Final answer:
Sandel's argument that libertarian logic supports radical redistribution of wealth is false. Libertarianism generally opposes redistribution, favoring minimal state intervention and entitlement to property, contrary to socialist views that justify wealth redistribution on the grounds of societal contribution to individual success.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement that Sandel argues that the libertarian logic could be extended to support a radical redistribution of wealth is false. Libertarian philosophy, epitomized by figures such as Robert Nozick, typically emphasizes minimal state intervention in personal liberties and property rights. It argues against the redistribution of wealth on the basis of entitlement theory, which states that individuals are entitled to the holdings they have acquired, so long as they have acquired them through just means. Sandel, on the other hand, critiques libertarianism from a different perspective, one that considers the role of society in individual success and emphasizes the need for some level of redistribution to ensure a fairer society.
Contrastingly, socialist perspectives, which are often opposed to libertarian views, assert that societal contribution to individual success justifies higher rates of taxation and redistribution. They argue that material success is rarely an isolated achievement and often relies on various forms of societal support. High rates of taxation are thus seen as a means to redistribute wealth from those who are most able to afford it to those in need. This is grounded in the belief that the wealth of the most affluent is, in part, a result of societal structures and inheritance, necessitating a more progressive redistribution policy.
Both the libertarian viewpoint, predicated on the principles of justice and entitlement, and the socialist position, based on collective support and distributive justice, contribute to the broader debate on whether and how much wealth should be redistributed. This debate rages on, underscored by philosophical, economic, and political arguments concerning the appropriate ways to balance personal freedom, property rights, and the common good.