3 ms·
> If most people are envious of Bill Gates, does it follow that they have the right to take away his money and redistribute it? You're presupposing that there'
by dctoedt 13y ago
> If most people are envious of Bill Gates, does it follow that they have the right to take away his money and redistribute it?
You're presupposing that there's such a thing as a "right" outside of a given social framework. (Cf. @rayiner's various comments on that subject.) If people are envious by nature, that's like the weather; to paraphrase Robert A. Heinlein, attempting to argue with the weather is seldom a profitable enterprise.
In any case, Bill Gates's success was not due solely to his own efforts; he built his achievements on a foundation provided by his fellow citizens, of America and the world. So it's not a moral axiom that Gates should keep some particular share of the money that happens to come into his hands. Cf. Elizabeth Warren's famous talk during her campaign for the Senate, where on the subject of fair taxation she accurately pointed out that:
There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own — nobody. You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police-forces and fire-forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory — and hire someone to protect against this — because of the work the rest of us did. [1]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htX2usfqMEs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htX2usfqMEs, starting at 0:50, transcribed at http://spectator.org/blog/2011/09/22/elizabeth-warren-on-fair-taxat http://spectator.org/blog/2011/09/22/elizabeth-warren-on-fai....
- nathan_long 13y ago>> You're presupposing that there's such a thing as a "right" outside of a given social framework. I absolutely am. I'm with the framers of the US Constitution in saying that government and society do not create rights, they merely recognize them. I have a right not to be murdered, for example, even if I happen to live in a society where murdering people like me is allowed. But I base that statement on my theology, not my economics. >> You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. It's equally true that "the rest of us" drive around on roads that the factory owner paid for - possibly more true, assuming he/she pays proportionally. Why does this matter?
- dctoedt 13y ago> I have a right not to be murdered .... But I base that statement on my theology, not my economics .... Glad you recognize that. Pragmatically, a "right" exists only to the extent that others accept it, voluntarily or otherwise. I can also claim the right not to be murdered. But if I, an American, were to find myself in the hands of certain factions of the Taliban, then that so-called right might be of little efficacy. There's a legal maxim -- OK, technically it's an equitable maxim -- ubi jus ibi remedium: Where there is a right, there must be a remedy. That is, once the courts recognize that a right exists, they will somehow fashion a remedy to vindicate a breach of that right. But there's a corollary: If there simply is no remedy that can be enforced, then neither is there a right.
- gadders 13y agoThis is the Elizabeth Warren that claimed to be native American?