Most people would call me rich. Everyone (except the wife and kids, of course) would call me busy.
Why is it that it’s OK to propose redistributing income but not redistributing leisure?
For I, am income-rich but leisure-poor.
Here’s Don Boudreaux discussing Smith (who is like me), and Jones who is income-poor but leisure-rich:
… Do you believe leisure has value to those who possess it? If so, are you disturbed by the inequality of leisure that separates leisure-rich Jones from leisure-poor Smith? Do you advocate policies to “redistribute” leisure from Jones to Smith — say, by forcing Jones to wash Smith’s dinner dishes or to chauffeur Smith to and from work? If not, why not?
After all, redistribution of leisure is what overworked parents ask of their TV-watching kids. Why is that OK, but doing it across society is not?
It’s cynical, but my reasoning always seems to come back to the fungibility of cash; in short, it’s simply easier to take people’s money than other things they have of value.