The Bottom Line: Wealth redistribution threatens true justice
Dan Clements
Issue date: 3/24/09 Section: Opinion
However, later arose a new concept that violated the principle of equality before the law: the redistribution of wealth. Justice is supposed to be blind and laws are meant to apply to everyone regardless of race, religion, gender, or economic status. Taking from the rich to give to everyone else is nothing other than economic discrimination. When the law is meant to apply differently to someone who has a lot of money than someone who doesn't, it is not a just law.
Redistributing wealth is not only detrimental to people whose right to private property is being infringed, but it also threatens the common good. The reason upper-income earners got to the top was because they offered things that we liked. Bill Gates got to where he is because he gave us Windows. If we tried to eliminate the disparities in wealth, we would be taking away the incentives of the people who give the most to society. On the whole, taking away or diminishing the opportunity to advance one's self would stagnate the economy by removing the impetus of wealth creation and everyone would suffer.
The process of taxing the rich more to provide benefits that they could not claim represents the triumph of the interests of one faction over the other and threatens the prosperity of our nation. In America, we do have majority rule, and the redistributive aspects of our system were passed democratically, but our Constitution was not intended to allow even a majority faction to infringe on the rights of the minority. The father of our Constitution, James Madison, warned of the dangers that factions posed to the rights of the people and the common good and noted that a majority faction is most dangerous. A democracy with no limits on what it is allowed to do is not a free society but merely what Alexis de Tocqueville termed "democratic despotism." If we desire to be a just society, then we should demand people be treated equally regardless of how wealthy they are.
Redistributing wealth is not only detrimental to people whose right to private property is being infringed, but it also threatens the common good. The reason upper-income earners got to the top was because they offered things that we liked. Bill Gates got to where he is because he gave us Windows. If we tried to eliminate the disparities in wealth, we would be taking away the incentives of the people who give the most to society. On the whole, taking away or diminishing the opportunity to advance one's self would stagnate the economy by removing the impetus of wealth creation and everyone would suffer.
The process of taxing the rich more to provide benefits that they could not claim represents the triumph of the interests of one faction over the other and threatens the prosperity of our nation. In America, we do have majority rule, and the redistributive aspects of our system were passed democratically, but our Constitution was not intended to allow even a majority faction to infringe on the rights of the minority. The father of our Constitution, James Madison, warned of the dangers that factions posed to the rights of the people and the common good and noted that a majority faction is most dangerous. A democracy with no limits on what it is allowed to do is not a free society but merely what Alexis de Tocqueville termed "democratic despotism." If we desire to be a just society, then we should demand people be treated equally regardless of how wealthy they are.
Viewing Comments 1 - 2 of 2
rick
posted 3/24/09 @ 9:39 PM EST
"This trend was slightly reversed during the last twenty years"...that's the understatement of the year. The disparity in wealth is greater now than it has been since the 1920s. (Continued…)
Ralph
posted 3/25/09 @ 10:44 AM EST
Dan you are 100% correct in your analysis. Rick I am sick and tired of hearing how wealth has been transferred to only a few and therefore Lord Barack should make it his duty to return it to its rightful owners. (Continued…)
Post a Comment