Why I Can’t Swallow Liberalism

One of the foundational principals of Liberalism (or maybe more accurately, progressivism) is wealth redistribution. This is something I’ve always had a hard time accepting, because I don’t see any way to view it other than this: it’s immoral. Let me explain:

Wealth Redistribution

We all know how wealth redistribution works. At its most basic level, people group A is categorized according to the needs of its members, and people group B is categorized according to the means of its members. Wealth is then taken from group B and given to group A. More simply put: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”. You may have heard that quote a time or two. It’s an original quote of Karl Marx in 1875.

Theft

Ok, now that we have wealth redistribution defined, lets look at why it can’t be moral. I’m going to make the argument that wealth redistribution is theft, i.e, some governing body is stealing wealth from people group B. First let’s define stealing. I just grabbed this definition online:

Steal:

To take (the property of another or others) without permission or right.

That sounds like a pretty good definition. So, stealing is really just the same as taking someone’s property, but under one (or both) of two special circumstances: without permission, or without right.

Permission

Let’s look at permission first because it’s easier to dismiss. Clearly there is no permission granted by people group B to have their wealth taken. There is no option given to them to give up their wealth. In a democracy it’s probable that some of the people in group B voted for the people who are governing over them and taking their wealth. So an argument could be made that those people have granted permission. However there are undoubtedly people in group B who voted against the people who are taking their wealth. This is really a strict purist argument anyway, because when you submit your income taxes, there is no checkbox to indicate that you don’t want to pay. The fact that the question is never asked necessitates that no permission is given, because permission necessitates the ability to revoke. If you disagree, go ahead and try to revoke the “permission” that you’ve given to have your wealth taken by the government. No? That’s what I thought.

Right

I think this is the foundation of most arguments for wealth redistribution. The proposition is that somehow the government has a right to take wealth from people group B. I can think of four arguments for this being the case. I’ll address each one:

There’s a right because it’s legal.

This argument stipulates that because there are laws making it legal, then the government has the right to take wealth from people group B. This actually sounds pretty plausible at first, until you start thinking about it. The fact is that legality does not necessitate a right. It was legal at one time for white people to own black people. It was legal under Nazi Germany to murder Jews. In order for this argument to hold up, it would have to also accommodate these circumstances. That is to say, if congress passed a law today legalizing the arbitrary murder of Jews and the owning of slaves, that this would be acceptable and moral, because the people committing these acts have a right to. It is legal, after all. I hope it’s clear at this point that this argument is bogus. So, legality does not necessitate a right.

There’s a right because it’s the government doing the taking.

This argument stipulates that the government is a special entity which has an inherent right to take wealth from people group B. There’s really nothing to stand on here without explaining the source of this right. We’ve already established that legality does not necessitate a right, so you’ve got to argue that the government gets this right from some other source. So far I haven’t heard anyone explain to me what this other source is. If you don’t have a source for this right, than it absolutely must be true that the government holds all rights. The reason for this is if there is not an explicit source for this right, that means the government can have any other arbitrary right and just call it “inherent”. Go down this road and you run into the same issues as the argument above. If the government started murdering a certain race of people, would you argue that it has an inherent right to do so? I didn’t think so. The takeaway here is: The government does not have an inherent right.

There’s a right because people group A needs the wealth.

This argument is already a stretch, because it’s stipulating that the government has a right because it’s giving some of the wealth that it’s taking to people who have a need for it. Even so, let’s break it down. Let’s say for now that need does necessitate a right. If this is true, then next time my car breaks down, I have every right to go to a car dealership and borrow a car until mine is fixed. After all I have a need for a car. It’s how I get to work, and I need my job to pay my taxes. Also the car dealership has plenty of cars, most of them are just sitting in the lot doing nothing! Additionally, if someone crashes into my car and totals it, I can go to the dealership and take a car (permanently). It’s not stealing because I have a need, therefore I have a right. This argument is totally absurd. It gets even more obvious when you start thinking about people who need houses, apartments, etc. So, need does not necessitate a right.

There’s a right because people group A has an inherent right to the wealth.

