Quote:
A much better question to ask is whether taxation and wealth redistribution is a net benefit or net loss for society, relative to what that money might have otherwise accomplished (charity, spending, or whatever else).
Agreed, though your phrasing implies that we should follow courses of actions that result in "a net gain" for society, which I don't think is a given. There is some degree of individual freedom that should not be infringed upon in an effort to provide society with the biggest net gain. Where to draw that line is the rub, though.

Quote:
I think it's fair to say that market forces, alone, are insufficient to arrive at a modern, civil society.
There are many who disagree with this. I think mostly because relying on market forces alone sounds neat and simple, regardless of how much truth (or little truth, I should say) the notion contains. People like to apply simple solutions to complex problems- see Ayn Rand for a great example.

Quote:
Along the same lines, it might be perfectly rational for society to create some kind of "safety net" (a.k.a., "welfare") to provide for a minimal existence, no matter what.
Here I think you have a good example where it’s a lot more complex than boiling it down to “we need a safety net”. Welfare has all kinds of effects, some due to its existence and others do to the way we’ve implemented it. Not all of these effects are good, though many of them are. But once again, I think questions like this have to be addressed with careful consideration to individual freedoms AND the “net gain” for society.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.