Right Wing Nut House

What’s so bad about “spreading the wealth?”

That question has been put to me by more than one of my liberal friends since Obama told Joe the Plumber that’s what he intended with his tax policies. It’s a fair question and to answer it, we must look at the most enduring principles in American history - our foundational beliefs that define who we are and why we are an exceptional nation and people.

Our nation was founded on the rock of life, liberty, and property. These three principles are immutable. They are not only enshrined in the Constitution to one degree or another, they are part of our national DNA. They are every American’s birthright.

The more religious among us believe that two of these rights - life and liberty - are granted to us by God at birth. I would go a step further and say that our very birth as humans defines these rights. No God is necessary to confer what is ours by right of being born.

Advocating for the natural rights of man have fallen out of favor with many on the left in recent years. It screws up their entire worldview to have to deal with the fact that even a baby who comes into the world in North Korea possesses these rights the moment the child draws its first breath. And it is an uncomfortable truth for them to have to deal with the idea that it is government - and only government - that is capable of taking those rights away.

That North Korean baby is born with exactly the same rights to life and liberty as any American child. This is self evident, as Jefferson said. Twisted strands of logic that seek to deny this fact notwithstanding, the real difference between liberals and conservatives on this issue is how does one define “liberty.”

For 220 years, liberty in America has been a constantly evolving concept, becoming more and more inclusive and expansive as our revolution and drive for constitutional government began the first real age of the common man. And the engine of change that drove this concept has been the possession of private property being the guarantor of liberty.

Few governments on earth have taken such an expansive view of private property rights. Superficially, we tend to see “property” as land, or a house, or our private possessions. But over the years, we have expanded that definition to include exigencies that our Founders could never envision. We now recognize intellectual property - artistic creations, patented ideas, etc. - which has grown in importance as the world has become more global in commerce and exchanges of culture. This website is my property despite it having little, if any, intrinsic value.

And, of course, our money is our property. Except that there are many on the left who either don’t recognize that fact, or seek to undermine the entire concept of private property altogether in order to “share the wealth.”

Jonathan Cohn at The New Republic:

But let’s get back to this apparently controversial phrase–which, I gather, is going to remain prominent in McCain’s campaign rhetoric over the next few days. What, exactly, is so awful about “spreading the wealth”?

Government performs certain essential functions, from education to national defense. It must raise money to do that. Charging everybody the same tax rate might sound simple. But it would actually impose a much harsher burden on the poor, since they end up spending much–if not all–of their incomes on the basic necessities of life, such as food, clothing, and shelter. As one famous 18th century philosopher argued,

“It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expen[s]e, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.”

Another rationale for progressive taxation is the fact that random chance has profound effects on everybody’s financial well-being. (A guy named John Rawls once wrote a thing or two about this.) Mandating economic equality–i.e., carrying out a truly socialist agenda–would obviously be wrong. But there are compelling moral and economic arguments for asking the fortunate to pay a little more in taxes, in order to blunt the influence of chance on people’s lives.

Among other things, it’s not clear how long a capitalist society would even survive without at least some redistribution, given the likelihood that–without it–the poor would get poorer and the rich would get richer.

Cohn has thrown up a gigantic strawman - that conservatives don’t support “progressive” taxation. There may be a few conservatives out there who, in the real world, actually oppose the idea of the rich paying more in taxes than the middle class. If there are, they are not taken seriously nor should they be.

But there is a reason Cohn erects that very large, very ugly scarecrow. It is to avoid calling attention to his attack on private property; the idea that forced altruism is a legitimate reason to take an American citizen’s hard earned money (property).

There is nothing “moral” about paying taxes. We pay taxes, as Cohn points out, so that government can provide those things that we, as individuals, are unable to provide for ourselves. Cohn is silent about what percentage of our property should be taken by our local government, our state government, or our national government (and therein lies another difference between the left and the right), but let us agree that Cohn is correct and that we must grant government the right to reach into our pockets and take what is necessary to defend us, to keep us safe, and to protect us from the depredations of our neighbor.

(I doubt whether Cohn would agree with my statement above about citizens granting the government any such right - but of course, that is what makes us exceptional as a nation. In America, it is the people who inform government what it’s powers are, not the other way around.)

