Appenzell
Switzerland |
A Daily Compendium
of Free-Market Thinking
|
|
|
|
Guest Editorial
The Myth of Surplus Wealth
Thursday, December 24, 2009 – by
Dr. Tibor Machan
Dr. Tibor Machan
Over the last couple of decades a colleague from a famous university has challenged me about my view that everyone has the unalienable right to private property. Now this position, derived from such sources as John Locke, the American Founders, Ayn Rand, and many others in the classical liberal, libertarian political tradition, amounts to the idea that in a just human community every adult human being is free to pursue prosperity in the form he or she desires--material wealth, intellectual resources, land, items produced by humans or nature, and so forth. The right to private property is a right of action, an extension of the more general right to liberty: everyone must be left free to pursue wealth, to take those peaceful actions that could result in prosperity (although there is no guarantee that they will). And this right to freedom of action is itself based on the yet broader right to one's life. Life is an ongoing process of action which, for human beings, needs to be initiated by the living agent. We have to do stuff to live, in short. And having the right to live entails being free to do so.
Now this critic of my thinking has argued against this idea at least in cases when some people are in dire straits, in serious need of resources through no fault of their own. And that certainly can happen, although it is far more likely to when people are oppressed, barred from taking the action needed to prosper, than when they are not imposed upon by others, especially by armed governments. What he has been maintaining is that if those in dire straits are forbidden to take from those who have what he dubs surplus wealth, then they are effectively not in possession of their own right to liberty. As it is sometimes put, those without resources are effectively on bondage. They lack the freedom to take the actions that could advance their lives. And this means that although everyone has the unalienable right to life, liberty, property and so forth, those in dire straits actually do not.
In particular my critic has stressed that those in dire straits, in serious need through no fault of their own, may not be stopped from taking some of the surplus wealth of the wealthy. And this, indeed, is roughly how people justify not just ordinary but progressive taxation--the wealthy must give up some of their wealth to those in dire straits because only that way will the latter be able to enjoy their own basic rights.
I have replied to the criticism in a variety of ways. One is by pointing out that the absence of resources is not the same as the violation of rights. I have no resources to buy myself a yacht but I do have a right to buy myself a yacht and no one would be authorized to stop me from doing so if and when I become wealthy enough to do so. In other words, I have the right to liberty to seek a yacht for myself by peaceful means, although, again, I may not succeed.
Indeed, this is pretty plain since one may be struck down by all sorts of natural impediments--disease, calamity, earthquakes, hurricanes, and so forth--for which no one is responsible and so no one may be penalized or fined for having caused them. Those who encounter such natural impediments are, well, unfortunate, that is for sure. But this does not authorize them to impose any burdens on those who have not deserved it even if they are, indeed, in a position to alleviate the hardship. They may and probably should request help, support, assistance, and so forth. They may even organize campaigns to urge that their bad luck be addressed by their fellows. But they have no rightful authority to take anything from them, not even so called surplus resources--an idea that is, in any case, vague and subject to systematic abuse. (Is my second kidney an article of surplus wealth? My second eye? My back-up golf set? My collected vintage cars?)
It isn't true that surplus wealth makes no sense at all but only the most intimate knowledge of someone could enable us to tell if that person is in possession of wealth that he or she can easily do without. Maybe the individual is saving for a rainy day, for a time when he or she will be giving this wealth away to relatives or favorite causes. Maybe such an individual is powerfully enriched, psychologically, by holding on to wealth beyond what others may consider reasonable.
Having the right to private property means, in large measure, that the individual with that right is the one who is free to decide to what purposes his or her property will be devoted. It is a matter of who is to choose. Without this basic, unalienable right one's freedom of directing one's right is undermined not by natural causes, which can be impeded anyone, but by others who are at liberty to refrain from doing so and, given this right, ought to so refrain.
Post Feedback
We look forward to reading your feedback. All comments are automatically posted. However, please note that any posts containing harassment, vulgarity, personal attacks or those which are deemed to be of a violent nature are not welcomed and will either not appear or be removed.
