|
Unfortunately, this type of philosophy will do further damage to the country. If any rich person wants to donate his/her wealth, he/she is free and should be free to do so. This would be an admirable act, especially if the person takes great care how the money is invested (Steve Jobs is right in saying that it is harder to give a dollar away than to make one). But to call for legislation that mandates further and deeper redistribution of wealth (i.e. forcefully taking from someone to give to another), or to imply that spending your wealth instead of giving it away is immoral, is, in itself, unethical. The problems with education, healthcare, infrastructure, and other areas that Mr. Harris bemoans, have most likely arisen due to legislation that distorted the real economic incentives of the people using these markets. Pouring other people's money into these disfunctional areas would achieve nothing more than a short-lived alleviation of the symptom. The root cause will remain intact. "Make college free for anyone who can't afford it," Mr. Harris calls. Well, someone has to pay (for teachers, facilities, equipment, etc.). Who will do that? The rich? What if they don't want to? Should we grab a gun and go to their homes to take their money away? Or should we revile them in blogs and newspapers? Why do most people forget that it is precisely the rich (except those who amassed their wealth in non-free markets, distorted by government intervention), who, by virtue of their ability to build businesses or to create value for their employers, have already created the most wealth for others as well? Any reliable machine we use, any good service we enjoy was created by able people, and their wealth is miniscule in comparison with the benefit they have brought to others as a by-product of their effort. To deny such people the freedom to use their wealth as they please will likely kill their incentive to be productive. To tackle another of Mr. Harris' points - it is obvious that chance is involved in success. However, it is illogical and unethical to claim that since chance played a role in someone's success, that person is obliged to give away part of his/her wealth to another person, who has nothing to do with the life and work of the former. Chance does not give anyone the right to claim a portion of another person's wealth. The solution is not in more aggressive income transfer. It is in freeing markets and letting people do the best for themselves. |