How many times have you heard the progressives mention that the wealthy should give back to the community? They make it sound as if the wealthy person made others worse off by becoming wealthy. How do they think others become worse off when a (non-politically connected) business person becomes massively rich by making voluntary exchanges with others?
The only way others are worse off by one becoming wealthy is by that person aligning with the force of the State to gain an unfair advantage over others.
When a business person does not have a politically connected advantage, marketplace interactions result in a net benefit for all parties involved in the exchange, and wealth is created. In other words the economic “pie” gets bigger. So basically if one becomes wealthy by making voluntary consensual exchanges with others, no one becomes poorer.
For example, If a bakery has a tasty chocolate cake to sell for $10 and a chocolate lover comes in for a cake, there is a calculation made by both parties. The baker values the $10 more than the cake, and the chocolate lover perceives the value of the cake to be more than the $10 in her purse. Both parties involved voluntarily consent to the exchange, and both have a perception of being better off. If the baker becomes wealthy by making many of these interactions, no one has become worse off, or needs to be “given back to.” (I purposely left out the unnecessary third party coercion of taxation, regulation, permits, etc. to show that no one has become worse off. Of course both parties would be even better off without the third party intrusion and price/value distortion, but that hardly exists in the U.S.)
On the other hand, if a company with arterial attachments to the State by way of lobbyists, political donations, political affiliates, subsidies, limited licensing, etc. uses more regulation to gain an unfair advantage over other non-politically leveraged companies, the citizens are worse off because the market is not free to allocate scarce resources in the most efficient, highest quality, innovative way.
In this case, the State and those connected to the force of the State are better off, and everyone else is worse off than they would be with free market interactions. Why do you think the big banksters, Wall Street companies, leveraged corporations, and progressive voters love the idea of more economic regulation? Because they aim to benefit at the sacrifice of others.
So, even the most wealthy of people (without direct State leverage) who became rich by way of mutually beneficial exchanges has no obligation to “give back to the community” because these folks took nothing away from the community.
Actually, if there is to be any obligation, the community should feel like giving thanks to the non-politically connected wealthy, because businesses add perceived value to the community by creating and supplying products and services that people want at a price they are willing to pay. The wealthy business owner is also the one who originally took on the risk of investing capital and creating that which he anticipates will make others better off.
The wealth a person makes (in voluntary interactions) is just the shadow cast by making others in the community better off. Haven’t they given enough already?
For some reason the progressives fallaciously think wealth is just this stagnant thing that exists somehow, and needs to be equally distributed. In other words, they don’t understand that the economic “pie” must be made, they think it just exists and must be distributed in an arbitrarily “fair” way. They don’t seem to understand or care that wealth must be created, and the creation of wealth requires an environment that understands and nurtures human incentives and behaviors. It’s just a reality that people will always want more than what there is. Free market interactions always result in the most efficient and innovative allocation of scarce resources with alternative uses. Nothing reduces poverty better than a free market.
Not only do they fallaciously think wealth just statically exists in a state of nature, but they label all wealth, greed, and profit as evil. The reality is that wealth greed and profit can be virtuous, or evil, depending on how it’s obtained.
If one is greedy and becomes wealthy by leveraging the power of the State to his financial and marketplace benefit at the expense of others who don’t consent, his greed and profit motives are evil. If one is greedy and becomes wealthy by making voluntary exchanges with others where all parties consent to the transaction, that greed and wealth is virtuous and has added value to the lives of others.
The purpose of “giving back” is to actually help the less fortunate in society anyway, right? Maybe if progressives stop making the wealthy feel as if they owe something to society by forcing charity, there would be a shift from using the State to “help” the incapable, weak, sick, elderly, poor, etc. and our culture would become one where giving to and helping others upon our own volition would be considered the highest virtue. And that free market charitable interaction of course provides the best results for the ones who need the help.
Maybe if the progressive voters still want to use the force of the State to make the wealthy “give back” by way of taxes, regulation, or some form of guilt, they should first make a distinction between those who got wealthy from government leverage compared to those who did not use government leverage, then they should aim their coercion and guilt at the politically leveraged wealthy class, while bowing down to the non-politically leveraged entrepreneurs and leave them alone.
