The moral premises of collectivism, and not just its consequences, should be resisted
Upon reports the Labour Party is considering a wealth tax, right wing commentators have reacted with fury. Yet this fury has been based on the wrong premise. It has depended on the supply of rich people being very elastic — meaning that economic growth would be seriously damaged by it. Still, while pointing to the economic harms of a wealth tax is important, libertarians must ultimately defend the rich on the hill of respect for private property. Why? In large part because the public is riddled with envy and would willingly impoverish themselves provided they could tear down the great creators of wealth in the process.
Last week YouGov released a poll which found 75 per cent of the public would support a 2 per cent wealth tax on those with assets over £10m. Not at all surprising. However, the more interesting poll from YouGov came last month. In that people were asked whether they’d support increasing taxes on the rich even if government revenue from them declined due to their emigration. A plurality of 42 per cent said “yes”. They would, in other words, support everyone being poorer provided the rich were less relatively rich. Although the British could have a staunchly egalitarian political philosophy supporting their position, the real explanation is probably embedded deep in man’s primitive psychology.
For most of our 100,000-year history, our ancestors lived in hunter gatherer groups of between 25 and 30 people. Their success in having offspring depended on their status; thus, even if a new discovery of food made all of them better off in terms of calorie intake it could still make most of them worse off in reproductive terms by enabling the best hunters a still larger share of the game. It’s not about having enough food to get through winter, but having more than the guy next door. A fixation on zero sum status for reproductive success is built into all of us then: Rousseau rightly opined “[we] always have a hidden desire to profit at another’s expense”. A political implication of this primitive thinking is the reflex of wanting everyone poorer provided the rich are less rich still.
While in these small bands though the primitive morality we adopted was collectivist. This is because the social cooperation essential to our survival was best fostered by the pursuit of common goals. Even F. A. Hayek, who might be thought to have a theory of human nature kinder to his liberalism, conceded: “The savage is not solitary, and his instinct is collectivist.” Why did this desire for higher status and the pursuit of the greater good not clash? The answer is hunter gatherers collectively punished those who deviated from the collectively constituted greater good and tried to aggrandise themselves; an aggrandisement which would make each of them relatively worse off.
Envy dressed up in collectivist clothes, then, is deeply ingrained into people. What can right wingers say against it? It is extremely doubtful Britons explicitly want higher taxes on the rich in order to increase their own reproductive successes; irrespective, taking money off the rich to do just that is surely unjustifiable. Britons, then, must claim there is intrinsic value to equality as such — meaning, envy, understood as preferring a situation where no one has a good to only a few having the same good, makes some sense.
This intrinsic value to equality as such is just not plausible, though. Is a world where everyone is blind instead of only a few being blind really preferable? No. Would an intrinsic celestial injustice be discovered if we found a planet with aliens which had lower living standards than on Earth? No again. Mitigating the contingent upset allegedly caused by envy is no warrant for redistribution either. If A sees B greatly enjoying himself and A cannot achieve this due to his disposition and gets upset about it this inequality doesn’t warrant slipping depressant drugs into A’s tea.
Most socialists, however, do not seek equality at all costs. Instead, they’ll argue a wealth tax is justified because it will raise money to finance public services for the poor who need it more than the rich themselves. Right wingers are correct to point out wealth taxes have never worked. When a wealth tax was introduced by Francois Mitterrand in France in 1982 it is estimated for every 1 Franc raised 2 Francs were lost elsewhere. Another example is India which until 2015 had a wealth tax for almost 60 years, which raised just 0.01 per cent of GDP in tax. As night follows day, taxation always reduces the prosperity of the people due to it slowing the accumulation of capital goods and disincentivising work.
The ultimate wrong of a wealth tax stems from the moral fact taxation is theft
But this is not the ultimate case right wingers should make against a wealth tax. Think about this. All the rich people are Calvinists who are so strongly committed to hard work no level of taxation will stop them working. Were this so then taxation of their wealth at 100 per cent would be warranted on the consequentialist ground the greatest revenue possible should be raised for the public purse, and, on ensuring intrinsically good equality too. This is clearly wrong. But why? It can’t be because wealth is diminished because it isn’t in this hypothetical.
The ultimate wrong of a wealth tax stems from the moral fact taxation is theft. Theft is taking a person’s property without their consent; taxation takes a person’s property without their consent; thus, taxation is theft. Seizing a man’s property constitutes the use of him as an instrument, a tool, a mere means. No. The natural principle of human respect dictates the property of individuals is sacrosanct. Following this natural principle of human respect ensures the proper harmony of people pursuing their own happiness in their own way. If individuals can’t thieve, neither should the state. Thomas Nagel questioned “taxation is theft” on the alleged grounds that the property rights of the rich are determined by the legal system, meaning, when taxation carves out their wealth no theft occurs because they never had said property rights anyway.
This is implausible. Property is natural as it exists independent of legal systems: Pirates can’t rob a cruise ship simply because it is in international waters and not subject to one. Where a man has grown an apple tree from a seed, sharpened a stick into a spear, or made a pot from clay he has dug, his products rightly belong to him. The creators of wealth are entitled to the sweat of their brow and the ingenuity of their mind. Certainly, seizing the embodied energy of the rich just to ensure everyone is equally poor is the height of immorality: An apelike mentality rearing its ugly head into civilisation.
The envy of the common people is a disgrace. The levelling down the public pine for is rooted in primitive psychology, and, equality as intrinsically valuable as rational argument for that levelling down is patently false. The rich are entitled to the money they have made — taxation is theft — the needs of the people are no warrant to take it. Respect for the private property of the wealthy should undergird opposition to a wealth tax; not it is inexpedient in serving the alleged needs of the poor. Until right wingers uphold respect for creators’ claims, they’ll forever be on the back foot of the moral debate on the distribution of wealth.
