So our system of government is designe not to be a society?
Our system of government was designed to allow individuals to be free, within a framework of laws and rules. It's system of government, not a system of social engineering. When the rules for that government were written, they contained neither a program for wealth redistribution nor the powers necessary to conduct such a program.
Our system of government is designed to support the goals of our society. ALL societies throughtout history have been primarily focussed on wealth redistribution.
That would come as a suprise to the Second Dynasty societies of Egypt, who were focussed on their "living gods," a larger surprise to the societies in Medieval France who were focussed on serving their feudal masters and their divine-right kings, and a surprise amounting to shock for serfs living in 1870s Ivanov Russia. Societies do many things, Degs. Wealth redistribution is the result in most of them, but the goal of few, the stated goal of even fewer, even when the society and its religious are in lockstep. In a country such as ours, where the government is largely hands off of individuals, it isn't at all uncommon for the government to do one thing (outlaw marijuana or alcohol) and society to do another (drink alcohol and smoke marijuana all it wants). Attempting to link them is a false construct.
Um no. The ideal government espoused by Marx is a democracy in which workers own the means of production. That's not wealth redistribution.You are making up a strawman arguement that has no basis in fact
And the way to achieve that goal is what? To take from the wealthy owners and give ownership to the workers -- if that isn't wealth redistribution, I'm not certain what else it would be called (and that's setting aside "from each according to his ability to each according to his need" -- the naivete of an idealist on display).
Incomplete. Our system of government enforced laws on slavery - which is wealth redistribution, on women and children as chattel which is wealth redistribution, etc. etc. Franklin underscored this as I have cited to you numerous times.
I'm not certain I agree here. "Wealth redistribution" for the purposes of our discussion has to be more than incidental. Was the primary goal of slavery wealth redistribution, or manual labor? Franklin famously said many things, some of which contradict each other. The statement on private property you use in your signature is directly in opposition to other statements he made -- like the Bible his is a large body of work that can be quoted to make almost any case.
ALL Societies exist primarily to redistribute wealth. HOW they do so is what the social compact is all about. a 2 person consesnsus society is going to be different than a divine right monarchy than a constitutional democracy than a polytheistic theocracy.
I'm sorry, but that is not the primary reason for most society's existence. Societies come together for many reasons, and the benefits to all that result from residing in a given society are usually incidental to that residence. Even if wealth redistribution were the key reason for society, that still leaves the issue that society, being as it is what happens among people, is separate from government. They are certainly linked, but they are not the same thing. You apparently see a design for wealth redistribution written into the United States' governmental system -- I see no such design, at least none written into the plan describing that design.