In politics, left-wingers, or leftists like to think of themselves as "progressives" who are first and foremost interested in a more egalitarian distribution of wealth. President Barack Obama has declared himself such a "progressive" and is dead set on instituting policies aimed at redistribution of wealth.

The problem with such a position is it is based on a premise which has never been examined and requires actions which are clearly immoral.

The premise which leftists cannot prove is that life is better for everyone if there is not a "wealth gap." It might seem that less wealthy people would be better off if they were given a portion of the wealth which rich people seem to enjoy, but such an idea cannot be proven. It is tenet of the Marxist religion accepted entirely on faith without any deep examination.

To the contrary, there is quite a bit of evidence that wealthy people are willing to make the investments, risky investments in new technology and processes, which ultimately raise every one's level of material (if not spiritual) well-being. Are you going to give a man a fish? Or are you going to teach him to fish for himself? Are you going to forcibly spread the existing wealth? Or are you going to get out of the way of the creation of new wealth so everyone becomes wealthier?

The immoral action which socialists inevitably find necessary is the initiation of force. If wealthy people cannot be persuaded to voluntarily give huge portions of their wealth to the less wealthy (precisely because they see better investments which will benefit everyone), then they must be forced. Voluntary socialism (as in experimental communities) falls apart because the lazy refuse to do their part. Involuntary socialism (the brand of Barack Obama and the Democratic Party) is morally equivalent to theft and slavery.

You really owe it to yourself to understand the contradiction in the Marxist belief system. To gain such an understanding thoroughly, as never before, read Ayn Rand's epic and masterful novel, Atlas Shrugged: