One of the more absurd questions to emerge in the Leaders Debate on Tuesday 6 October focused upon the morality of wealth and whether it was morally acceptable to be a billionaire. The absurdity continued into the “Futures” debate the next evening.
In my view the question should have been rejected at the outset. To ask whether being a billionaire is acceptable or moral assumes wealth needs moral permission, as if the default is guilt.
An honestly earned fortune isn’t something to excuse. It’s an achievement to admire. The productive billionaire is a moral hero. Not so in New Zealand – land of the Tall Poppy Syndrome and the politics of envy
Human survival depends on reason. Food, shelter, medicine and machines all exist because someone thought, planned and created. Wealth isn’t a fixed pile that the rich have grabbed more than their share of. It is created, and it is created by minds. A billionaire who built a company has made something that didn’t exist before.
Money is a tool of exchange that represents productive effort. It isn’t the root of evil.
Pursuing your own flourishing through productive work is therefore moral, not merely permitted. The ambitious entrepreneur who wants to get rich is doing exactly what a moral person should do - living by their own judgment and effort.
A trader deals with others by voluntary exchange of value for value. They neither sacrifice themselves to others nor sacrifice others to themselves. A billionaire who got rich selling products people freely chose to buy has dealt with millions of people as a trader. Everyone in those exchanges judged themselves better off. Nobody was forced.
The common claim that billionaires owe their wealth to the poor or to society is an immoral demand. It treats the productive as servants of the unproductive and makes need a claim on someone else’s life.
Charity is fine as a personal choice made from goodwill. It is never a duty, and it is never what justifies having wealth.
In that respect the only proper role of government is protecting individual rights - courts, police and the military. Capitalism is the only moral social system because it bans the initiation of force.
Taxing fortunes to redistribute them means taking by threat what someone earned, and this is a violation of rights, however well intended and for whatever admirable purpose.
Implicit in the question is the type of society we have become. Our society depends upon the creators of wealth whilst condemning them. The problem is that producers who accept guilt for their success, give moral legitimacy to those who exploit them. A billionaire who apologises for being rich is making a moral mistake.
Wealth obtained through production, risk taking and voluntary trade is to be admired and encouraged.
Most billionaires got rich by building companies that sell things millions of people freely buy, such as search engines, smartphones, cheap retail, or software. Every sale is a voluntary trade where the customer judged the product worth more than its price. On this view, a fortune is a rough record of the value delivered to others.
Billionaires don’t actually have a billion dollars in cash. Most of it is ownership stakes in productive companies. That capital is already employing people, funding research, and building infrastructure. Calling it “hoarded” misdescribes it. Forcing it to be sold off wouldn’t produce piles of cash to hand out. It would transfer ownership and likely reduce the value of the companies themselves.
The starting point for considering wealth creation is a distribution that may be considered just. Let people freely pay the person for what they offer. If any inequality follows it came about from steps that were just. Therefore it is wrong to say that the outcome is therefore unjust. On this view, what matters is how wealth was acquired, not how big the total is. Honestly earned billions are legitimate. Fraud, theft, or exploitation are not.
The possibility of big rewards drives innovation and risk-taking. Most startups fail. Founders often give up years of income and security on long-shot bets. The chance of an enormous payoff is part of what draws capital and talent into risky ventures that produce breakthroughs. A rule that capped success would also shrink the incentive to try.
In addition, billionaires can fund things that markets and governments neglect. Large private fortunes have paid for big philanthropic efforts, such as the Gates Foundation’s work on malaria and polio.
They have also backed unpopular or long-horizon research, and things that would struggle to get through government budgets. Concentrated wealth lets someone make big, fast, unconventional bets with their own money.
Moral responsibility attaches to conduct rather than net worth. Judging someone wrong simply for crossing a dollar threshold treats a number as a vice.
I say we should evaluate what billionaires do. Did they treat workers fairly, pay their taxes as required by law, and avoid harming others? Do they use their resources well? A billionaire who meets those standards has done nothing wrong merely by being rich.
The parasites of the Left – those who question the morality of wealth and who would redistribute it – use the coercive power of the State to deprive the wealthy of that to which they are legitimately entitled. One should ask whether that is moral.
It depends upon how you view property rights. The parasites of the Left – feeding upon the productivity of their wealthy hosts – are not respecters of property or of success. They complain – as they have during the current election campaign – about “excessive profits”.
What is an excessive profit? The parasites would suggest that its is a level of profitability that is beyond that which they think is reasonable.
Thus we have the suggestion that the State should determine how much profit a business can make. Such an approach stifles initiative and starves innovation. But then, that is what parasites do.