It is not within the rights granted by the people of the United States for government to force people to be charitable. Altruism at the point of a gun defeats its purpose and abjures the idea that money is property and that taking a citizen’s property and giving it to another without consent is inimical to those rights that have been a part of America since our founding.

We consent to fund social welfare programs because we recognize that for the good of all, the poor must be fed and clothed and given a helping hand in order to become productive members of society (I realize this is a fantastical notion and that social welfare programs have, in fact, accomplished exactly the opposite - making people more dependent on government. But we’re talking theory here, not reality.) But when the left talks of “spreading the wealth,” they are not talking about those who possess the least amount of property among us. They are talking about funding programs that benefit the middle class - people who have but just not quite as much as others.

There is no “moral” component to this arrangement. There is no compact between the people and government to “spread the wealth.” Liberals may wish this were so but then there are those pesky private property rights which should be inviolate but that have been under attack recently and the very concept of any property being “private” has actually been questioned:

The New York Times following the Supreme Court’s Kelo decision:

The Supreme Court’s ruling yesterday that the economically troubled city of New London, Conn., can use its power of eminent domain to spur development was a welcome vindication of cities’ ability to act in the public interest. It also is a setback to the “property rights” movement, which is trying to block government from imposing reasonable zoning and environmental regulations. Still, the dissenters provided a useful reminder that eminent domain must not be used for purely private gain.

Note the use of quotes for the term property rights, as if the words had no meaning outside of a few mossbacks who actually take the Constitution at its word.

With this mindset, it becomes easy to justify the government forcing citizens - rich or otherwise - to become philanthropists. And that is exactly what liberals are seeking; a transfer of property from one class to another in the name of what their idea of a “just society” might be.

There is no difference between taking a slice of your house and giving it to someone else - deserving or not - and taxing you for the same purpose. This is why the left uses “moral” arguments to advance their case when the moral parameters of the issue surrounds the very notion of private property instead of some civic certitude that it is “immoral” to oppose the seizing of such property.

If the government wishes to fund middle class entitlements - that is, property seized from those better off and given to those who may have less but are capable of taking care of themselves (the very definition of “spreading the wealth”), a conundrum arises that cannot be addressed by any moral argument about some citizens “deserving” or being “entitled” to have the government reach into their neighbor’s pocket who, either through his own efforts or Mr. Cohn’s “chance,” have more property. Once we start down that road, there will be no limit, no brake on what the many will be able to demand from the fewer.

Why are the American people so resistant to the idea of “spreading the wealth?” Because they realize better than liberal elitists that eventually, the hand of government will be reaching into their pocket, seizing their property, in order to fund the next egalitarian scheme from Washington. There is a fine old tradition of opposing “leveling” schemes in America. And “spreading the wealth” smacks of such nonsense. It is against the concept of private property for it to be appropriated by the government for other than utilitarian purposes. Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, house the homeless, train the tragically uneducated, give the poor the tools to become productive taxpaying citizens with a job and hope for the future. It is part of the compact we live by as Americans that this has become a vital function of government. (At what level of government these services are best offered may be debated - not their necessity.)

So we are not talking about denying government assistance to those who can’t live without it. We are talking about taking from those who have and giving to those who don’t have quite as much. There is a huge, fundamental difference that escapes our friends on the left because to them, private property is determined by what the government allows you to keep not what citizens allow the government to take.

It is why liberals are opposed in principle to “giving” a tax cut. They’ve got it all wrong. The government doesn’t have the right to “give” the taxpayer anything. It’s the taxpayer’s property to begin with. How can government “give” what they don’t possess? A tax cut simply allows a citizen to keep more of his property that was never within the government’s purview to decide its provenance.

This has been sort of a free wheeling, stream of consciousness essay that allowed me to clarify my thinking about what is really at stake here when we are looking at what almost certainly will be a lurch to the left this coming election. Even if McCain can pull it out, we are going to have the most liberal Congress since at least the early 70’s and perhaps going farther back than that.

Aside from fighting the reimposition of the Fairness Doctrine, I see fighting to protect private property rights - and all that concept encompasses - as the preeminent job of conservatives for the next few years.