View Feedback
Posted by Ken Griffith on 12/24/2009 11:53:10 AM
The problem with debating your friend about property rights from an empirical position is that ultimately survival of the fittest is the highest empirical principal: Those who are most capable of exerting force will do whatever they want.
The only logical way to argue for individual "rights" at all is from a creationist perspective - that we were created by God, and are His property. (He being the highest power, enforces His own law, in the fullness of time.) Therefore our rights come from God's law, not from natural law. The law of nature is, after all, red in tooth and claw.
Atheistic libertarianism does not have a leg to stand upon in claiming "rights" for anyone.
If there is no God, then whatever I choose do is right.
If the God of the Bible is real, then he has used his position as the strongest power to decree rights and responsibilities to humanity. Property rights come from the law given to Moses - the 10 commandments.
Try as you might, the only property right to be found in nature is that you own what you are able to protect.
Due to the fact that a gang of people is more effective at exerting force than an individual, statism becomes the logical conclusion for those who look to nature as the source of rights and law.
Now if you are willing to assume the Bible as your starting point, God's law does protect property rights, while also imposing a moral duty on every man to look after the widow and the orphan. However, this is a voluntary duty, not a prerogative of the state to enforce.
Reply from the Daily Bell:
Thanks for the thoughtful comments.
Posted by David Bonnar on 12/24/2009 12:11:02 PM
Wasn't Karl Marx against private land ownership in his manifesto?
The basis of all Communism is public ownership of land, not unlike the American Indians society. It so happens that our society is based on private land ownership and capitalism. Some professors in cushy tenure jobs love to hate capitalism. Our courts recently have done harm by taking private land and giving it to other private persons, which is fundamentally against our constitution.
Reply from the Daily Bell:
Strange how the courts condoned it ...
Posted by Klaus Engelmann on 12/24/2009 12:21:27 PM
I agree most wholeheartedly. It is the (entitlement )thinking of your university colleague and others of his ilk that have in some measure helped bankrupt America. We saw it in welfare, housing and next it wiil be healthcare. Keep up the good work.
Reply from the Daily Bell:
Thanks for the feedback.
Posted by Don Scott on 12/24/2009 12:54:18 PM
The right to own and dispose of one's own private property is essential if a person is to survive. It is just that simple. A philosophy that emphasizes those rules and entities that are pro-man is the only rational way to channel human behavior. Freedom of the individual to make his or her own decisions about everything ought to be delimited only by the rule that one cannot impose one's will on others " the simple idea that "the rights of others must be respected'. My rights do not extend beyond the end or your nose, and yours do not extend beyond the end of mine. A rational philosophy must be based on honest interaction with others " giving and receiving value for value, not guilt about one's own successes. Anything else leads humanity down to a Kafkaesque dystopian nightmare.
So many statist/collectivist proponents confine their arguments to the equivalent of 'but what do you do about the poor guy lying in the gutter? Those types of questions are valid, but they cannot be allowed to become our primary focus to the exclusion of everything else. A rational philosophy cannot evolve by only considering "life-boat' type situations. A rational philosophy concentrates on how to best release humanity from enslavement to or by others, be they crooks, despots, bums, or just anyone living below their idea of what the poverty level ought to be. Too many people make bad life decisions and then expect others to pay for them.
Our primary issue should be " how can we create a society where we are concerned with how to set all men and women free to better themselves " not one focused on instilling guilt. And we should run screaming from anyone who wants to dictate to others his ideas of what constitutes "excess wealth'.
Reply from the Daily Bell:
Good points, thanks.
Posted by Al on 12/24/2009 1:54:14 PM
Give us more articles by Tibor Machan he seems to have his head screwed on straight.
Reply from the Daily Bell:
They're coming, thanks.
Posted by Bonnie Donaldson on 12/24/2009 2:53:23 PM
Thoughtful feedback and responses. Mr. Machan is a bit too ivory-tower for my taste, but he is fun to read.
