Who holds the right?

Does the man who owns a million dollars have less right to it than the man who owns but a single dollar? When a product is made, should the inventor bear no ownership for it? Say a new toaster is made. It's a marvelous tool; bread is toasted in only three seconds. I want one. You want one. The man across the street wants one. We all have one now. The inventor is now a very wealthy man. Has he not earned his wealth fairly? Who has been hurt by his wealth? He offered a product that was desired. It was bought and sold voluntarily. From whom did he steal in his quest for profit? If his money was earned through the fair act of trade, then by what right does another man take it? Let us make no mistake: the taking of money unearned is theft.

The argument made is that "government" has the right. Yet "government" is a fictional social construct. It is in actuality a collection of individuals working towards their own individual goals. When broken down simply, who is it that has taken from us? It is but another man and possibly his associates, all men. The question then becomes: by what right does one man steal from another?

We must, as always, start with a definition, as words are the only true way to comunicate. A job is work done in return for payment, monetary or otherwise. A thief is one who takes something not of his possession, something unearned. Pay close attention to the words, particularly "unearned" and "payment".

For one who holds a job, he is working for a desired goal. At the moment, this goal remains unnamed as it may vary from person to person. The constant for all persons is that the man who works does so for something. The act of working is never purposeless. There are many forms of "something," be it monetary or even the sheer joy of the work, but there is always a product of one's labor. If I am a painter, I will have a masterpiece; if I make toasters I will have a toaster for my product. One works; something is produced. Now for most people, this idea seems very simple. So if the idea of production is simple, it must be the next phase that is complex. Once my masterpiece is complete, once my toaster is perfected, to whom does it belong?

"What a simple question!" one might say, but apparently it is far from simple. One might argue that he who paints owns the painting. It is his to do with as he will! The irony is that once the art is sold, the same arguer will cry foul. "He has sold the masterpiece! Why should he not share his good fortune?" It is agreed that the final product belongs to the artist, yet he is not allowed to do with it as he will. His long hours of work have gone into the making of this masterpiece, yet he should not be given his due payment. It should be shared. I, who had nothing to do with its production, should be entitled to payment unearned. What was the definition of a "thief" once again?

the battle for truth

Today I heard Thomas DiLorenzo speak at Hampden-Sydney. He talked about his book, How Capitalism Saved America: The Untold history of Our Country, from the Pilgrims to the Present. I brought my mother in hopes of her biting onto some part of the libertarian ideology. Dr. DiLorenzo was an interesting speaker and I enjoyed the talk.

I’ve been thinking recently about what I’d be interested in writing in the future, that is, what I’d like to attempt to publish in the long run. Recently, I had decided that I wanted to try to publish something that I considered ‘worth while’ – something that would be ground breaking in economics or philosophy or political science. I think that it is highly unlikely that I will think of or publish something of this nature, but it’s a noble goal. I’m under the impression that some economists and political theorists of libertarian leanings believe that the theory-side is ‘done’ and all that is left for us to do now is relate again and again to the masses what Mises or Rothbard have already written for us. This may be true, but if it is, it’s a depressing truth for me. I would love to add some real value to the science of economics instead of simply pointing out what others have already discovered. Other up and coming economists think that they can have satisfying and profitable careers in academia simply by applying old economic theories to different sectors of the economy. I sincerely hope that I am not stuck doing this in a few years.

So… a few things changed my opinion today… First, DiLorenzo’s book… It was written for non-economics studying people. It has sections in it explaining that robber-barons are myths, that capitalism made workers in the industrial revolution rich, that capitalism did not cause the Great Depression, and that anti-trust laws do not work. I have to preface talking about the book by reminding myself that it was intended for common people – not students of economics. Each section that he mentioned in the talk about his book repeated economic theories that virtually any student would be familiar with. Until tonight, I would have thought that this was mostly a waste. He said that he wrote the book in response to the Enron and Worldcom crises. He thought that many academics would write silly things arguing that these crises were direct results of liaise-faire capitalism. Of course, he was right. Many books of this sort followed from the Enron and Worldcom scandals. His book is a direct counter to these. It is a defense of capitalism using theory backed by statistics. I thought Human Action had it pretty well covered, but this book is much more accessible.

I think it was naive of me to think that people would seek out truth in a library or a class room when the vast majority of literature and education went in the face of it. Someone told me recently that I should publish as many books or articles as I possibly could because there were so many more socialists publishing that the libertarians had to respond with similar output to compete. This is beginning to make sense to me. Tonight, I discovered the blog, http://www.bkmarcus.com/blog/ and I read this entry - http://www.bkmarcus.com/blog/2006/09/fighting-for-truth.html

He quotes Rothbard near the end of the entry:

Menger and Bohm apparently insisted on the naive view that truth will always win out, unaided, not realizing that this is hardly the way truth ever wins out in the academic or any other arena. Truth must be promoted, organized, and fought for as against error. Even if we can hold the faith that truth, unaided by strategy or tactics, will win out in the long run, it is unfortunately an excruciatingly long run in which all too many of us -- certainly including Mises -- will be dead.

I was impressed by this quote, as I am by many of Rothbard’s quotes. I think Rothbard is right, again. DiLorenzo’s book held more value for me after reading that blog entry. Thank you, lowercase liberty. I’m beginning to change my perspective on what I’d think of as an acceptable topic to attempt publishing. Since truth-seeking doesn’t seem to be a high priority for many people… and since many people will be required to seriously shift our society away from socialism, it must be our goal to share our ideas with others and not just wait around until they discover them on their own.