Why wealth redistribution for fairness is impossible

I spent almost a decade on the blog to show with in-game examples why redistribution of wealth to increase "fairness" is wrong: it rewards morons and slackers who just waste the resources that others earned hard. But I never questioned that it would be - while disadvantageous - possible. Probably, because I assumed that systems works as they should and you can set up any parameters and they would run with them, for better or worse. My recent experiences with rigged games made me able to see the real issue: redistribution for fairness is impossible to implement. But ability is not equal to performance. To actually see what's going on, I needed a commenter with a simple enough analogy for everything to fall into place:

Adam is born into a family of millionaires. Bob is born to a drug-addicted single mother and is quickly moved into foster care. Bob grows up in a succession of broken homes. He's subjected to emotional abuse, neglect, irregular nutrition, and inadequate health care. He has a brilliant mind, but he's unable to properly cultivate or exploit his talents (no books at home, no personal computer, no mentorship, lousy role models, etc). Adam grows up with every possible advantage. He's not especially bright, but he has private tutors. His parents fill his life with interesting opportunities - programmable robotic toys, musical instruments, sports equipment, etc. His parents carefully vet his friends, ensuring that he builds connections with the sons of millionaires while avoiding bad influences.

Both boys sit down to write the SAT. Bob hasn't eaten today, so he finds it hard to focus and he scores only 1500. Adam has undergone 10 months of exhaustive test preparation; he manages a 1520. Naive meritocracy says that Adam is a better worker. So the boss gives Adam a corner office, and sends Bob down to work in the mailroom. That's silly. It's obvious that Bob would have done much better if he had been given a better upbringing. It's obvious that Bob could do much better than Adam if you put both of them into the same job.

The implication is clearly that we should help BoB reach his potential. My answer was the dime-a-dozen conservative "Bob must just work hard with the cards dealt to him and make a decent middle-class life". But after that - literally waking up in the middle of the night - I have this answer: Who else could do the redistribution than Adam's parents?! I mean the policies are made by politicians who belong to the elite class - represented by Adam in the example. Congressmen, governors, mayors are all capable to provide the life of Adam to their children. And we can say without doubt that they won't give up their wealth to help Bob. How? Because if they would, they had! Nothing stops rich people from donating to charity. Some do, but most don't as evidenced by the expensive cars, yachts and jewelry not far from "Bob" struggling. What madman would assume that Adam's parents who don't donate to Bob will draft a law that taxes them for Bob?!

Enters Cindy and her parents. She isn't growing up in luxury like Adam, nor she suffers like Bob. She lives a decent middle class life: public school in a decent part of a town, a few extra-school activities, access to computer and some books, healthy food, decent but not "trendy" clothing and items, modest vacations. In absence of redistribution at least. But when crying eye leftists start demanding for Bob, Adam's parents have to do something. They won't give up a single cent from their wealth (otherwise they had done it already), but tax Cindy's parents taking away her opportunities in the name of "equality". Some of the taxed money will indeed reach Bob's family (not likely Bob himself, since his parents are irresponsible and addicts), but most money will be just wasted on bureaucracy or flat out stolen to feed the endless greed of Adam's parents.

So here is the final nail in the coffin for socialism:

• if the people with money and power had compassion, we wouldn't need redistribution because they would donate for the poor freely;
• if the people with money and power have no compassion, they will steal the taxed money aimed at the poor.

This also explains why the power-hungry oligarchs are behind leftist causes: because leftism supports high taxation "for equality" which they can all steal. A right-wing small government system leaves them with less money to steal.

Bob is screwed either way. But by voting right-wing, we can at least save Cindy!