As Ken pointed out, nature is tooth and claw. Of course, nature is also cooperation, altruism, deception, and infinite complexities. I'm not sure how God's law plays out in this discussion, much less in real life.
Seems to me that the Christian God enjoined His followers to give no thought to the morrow for God provides for even the tiniest sparrow. And if someone asks for your coat, you should give him your cloak also.
It's one thing to provide for the "widows and orphans" but what about the millions of able-bodied who would like to work but simply cannot find a job in this new "service/consumer" economy?
In real life, the winner is whoever has the biggest and baddest weapons and the will to use them. If the IRS were not backed up by the threat of violence, I doubt any of us would be filing tax forms this year.
For me, the jury is still out on the idea that huge tax-advantaged, global mega-corporations should be able to increasingly impoverish a nation and then keep most of the gain.
I'm still working on that and have no answers, merely tons of questions. Another of the questions has to do with how ideals that were formulated during our agrarian past relate to the unemployed and landless citizens of the USA today.
Reply from the Daily Bell:
You're still a Brownian but we may convert you ...
Posted by Glenn W. Murphy on 12/24/2009 3:24:14 PM
I am again impressed with Tibor Machan.
I would eleborate further, thusly.
As Humanity struggles out of the vice-grip of the latest Tyranny seeking fuedal control of of the planet, like a coyote, with a chicken in it's teeth, sliding under the farmer's barbed wire fence as the inevitable shotgun blast sails wide of the mark, that if coyotes could handle shotguns, a redefinition of "ownership" would be quickly prosecuted, and settled by gunfire in the night, to the advantage of the side that sees naturally in the dark.
As coyotes, due to their abilities suiting them perfectly for such incursions, would soon through concerted efforts remind the Farmer that he occupies their native territory, and should not, therefore, fence them in or out, the Farmer would soon be negotiating equitable "rights" with the coyotes to what he presumed to own, or, would be coyote food as well in short order.
The governments of the world, through their collectivist presumptions and efforts have decalred all the planet their "farm", and all who oppose their claim to be "terrorist coyotes" with bounties on their heads.
Now it is the coyotes' turn to respond.
By denying all "terrorist coyotes" the very right to further exist, the gauntlet is thrown by the "Farm Co-op" secure in their confidence of their high technology "shotguns".
My money is on the coyotes. Farms come and go, coyotes persist, whatever, as they are a natural part of life on Earth, which is the biggest farm of all, with room for all to live in "harmony", if they will. Those who seek not harmony, but ultimate dominion, litter archeaological ruins across the planet, dotted with coyote crap, their failures legion.
Nature's Ultimate Farm, therfore will trump the farming ambitions of tyrants every time.
Reply from the Daily Bell:
Thank you for the interesting metaphorical response. It is logical though disturbing.
Posted by Dr. Charles W. Davis on 12/24/2009 3:55:04 PM
Tibor Machan in effect explains here the famous libertarian phrase declaring that everyone is created with "a right to life, liberty and property" most succinctly. Dr. Machan thus coherently opposes in principle the leftists' "right of the poor" (or those said to be acting on behalf of the poor) to steal from those deemed to be rich. Socialist politicians justify all sorts of taxes this way. A British preacher just in this way endorsed shoplifting! Any such socialist rationale and action must be incoherent.
As a 'minarchist,' Dr. Machan needs to tread some sort of political ground, however. Dr. Machan no doubt favors some police action for shoplifting, after all. The question is, how much? A matter of form, degree and implementation. Taxation, furthermore, is not necessarily an unjustifiable form of government taking.
That's why a fee-for-service or return-on-investment approach makes sense pragmatically, as a joining of principle and action. Markets also do exist without at least implicit regulations like moral standards (perhaps against theft or a pig-in-a-poke, and for good materials or workmanship), plus innumerable social provisions, and what we discover are natural resources.
