“We think we can dabble in freedom—allow a few of its liberties and leave our favorite constraints in place. We think we can screw around with the free market—skip its costs and get all of its benefits anyway.”
So says the irreverent but sound thinker P.J. O’Rourke in “Eat the Rich,” a pointed commentary on the record of countries that have ‘eaten their rich’, and on the logical outcome of serving up the same policy in the U.S. The irresistible urge to dabble—along with Congressional and Executive power to do so—undergirds an increasing willingness to soak the rich, or even eat the rich outright in the name of some vague notion of economic justice. If the rich deserve to be stripped of some part of their accumulated wealth or ‘excessive’ compensation, O’Rourke argues, we are all in trouble, morally and economically. Here’s the argument he invokes on behalf of property rights, freedom in markets, and protection of private ownership. It’s pretty straightforward, and perhaps even familiar:
“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor’s”
At this point in the discussion O’Rourke asks us to consider: “Why would God, with just ten things to tell Moses, choose, as one of them, jealousy about the livestock next door? And yet, think about how important to the well-being of a community this Commandment is. If you want a donkey, if you want a pot roast, if you want a cleaning lady, don’t bitch about what the people across the street have. Go get your own.”
It’s clear that Biblical and other moralistic social teachings never meant to preclude voluntary assistance and charitable giving; quite the opposite. I agree, however, that to avoid purely covetous and predatory behavior, any sustainable economic or social policy prescription must comport with the “get your own” mindset. On the whole, “get your own” leads to a superior recipe for peace, prosperity, and possibly for beef stew, than any grandiose scheme to right the world’s woes—especially the ones that involve forcibly taking cows from your neighbor’s herd, and ‘re’-distributing them to folks who don’t have a cow, or don’t have as big a herd of cows, as your neighbor’s.
I’ve previously argued that fairness has no place in policy making, precisely because it is entirely subjective and imprecise. It’s an ad hoc invention of the policy maker’s whim, and the constituents’ demands. No wonder it’s impossible to define the scope and limit to what must be leveled to achieve a ‘fair’ outcome in society, somehow defined.
Consider, though, the counterintuitive position. There is good reason why the poorest folks in society should hope that the rich do not get soaked, that their wealth is not confiscated and doled out to ‘even out’ and eliminate economic strata, and that income equality as an outcome never becomes an overriding policy goal or a moralistic social imperative. When the rich get soaked—via taxation, through property takings, or losses through bad investments—people whose livelihood critically depends upon their lifestyle suffer as well.
Examples abound. Dozens of exclusive membership clubs of various kinds have lately been forced into receivership, been sold off, or closed, all over the U.S. Many luxury goods stores and high-dollar services are starving for business as well. Who cares? You might find it hard to sympathize, but should you really rejoice at the demise of the privileged lifestyle? It’s ordinary, entry-level, and less-skilled workers who have opportunities to make financial headway in these jobs. Or perhaps you think income caps on all kinds of executive pay, or additional taxes on the rich make economic sense. Think again.
For example: a Raleigh-area business that once supplied high-end custom wheels for well-heeled auto owners goes bust. Reason: customers can no longer afford the product. That’s one family’s upward mobility stymied, at least for the present. Many similar families, struggling to create financial independence through family business ventures, are now in the same boat, thanks largely to high levels of business and estate taxes.
And speaking of boats, I hail from a town that, for my entire lifetime, had been home to three different yacht clubs. No surprise, they were originally (though no longer) segregated along religious lines. Not a member—nor even a prospective member—myself, I have family who belong to one club, other family who do basic service work at one, and a dad who started out (as a young man) working in the shipyards, where many of the original members’ sailboats were built and maintained. Who is better off because one of the original yacht clubs is now closed, citing financial difficulties and shrinking membership? Similar stories abound for many once exclusive havens. Wealthier citizens always create avenues for the increasing prosperity of others. Their difficulty or failure likewise translates into difficulty for those beyond themselves. At one point in “Eat The Rich” O’Rourke notes:
“Wealth brings great benefits to the world. Rich people are heroes. They don’t usually mean to be, but that’s their problem, not ours.”
And what of government efforts to even out economic outcomes? Even if we don’t wish that the wealthy fall from their economic heights, many endorse a government-managed leveling of some degree. Picking a pattern of wealth that looks more socially acceptable and fair is, as mentioned earlier, much harder than it seems. Inevitably, it requires increasingly extensive control of personal economic decisions, including the fields of study, industries and occupations citizens may pursue. Not good news for property rights, certainly. Not good news for individual liberty, either. And not OK with Commandment Ten, though surely not stated exactly as O’Rourke finally puts it:
“The Tenth Commandment sends a message to socialists, to egalitarians, to people obsessed with fairness, to American presidential candidates in the year [2000]—to everyone who believes that wealth should be redistributed. And the message is clear and concise. Go to h_ll.”