Column on the Myth of Surplus Wealth

The Myth of Surplus Wealth

Tibor R. 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 in 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 life is undermined not by natural causes, which can impeded anyone, but by others who are at liberty to refrain from doing so and, given this right, ought to so refrain.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s