The more radical libertarian position of anarchism, in contrast, would be incoherent also. The avowed thief is, oddly, a symbol of such a radical, because (despite Thomas Hobbes) no one can exist or have liberty or property apart from community. Man is a social animal, and we take from and give back to our society. John Locke pretends that we could live naturally free, but he devotes his time to working out the political evolution of this social dynamic. The questions are, how, why, and to what ends?
What of the extreme position sometimes called the state of nature? Nature is not a nice place, as the founding fathers of the U.S. knew. In practice. person in an extreme position of need through no fault of his own may in that moment of need borrow what is not his own--as long as he agrees to take the appropriate consequences as well. Theft as an extensive pattern of activity makes no independent sense, since theft derives from property.
Theft also will not make one happy -- unlike the pursuit of private property through the exercise of private skills, natural resources, and social gifts. Dr. Machan correctly points to the liberating quality of this pursuit of private property. Adam Smith would agree--and add the advantage of such entrepreneurship to enrich the community in which a market for such workmanship prospers.
We turn to political associations (including the family and de Tocqueville's voluntary associations) to limit the likelihood and extremity of such needs. Thus, there are constitutive principles of the common defence and the general welfare are supposed to drive the governance of these United States.
Minarchism is a problem, but a good problem. Socialism and anarchism are more problematic and less good. The famously altered declaration is of a "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" sustains the spirit of the classically liberal United States. That new phrase also worked in 1776 especially against the political danger of slaveowners counting their many slaves as their property AND as political capital, which would have contradicted the principle. How we form our political associations, and how we may need to make pragmatic compromises, is an on-going problem for every citizen in every political association.
Reply from the Daily Bell:
This is a wonderful and eloquent summary of a certain kind of real philosophical thought through the ages! Really nice and we are most pleased - and gratified - to publish it.
Posted by Don Elefante on 12/24/2009 4:08:02 PM
Seems to me it must be hard to live under the impression that Natural Law (not natural law) is somehow remiss in its assignment of fortune and misfortune--the hands we are dealt at birth.
From that opinion springs the emotion and politics of envy along with their preferred social solution: a powerful, elite corps of 'untouchables in charge of forging illusory new rights for us along with forced 'wealth transfer to support those rights. What blight upon voluntary altruism (the only kind) and the inspired use of the creative imagination to transcend hardship! Most of all, what illusion!
Yes, all good societies must find ways to chip in for the inevitable lean years, but the approaches for doing same say a whole lot about the ethical and spiritual maturity of the elite ruling class and how class members play *their* hands. In the U.S.A. (as well as other countries), there's a whole lot of high-stakes bluffing going on, with a self-serving Congress and its intimate friends making sure they are first to the payment window at the end of the day. Well, Natural Law will take care of that, too. Turns out the chips are worth about the same as the greenbacks they exchange for. Maybe a little more.
So what's the answer? For me it's buckle up for a bumpy ride and use the creative imagination, ethically, spiritually, to get through the ordeal. There comes a time when setting an example through action becomes much more powerful than debate.
I believe we are there now. I would like to see more contributors talk about their ethical strategies for keeping afloat and for giving (or at least offering) others sustenance beyond handouts. Yes, there's plenty to be "fixed" out there, but there's also a point where personal philosophy must openly be put into practice if it's to be tested and assigned any value at all. That takes guts, commitment, and transparency. It's where the rubber meets the road.
Reply from the Daily Bell:
Thank you for your eloquent statement about values and ethical strategies. Much food for thought.
Posted by Henry Pierson on 12/25/2009 9:49:07 AM
The feedback posted by Mr. Griffith seems rather illogical. If we are not to argue from an empirical position then any argument seems rather arbitrary.
Of course this becomes very clear when Griffith goes on to say it is logical to argue from a "creationist perspective" Since creationism is hardly verifiable or provable by observation or experiment it really deserves no epistemological assessment.
Contrary to Griffith's concept of reality that "Atheistic libertarianism does not have a leg to stand upon in claiming "rights" for anyone." it is clear that those of us whose minds are not clouded by supernatural beliefs may be better suited to determine what rights are.
