Funny how much of what I post is a three-line addendum to a long post by Steven den Beste. Anyway, here Steven discusses utopian redistributionism both in the context of capitalism v. communism, and the First World v. the Third World.

In this article, he asks: "Is it better for some people to be poor and some to be rich? Or for everyone to be poor?". Clearly a hardcore Transnational Progressive would claim that it's best for everyone to be rich -- as long as they were sustainably rich. Solving that problem is left as an exercise for the reader, or more commonly, to the immense bureaucracies TP'ers feel are needed to ensure equity.

Speaking as a victim of Canadian redistributionism (Colby Cosh provides the Canadian Content, I just link to it), I have to come out in support of the system where there exists the freedom to be rich. Every political or economic system guarantees the right to be poor, of course. Communism and Europoean socialism try to guarantee freedom from poverty -- the "right" to a job, housing, etc. -- but all they seem to deliver in practice is freedom from wealth.