Should the strong be required to support the weak? How does society "distribute" wealth
among its members? These are the questions. There are three basic sides to this issue.
The permissive system entitles individuals to a subsistence income supply for existing as
a human. The puritan system requires that people at least be willing to contribute to
society in order to receive a subsistence income. Finally, the Individual view holds the
property rights of the individual to be sacred: no one may forcibly deprive him of his
goods. I will argue for the last alternative.
Individualism is an extension of Locke's idea of property rights. An Individualist
believes each person owns his own life, the fruits of his labor, and his property. No one
may deprive him of these property rights. He is free to act as long as his actions do not
interfere with the property rights of others.
At this point it is important to define what money is. Money is an exchange of value.
Money has value because it represent labor, or value, one has created but not yet used.
Money in my pocket is what I have created but not yet consumed. Money is not a natural
resource; it does not grow on trees. Men can make money by their physical or mental
labor. Do I not, then, have full claim to my earnings?
If A discovers a cure for AIDS; it surely was not solely a product of A. Society's
framework made the discovery possible: A had to build on previous knowledge; she had to
use a laboratory she probably did not own. All of these factors make society a partner in
the discovery. Therefore, she does not have the right to all of the benefits of her
discovery; she must give up some of her benefits to society at large.
It is true that A did not personally create every piece of equipment she used to make the
discovery; however, the point missed by in this situation is that property is held by
individuals, and A had to exchange value in the form of money to buy or rent the
equipment she used. The owners have already been paid for the use of their equipment.
Business agreements occur between individuals; there is no entity, "society," that handed
her a gift. If A were to have to pay more to "society," then she would, in effect, be
paying twice.
If a permissivist responds with "but she will get rich selling the cure for a high price
while thousands are dying," there are basically two responses. The first is that this
phenomenon displays the actual value of her product - the price paid in a free market.
The second is that any attempt to take her money simply because "she has a lot of it" is
robbery.
In a state of nature, I cannot get something for nothing. I cannot reap what I do not
sow. If I do not invest efforts planting and caring for my crops, there will be nothing
at harvest time. Fish are not going to jump into my boat; I have to catch them! Others
who argue for Permissivism or Puritanism seem to forget that the wealth they want to
redistribute must have a source, because money represents value already created. Thus
they cannot deal out wealth as if there were an inexhaustible supply of it; sometimes
called "manna from heaven." The only solution they have to this problem is to rob those
who have money and are unwilling to pay!
If a portion of the population is very poor, the Permissivist would argue that there
could be violence. One of the roles of government, according to Locke, is to enforce
property rights, so one solution is that the government would have to deal with the
violence. It is more likely, however, because people have compassion, that private
organizations would be set up to help the poor back on their feet.
There is one major issue that we have not yet addressed: What about those who are willing
to work, but cannot because of their disability? Are they entitled to a subsisence
income? My reply would be this: No, they are not entitled to anyone's labor, because no
man may force another's wealth from him. If the disabled truly cannot produce anything of
value, they are at the mercy of those who can. This may sound harsh, but if the
Permissivists really value human life as much as they say, they will be more than willing
to support these unproductive individuals. They still cannot spend more than they create.
You have no duty to take care of me, it is a choice. Since I value myself, I choose to
care for myself.
Am I responsible for your welfare? Unless I choose to be, you have no claim on my life or
property. I am not hurting you by making money because there is not a static amount of
money, it can be created at will simply with labor.
|