Griffith further states: "If the God of the Bible is real, then he has used his position as the strongest power to decree rights and responsibilities to humanity. Property rights come from the law given to Moses - the 10 commandments." This may well be but Moses was a man, not a god. Only the mystics believe the laws were given to Moses by a god.
If and when your god appears to me to tell me what my rights are Mr. Griffith and if and when he steps up and protects those rights then and only then will your argument be valid.
Reply from the Daily Bell:
Good points, Henry.
Posted by Linda Brady Traynham on 12/25/2009 10:46:47 AM
Splendid, thank you, Dr. Machan. That is the whole case in a nutshell: NO ONE has the right to take what is mine for the benefit of another.
NO ONE else is entitled to the product of my mind, my hands, or ways I put accumulated excess of my intelligence, effort, and assets to work. It is sad that some people, at some times, undergo hardship, but far more frequently than not their problems were caused directly by failure to behave rationally, apply themselves, and sacrifice to achieve their goals.
Worse, most of them HAVE no goal other than to live off the bounty of others. I did not cause their problems and it is not my responsibility to alleviate them.
I MAY do so, of course, if such actions suit my notions of pleasure or morality, but it is not the purpose of the state to compell me to support othrs. A contract is void if one side does not benefit, and modern governments provide no benefit to those who produce, only to those who take.
Nothing government does cannot be accomplished better and more efficiently by private enterprise, and at least we have the option of not dealing with any corporation which displeases us.
My solution is to become as self-sufficient as possible and to contribute NOTHING avoidable to our oppressors--and to teach others the morality and benefits of being responsible for our own behavior and making our own choices.
I WILL live a happy 1909 (sic) life before I will support evil by buying nonessentials which enrich those who destroy value. They need my tax dollars; I do not need cable TV, cell 'phones, trips to the Agean (been there), or Japanese cars.
I am far better off with my collection of vintage luxury cars which get better gas mileage and cost less to insure and license. Those of us who pay for their evil have the luxury of saying "No."
By January I expect tax receipts to be down 20%, and it may be amusing to watch the Statists scramble to keep their minions paid. I have my land, my goats, cattle, chickens, hogs, and greenhouses. In time I will produce my own electricity.
We have books, music, our minds, and the joy of the land. Pensions provide ranch hands and what little we do not produce, and we make enough to cover our few expenses, power, and taxes.
It is harder than they think to keep a good robber baron down, and our task is to encourage the rise of the yeoman farmer and landed gentry. Passive resistance may not be as picturesque as armed rebellion, but it is easier and less dangerous.
The government may restrict, regulate, and rob, but it CAN NOT compel me to support it. I urge all of you to quit with me until a day comes when others consider us cash cows. I won't play. I do not want or need what they are selling and taking.
I urge all readers to build your own oases of joy, serenity, sustainable supplies of food, and the ability to take care of yourselves and to live happy, moral lives. Reject goals of "ever-improving" lives for those who do not work.
Let 'em eat cake or let them go hungry. There is no gain in expanding my operations; they support us and three hands who live leisured, luxurious lives, too. My men are proud to work for me, secure, and ample to see that I do NOTHING I do not want to do except go to the dentist and pay property taxes.
Are there riches greater than that? I do not think so. When enough of us reject evil and refuse to cooperate, the system will die. Those who are left will EARN what they have, take what wages and conditions they or offer, or starve, as they deserve. I owe no man anything, and that is precisely what I intend to give. Happiness is having what we WANT, and no sacrifice of the ephemeral, to me, is the price of that. Epictetus is always right. I have several good uses for 5 obols and I can grow my own lettuce, thank you.
Lease some land, get dairy goats and chickens at a minimum, plant your own crops, and live in quiet luxury. Why spend 11 hours a day on an office and travel/ preparation when you can spend far less doing very light chores? With luck you can hire someone else to do the work because 25 chickens, two dairy goats, two beef cows, a milk cow, 2 steers for next year's beef, will feed eight people who have little more than flour, sugar, and rice quite lavishly.
