors? Why do you count yourself among the criminals? I don't.

'The Anarchists are simply unterrified Jeffersonian Democrats. They believe that “the best government is that which governs least,” and that which governs least is no government at all.'
-Benjamin Tucker

What Smaller Amounts Does He Advocate?

He said in one of the debates that he advocates a 0% federal tax rate.

The 10% figure from his CPAC speech was merely a "thought experiment," and he was sure to clarify on Stossel that he actually favors a 0% rate.

"Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."-Rothbard