Is it unambiguously good to forcibly take from someone to give to someone else merely because the first party has more than the second? That's an essential element of any wealth redistribution scheme that seeks to reduce inequality.

If you imagine a scale from [0, 1] where 0 is no redistributive mechanisms at all and 1 is perfect, daily rebalancing to exact equality of outcome, it's fairly obvious to me that neither extreme of 0 nor 1 is "the very idea of goodness itself".