There are two ways to allocate resources - merit and politics.

Merit is markets. Politics is power.

Three-fifths to two-thirds of the federal budget consists of taking property from one American and giving it to another. Were a private person to do the same thing, we'd call it theft. When government does it, we euphemistically call it income redistribution, but that's exactly what thieves do -- redistribute income. Income redistribution not only betrays the founders' vision, it's a sin in the eyes of God.

Government doesn’t create resources. Government redistributes resources. For everyone the government bails out, there is someone they put into trouble dollar for dollar. You can’t bail someone out of trouble without putting someone else into trouble.

If the government and other nonprofit institutions are to compensate for the underallocation of resources to invention by private enterprise, two problems arise: how shall the amount of resources devoted to invention be determined, and how shall efficiency in their use be encouraged? These problems arise whenever the government finds it necessary to engage in economic activities because indivisibilities prevent the private economy from performing adequately (highways, bridges, reclamation projects, for example), but the determination of the relative magnitudes is even more difficult here.

When we, as individuals, take from our neighbors what they won’t voluntarily give—at gunpoint, if necessary—we call it theft. When majorities take from minorities what they won’t voluntarily give—at gunpoint, if necessary—we call it taxation.

I don’t think we have to do it by government spending. My view is I’ve never heard of a poor person spending himself into prosperity. The government doesn’t create resources. The government redistributes them, and it redistributes them from workers and producers to people they get the resources based on some characteristic of the work effort. So what you really need to do is I think you need to incentivize producers, and what you need to go along, and my way of going would be Simpson-Bowles. Something to lower the tax rates, broaden the base, get rid of the loopholes. I mean really get a production base that officially starts, and that’s the way you really get out of this depression. The way we did in the Eighties to be honest with you.

The research described in this book is based on a field investigation of resource allocation in a very large firm. It was motivated by my conviction, stated above, that for purposes of management and research, adequate models of the allocation process are not available. I believe that this lack stems from the fact that prescriptive theories of economic choice have not yet been set in the context of the large organization's political process. The research described below is an attempt to take a step in that direction by developing a descriptive conceptual scheme of the resource allocation process. Because "resource allocation" is an all-encompassing phrase, it is not particularly operational as a subject for research.

The government is an agency of legalized force. It has exhibited skill and efficiency in only one area—that of collecting whatever it wants from the populace. There are three things government traditionally takes away from the people over whom it exercises coercion. It takes their money and we call it ‘taxation.’ It takes their property and we call it ‘eminent domain.’ Or, it takes them as people. We call this a ‘draft.’

The Congress has [already] declared that Muslims have the first right to the country’s resources,” Mr. Modi said. Can you tolerate the government snatching your hard-earned money and property?” he asked. “That means the property will be distributed among those who have a large number of children… and among the intruders. Is it acceptable to you?” he asked. “Gold jewellery of my mothers and sisters is not just for show. It is a matter of their self-respect. Congress has stooped to such a level. How can you tolerate your hard-earned money going in the hands of intruders?

Folks, try to think. Of what you produce with your sweat all year long, half is taken by a thief called the landlord; with the half that’s left, you buy sake, soy sauce, salt and manure. But on the sake, on that manure, on everything, nothing excluded, there are taxes — money that is taken by that big thief called the government. on top of that, other thieves called merchants make their own profit. That’s why folks like you , who don’t own your land, will never be able to avoid poverty throughout your life, no matter how hard and earnestly you work.

I think everybody has the same concerns about helping people when they're having trouble. The question is whether it should be done through coercion, or voluntary means, or local government. And I opt out from the federal government doing it, because that involves central economic planning. So even if we accept the gentleman's moral premise, in a practical way it's a total failure. We'd have been better off taking the amount of money and giving every single family $20,000, and they'd all been better off, than the way we did it. We bought all these trailer homes and they sat out in the open, so the whole thing is insane, it's a total waste. And besides, the reason I don't like these federal government programs, it encourages people like me to build on the beach. I have a house on the beach in the gulf of Mexico. But why don't I assume my own responsibility, why doesn't the market tell me what the insurance rates should be? Because it would be very very high. But, because we want it subsidized, we ask the people of Arizona to subsidize my insurance so I can take greater danger, my house gets blown down, and then the people of Arizona rebuild it?! My statement back during the time of Katrina, which was a rather risky political statement: why do the people of Arizona have to pay for me to take my risk... less people will be exposed to danger if you don't subsidize risky behavior... I think it's a very serious mistake to think that central economic planning and forcibly transferring wealth from people who don't take risks to people who take risks is a proper way to go.

It's universally wrong to steal from your neighbor, but once you get beyond the-one-to-one level and pit the individual against the multinational conglomerate, the federal bureaucracy, the modern plantation of agro-buinsess, or the utility company, it becomes strictly a value judgement to decide exactly who is stealing from whom. One person's crime is another person's profit. Capitalism is license to steal; the government simply regulates who steals an how much. I always wanted to put together an outlaw handbook that would help raise consciousness on these points while doing something about evening the score. There was also the challenge of testing the limits of free speech.

Once the door was open, once it was settled that the government should help some people at the expense of others, there was no stopping it. If the coercion of government can endow one person with property he hasn't earned, then everyone will want to use government to get something he wants. So it's not surprising that, over the past two centuries, more and more people have concluded that they deserve government's help.

A significant amount of land has already been allocated to the government for schools, hospitals, and even barracks, so it should prioritize utilizing that. The remaining land, should be reserved for the people to sustain their livelihoods.