The morality of having billionaires? There have been a number of inane questions posed and equally inane answers. But this question is the most inane, stupid and irrelevant that has been posed so far.
David Harvey is a former District Court Judge and Mastermind champion, as well as an award winning writer who blogs at the substack site A Halflings View - Where this article was sourced
Human survival depends on reason. Food, shelter, medicine and machines all exist because someone thought, planned and created. Wealth isn’t a fixed pile that the rich have grabbed more than their share of. It is created, and it is created by minds. A billionaire who built a company has made something that didn’t exist before.
Money is a tool of exchange that represents productive effort. It isn’t the root of evil.
Pursuing your own flourishing through productive work is therefore moral, not merely permitted. The ambitious entrepreneur who wants to get rich is doing exactly what a moral person should do - living by their own judgment and effort.
A trader deals with others by voluntary exchange of value for value. They neither sacrifice themselves to others nor sacrifice others to themselves. A billionaire who got rich selling products people freely chose to buy has dealt with millions of people as a trader. Everyone in those exchanges judged themselves better off. Nobody was forced.
The common claim that billionaires owe their wealth to the poor or to society is an immoral demand. It treats the productive as servants of the unproductive and makes need a claim on someone else’s life.
Charity is fine as a personal choice made from goodwill. It is never a duty, and it is never what justifies having wealth.
In that respect the only proper role of government is protecting individual rights - courts, police and the military. Capitalism is the only moral social system because it bans the initiation of force.
Taxing fortunes to redistribute them means taking by threat what someone earned, and this is a violation of rights, however well intended and for whatever admirable purpose.
Implicit in the question is the type of society we have become. Our society depends upon the creators of wealth whilst condemning them. The problem is that producers who accept guilt for their success, give moral legitimacy to those who exploit them. A billionaire who apologises for being rich is making a moral mistake.
Wealth obtained through production, risk taking and voluntary trade is to be admired and encouraged.
Most billionaires got rich by building companies that sell things millions of people freely buy, such as search engines, smartphones, cheap retail, or software. Every sale is a voluntary trade where the customer judged the product worth more than its price. On this view, a fortune is a rough record of the value delivered to others.
Billionaires don’t actually have a billion dollars in cash. Most of it is ownership stakes in productive companies. That capital is already employing people, funding research, and building infrastructure. Calling it “hoarded” misdescribes it. Forcing it to be sold off wouldn’t produce piles of cash to hand out. It would transfer ownership and likely reduce the value of the companies themselves.
The starting point for considering wealth creation is a distribution that may be considered just. Let people freely pay the person for what they offer. If any inequality follows it came about from steps that were just. Therefore it is wrong to say that the outcome is therefore unjust. On this view, what matters is how wealth was acquired, not how big the total is. Honestly earned billions are legitimate. Fraud, theft, or exploitation are not.
The possibility of big rewards drives innovation and risk-taking. Most startups fail. Founders often give up years of income and security on long-shot bets. The chance of an enormous payoff is part of what draws capital and talent into risky ventures that produce breakthroughs. A rule that capped success would also shrink the incentive to try.
In addition, billionaires can fund things that markets and governments neglect. Large private fortunes have paid for big philanthropic efforts, such as the Gates Foundation’s work on malaria and polio.
They have also backed unpopular or long-horizon research, and things that would struggle to get through government budgets. Concentrated wealth lets someone make big, fast, unconventional bets with their own money.
Moral responsibility attaches to conduct rather than net worth. Judging someone wrong simply for crossing a dollar threshold treats a number as a vice.
I say we should evaluate what billionaires do. Did they treat workers fairly, pay their taxes as required by law, and avoid harming others? Do they use their resources well? A billionaire who meets those standards has done nothing wrong merely by being rich.
The parasites of the Left – those who question the morality of wealth and who would redistribute it – use the coercive power of the State to deprive the wealthy of that to which they are legitimately entitled. One should ask whether that is moral.
It depends upon how you view property rights. The parasites of the Left – feeding upon the productivity of their wealthy hosts – are not respecters of property or of success. They complain – as they have during the current election campaign – about “excessive profits”.
What is an excessive profit? The parasites would suggest that its is a level of profitability that is beyond that which they think is reasonable.
Thus we have the suggestion that the State should determine how much profit a business can make. Such an approach stifles initiative and starves innovation. But then, that is what parasites do.
The morality of having billionaires? There have been a number of inane questions posed and equally inane answers. But this question is the most inane, stupid and irrelevant that has been posed so far.
David Harvey is a former District Court Judge and Mastermind champion, as well as an award winning writer who blogs at the substack site A Halflings View - Where this article was sourced
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.