This argument has the same shaky foundation as the last one because you’re basically giving the government a right to take by proxy. I’ll address it anyway though. This argument stipulates that people in group A have an inherent right to the wealth. You run in to some of the same problems as with the government having an inherent right to the wealth, in that if there is no source for this right defined, it must be true that people in group A can claim other inherent rights, therefore can claim any arbitrary right, and finally, can claim all rights. Besides the fact that this is not only logically absurd, it also just doesn’t pass the common sense test. Additionally this argument has other problems, because people in group B undoubtedly have some right to their income. Since this is the case, this argument necessitates that people in group A have a greater right to the wealth held by people in group B than even the members of group B. This is absurd. People group A does not have an inherent right.

Property

There is one last argument here. This argument stipulates that the people in group B don’t own their wealth to begin with. That is to say that the wealth of the people in group B is not their own property. This argument seems absurd to most Americans, yet some people do make this argument, so I’ll address it. This argument necessitates that the wealth of people group B is the property of the government to begin with, because if it’s the property of some other entity, the government is just stealing from that entity instead of people group B. There’s a legal challenge here, because the law does say that people group B owns their wealth until the government takes it, but let’s set that aside. After all that issue could be addressed by changing the law.

So, let’s say for now that the government does already own the property of people group B. This begs the question: Why just the property associated with people group B? Why not all property? We’ve already taken people group B’s wealth out of the equation. You can’t very well argue that the government inherently owns the property associated with group B because group B own a lot of property. That argument contradicts itself.

So it must be some other reason. Perhaps the people in group B are inherently evil, so they just don’t get any property. Well this is absurd, too¹. No matter how you define evil or good, statistically there must be some evil people in both groups, and some good people in both groups.

You can solve this dilemma by just declaring that the government own all wealth. While it’s certainly achievable to refute this argument, I think I’ve taken this far enough. The vast majority of people in the world do not believe that the government owns all wealth. This is absurd.

Morality

So far we’ve established that the government is in fact stealing. There’s not a lot to say here about the morality of it. Stealing is immoral. The only logical conclusion is this: Wealth redistribution is immoral. It’s a morally bankrupt concept because it relies on perpetual theft in order to function. You may also noticed that I’ve killed two birds with one stone here, because we can also conclude from this argument that levying taxes is immoral as well². That’s not the main point I’m trying to make here, but let me just point out that taxation is an immoral act that is also deemed necessary. I am reminded of this quote by Calvin Coolidge: “Collecting more taxes than is absolutely necessary is legalized robbery”. I think he nailed it.

So, what are we supposed to do?

It doesn’t do much good to just bring up a problem without a solution. If we cease wealth redistribution because it’s immoral, what are we supposed to do with those who have legitimate needs? The answer: help them. Yes we as individuals have an obligation to help those around us. The very fact that you as an individual are proposing that there is a problem with being poor and in need necessitates your obligation to contribute to stopping that problem according to your ability (or more succinctly: If you’re not going to do something about it, shut up). The great thing about this is once you accept that obligation, you are going to give of your labor, time, and wealth to help those in need around you. This helps break down the animosity between the “upper class” and the poor, because it’s human nature to be grateful when someone helps you. This also gives you an opportunity to share your life skills with them and help them become self sufficient, and gives them an opportunity to learn life skills. Throwing money at poor people only addresses half the problem anyway. They need to be taught how to manage it efficiently in order to lead fiscally successful lives.

On top of the inherent obligation of just being an individual, if you are a Christian, you have a Biblical obligation as well. I’m reminded of a passage in 1 John:

1 John 3:17-18

If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth.

This sounds like such a simple solution, but it absolutely works. This is exactly what people did before the government ever got involved. You’re never going to get rid of all poverty. The reason the government got involved was because those in power believed they could eliminate poverty. Well, with quite literally hundreds of billions of dollars thrown at the problem of poverty each year for the past several decades, and no statistically significant change in the poverty level, we know that this is not possible. The best option is for the government to step out of the equation and let individuals do the work.

Now, are you going to get every capable person in the world to help those around them according to their ability to do so? No, you’re not. Don’t even try. You can’t legislate it, you can’t force it down everyone’s throat, and you can’t do it by punishing those who don’t help. It just won’t work. I think that is apparent because that’s what we’ve been trying to do, and poverty is still a problem. The way to make a difference here is to set an example yourself for others to follow. When they see the impact that you’ve made in someone else’s life, and the satisfaction that it brings you, they’ll either want that for themselves, or maybe they’re just a mean person. If they’re mean, don’t sweat it. There’s a fundamental law of the universe that no person can escape:

You reap what you sow.