One of the deepest problems in the world is the loss of the concept of Consent.
Just because something is foolish or even immoral does not entail that it's justified to prevent it. There is a huge gap there, a huge unjustified leap. You just cannot go from "it would be better if everyone did X", or even "everyone should do X", to "we should make everyone do X". Consent means nothing unless it means that one must allow others the option to make foolish or even immoral choices. If you don't believe in doing that, you quite literally don't believe in consent.
Leftists often rant about consent, but the irony is even more bitter than it is with conservatives. Leftists support even more taxes and regulations, even less freedom. They barely have any concept of consent left!
They're always talking how we need to even out wealth, fix the inequality, it's not fair that some people have billions of dollars while others struggle. According to them, if one person has more than others, that's a problem, period. Their poor indoctrinated little minds can scarcely fathom the idea that what you acquire peacefully belongs to you, and you're entitled to possess it to the exclusion of everyone else.
Hell, even my early philosophies were influenced by this! I was a "Chaos Anarchist" before what I am now, where I basically imagined a society with a weak concept of property and everyone would fight and take from others to get the resources to accomplish what they thought was right. I had been trained to undervalue property rights - in other words, to undervalue consent.
Still, for me it was about judgement, not equality. I never went anywhere near how statists think about violating consent. For me it wasn't one person having more than another that was automatically wrong, it was a bad person having more than a good person. I still think that's a far more respectable evil (and not always even an evil) than liberal redistributionism.
Another shining example is Elizabeth Warren talking about how "for the rich, costs will go up". Politics is such transparent depravity. She doesn't need to explain why the rich owe this money. She doesn't need to point to any crimes they've committed. Just the idea that "poorer people should have more" is justification for forcing other people to give. To her, it doesn't matter who something "belongs" to; she just has the right to enforce anything that should to be the case, because, like all statists, she doesn't value Consent.
I once explained to a liberal man why drivers' licenses are tyranny because the government has no moral basis for using violence against people for no other crime than driving without their approval. His response: "Well, I don't know if we can just get rid of that whole system... I'd wanna see some certification before I let someone drive." He doesn't need to consider who's being affected or bother with consent. It's just automatically justified to impose something on other people because he feels safer that way, and any act enforcing it is automatically justified, no matter how cruel.