Let's tell the Statists to go pound sand and reestablish renewable resources that allow us the luxury of the feudal life. I receive no benefit from the welfare plantation or porkbarrel politics. I will not support them. Come, join me.
Linda Brady Traynham
Reply from the Daily Bell:
We are obviously blessed to interact with individuals of uncommon stature and determination.
Posted by Bowman W. Davis on 12/25/2009 1:35:11 PM
Mr. Machan's colleague and others holding his views do not believe in individual freedom nor free market enterprise, both of which are the basic principles of true liberty.
True liberty means that one has the right to pursue, acquire, maintain, and to dispose of whatever it is that he himself determines as being of value to himself or others. The free market will establish the true value of the asset within the market place.
I have ten chickens and my neighbor has none,so he decides he wants five and I decline to give him any. It is the belief of Mr. Machans colleague that I must give up the five chickens. Does that mean my neighbor can use force,like a gun to take them? If not then how will my neighbor get those five chickens?
The answer is the government will tax me and give the money to my neighbor to buy the chickens, and the feed and the chicken house and the land to keep them, the house for the neighbor to live in, the stove on which to cook them and when my neighbor dies I pay for his funeral and burial and all of the debt he leaves behind and all of his offspring.
Reply from the Daily Bell:
Mr. Machan would certainly admit that is minarchism is not anarchism.
Posted by David L. Gertz on 12/25/2009 7:25:53 PM
I agree completly, however I also think it is in my best interest to share some of my wealth, if only to keep those less able from being unreasonable in their demands.
Reply from the Daily Bell:
Sounds like a perfectly moral choice.
Posted by Bruce on 12/25/2009 8:59:12 PM
Linda Brady Traynham, I loved your contribution.
There are permanent solutions to both dental problems and property taxes.
Knowledge is both power and freedom.
If the editors of the Daily Bell are kind enough to pass on this message and my E-mail address, I'd be glad to discuss the solutions with you.
Reply from the Daily Bell:
We will do what we can ...
Posted by Jam Lady on 12/26/2009 3:25:32 AM
We don't own anything. We all rent our properties. We don't have land deeds. We have warranty deeds issued by the corporation of the United States of America. If we owned something, we could give it to who we want and the gov could not take it away from us. That is not the case. Eminent domain, inheritance taxes and others prove that. Maybe all people should stop paying taxes and refuse to purchase property and just ride around in their cars?
Reply from the Daily Bell:
You would seem to have a point.
Post Feedback
We look forward to reading your feedback. All comments are automatically posted. However, please note that any posts containing harassment, vulgarity, personal attacks or those which are deemed to be of a violent nature are not welcomed and will either not appear or be removed.
|
News & Analysis
Guest Editorials
Subscribe to the
Daily Bell Newswire
|
Exclusive Interviews
|
|
© Copyright 2008 - 2010 Appenzeller Business Press AG (ARBP). All Rights Reserved. The Daily Bell is an informative compendium of independent economic views and analysis, which is published by ARBP. The information contained in the Daily Bell is for informational purposes only, is impersonal and not tailored to the investment needs of any particular person and should not be construed as financial or investment advice. ARBP does not accept any liability or responsibility for, nor does it verify the accurateness of the information being provided in the Daily Bell. Daily Bell articles and interviews may include the contributions of several Daily Bell editors and may require factual editing after their initial post. Readers of the Daily Bell or any affiliated or linked sources or sites must accept the responsibility for performing their own due diligence before acting on any of the information provided within the report regardless of the source. In addition to proprietary, internally generated content, the Daily Bell publishes guest editorials from a selection of free-market thinkers, which may have been reprinted elsewhere and are not necessarily representative of ARBP's editorial views. Copyright is attributed to the author of any guest editorials featured at the Daily Bell, unless noted otherwise. ARBP often uses images licensed from Getty Images on the Swiss Confidential website. To unsubscribe from the Daily Bell, click here.
|
|
|
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/images/sp_en_6_207x100.gif)