There are so many things wrong with this essay -- it combines a Marxist-inspired call for redistribution of wealth in the name of egalitarianism (are there specific individuals who will control how much we are allowed to own?), fear of change in what people do for a living (are people too exploited and too stupid to adapt?), and fear of technological progress in private hands (does the State, or some other supra-collective, have a magic wand and omniscient mantle of benevolence?).
The worst parts are the claim that (forced) redistribution is inevitable and that regulation will somehow prevent "bad privately-done things" from happening -- as if regulation is a perfect solution to any problem one confesses to fear or claims to dislike.
In principle, government intervention hinders technological progress, derails economic progress, and ultimately destroys the economy. Maybe people who have made a lot of money with one wave of progress should leave future generations alone and let them free to do the same -- instead of strangulating them by intervention and regulation that the now-wealthy did not have to suffer.
We already have massive (forced) redistribution of wealth in the form of corporate welfare. Tariffs, patents, copyrights, land grants, competition-prohibiting regulation, direct subsidies, indirect subsidization of capital inputs via compulsory state education, roads, communication infrastructure, etc, etc, etc.
I fully agree with you that government intervention hinders technological progress, derails economic progress, and ultimately destroys the economy. The concentration of wealth through political rather than economic means is a huge problem.
But, saying you want to cut welfare to the poor is what I would call vulgar libertarianism, and ineffective anti-state propaganda. The poor and middle classes are already getting royally screwed. Ameliorating the disastrous effects that corporate privilege has on the poor isn't where we should be directing our righteous indignation, in my opinion.
I think it'd be more constructive to focus on cutting welfare from the top down, and cutting taxes from the bottom up.
I also support the abolition of corporate welfare as a first step. After that, there will be time to talk about other forms of welfare. But that's not what Sam's Marxist-inspired essay is advocating, on the contrary.
The worst parts are the claim that (forced) redistribution is inevitable and that regulation will somehow prevent "bad privately-done things" from happening -- as if regulation is a perfect solution to any problem one confesses to fear or claims to dislike.
In principle, government intervention hinders technological progress, derails economic progress, and ultimately destroys the economy. Maybe people who have made a lot of money with one wave of progress should leave future generations alone and let them free to do the same -- instead of strangulating them by intervention and regulation that the now-wealthy did not have to suffer.