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?