Reddit reviews The Darwin Economy: Liberty, Competition, and the Common Good

You might find Hayek or Milton Friedman congenial. They were typically more focused on consequences as well, yet they certainly saw a need for some government. Or almost any non-ancap economist, really; you could start with Robert Frank's latest book.

In philosophy, you could go the minarchist route with Robert Nozick.

> Who then? Whoever it is they would become a defacto state body.

In a better world, maybe some charity could assume the responsibility of making sure children are born on level playing fields. In the real world, though, non-compulsory donations won't provide nearly enough money to do the job; ergo, the wealth needs to be redistributed through taxation.

> Why should the rest of us?

It's called "giving back." It's recognizing that some individuals were born with really poor learning environments and then having the compassion to help them out. On a personal note, under the tax system I proposed, I would be a net payer, not receiver, of the redistributed wealth.

> Do you have a link to something that justifies this position?

Yes, any intro macro text will do. If you want to understand more about the importance of relative positioning in economics, then I would suggest Robert Frank's The Darwin Economy.

As a current example, consider the U.S. healthcare system. One of the reasons why health-care costs in the U.S. are so high is because doctors' wages are so high; because the American Medical Association limits the supply of doctors in the U.S. Most other developed nations have a larger supply of doctors (more competition), meaning lower wages for doctors and lower health-care costs for citizens. In each of the other countries where there is a larger supply of doctors, society as a whole has benefited from cheaper health care.

If you're actually interested, The Darwin Economy, by Robert Frank.