HAPPY NEW YEAR . . .

. . . to all

Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens’ Scary Attack on the Right of ‘Personal Self-Defense'

CBS News reported that Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens calls for repeal of [the] Second Amendment:

Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens is calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment to allow for significant gun control legislation. The 97-year-old Stevens wrote in an op-ed for The New York Times on [March 27, 2018] suggesting a repeal would weaken the National Rifle Association's ability to "block constructive gun control legislation" and be a more "effective and more lasting reform."

Stevens was on the losing end of a 2008 ruling in which the high court held that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to own a gun for self-defense. 

Stevens was on the losing end of a 2008 ruling in which the high court held that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to own a gun for self-defense. He had previously called for changing the Second Amendment to permit gun control.

Stevens said the decision in that case, District of Columbia v. Heller, "has provided the N.R.A. with a propaganda weapon of immense power." Stevens retired from the court in 2010, after more than 35 years. [emphasis added]

Reason’s Damon Root adds:

In his 2008 dissent in District of Columbia v. Heller, Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens insisted that the Second Amendment offers zero protection for what he called the "right to possess and use guns for nonmilitary purposes like hunting and personal self-defense." [emphasis added]

What, exactly, is left of one’s unalienable right to life without the right to defend one’s life, loved ones, and property from those who would threaten it?

In any event, I don't see how repealing the Second Amendment  can in any way mean repeal of  the right to own a gun for self-defense. That right, like all rights, precede government. CBS NEWS is 100% wrong: The Second Amendment does not “give” individuals the right to bear arms. It merely recognizes that right explicitly. 

But even if that explicit recognition is removed, the right remains. That’s because the U.S. Constitution is a grant to the government of delimited powers. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a grant to government of the power to forbid gun ownership for self-defense. So, without the Second Amendment, gun rights would be protected by the Ninth Amendment, which states that “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Of course, judges have been known to twist the plain meaning of the Constitution in order to restrict liberty. But barring an Amendment to explicitly ban private ownership of guns, there is no way the government can legitimately do so, Second Amendment or not. 

Related Reading:

Justice John Paul Stevens Is Wrong About the Second Amendment, Again: The retired justice wants to claw back parts of the Bill of Rights.—Damon Root

Reaction to SCOTUS Gay Marriage Ruling Vindicates Hamilton’s Bill of Rights Warning

Rights are Inalienable, not an Electoral Privilege

Christmas the Secular

Can non-Christians celebrate Christmas? Many do, and why not? I’m an atheist and I have no problem celebrating Christmas, even though it has no religious significance for me.

What’s great about Christmas is that it is both a religious holiday, being based upon the birth of the Christian icon Jesus, and a secular holiday as well. That makes it a holiday for everyone.

How can I say that? I am indebted to philosopher Ayn Rand for resolving that seemingly contradictory proposition. In answer to the question of whether it is appropriate for an atheist to celebrate Christmas, Rand observed:

Yes, of course. A national holiday, in this country, cannot have an exclusively religious meaning. The secular meaning of the Christmas holiday is wider than the tenets of any particular religion: it is good will toward men—a frame of mind which is not the exclusive property… of the Christian religion.

This makes perfect sense. In this regard, I am also indebted to the framers of the U.S. Constitution. As the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." A national religious holiday in a secular nation founded on the principle of separation of church and state (religious/conscientious freedom) is a logical impossibility. Since to have a secular government means to have one that is neutral with regards to the fundamental beliefs of all of its citizens, an American national holiday by definition cannot be religious.

In fact, what we today call Christmas originally didn't have any connection to Jesus at all, writes Onkar Ghate in U.S.News & World Report:

Before Christians co-opted the holiday in the fourth century (there is no reason to believe Jesus was born in December), it was a pagan celebration of the winter solstice, of the days beginning to grow longer. The Northern European tradition of bringing evergreens indoors, for instance, was a reminder that life and production were soon to return to the now frozen earth.

The Romans celebrated the Winter Solstice with the holiday Saturnalia. In Northern Europe, the holiday was called Yule.

Indeed, as philosopher Leonard Peikoff observes over at Capitalism Magazine, the leading secular Christmas symbol - Santa Claus - actually contradicts some standard Christian tenets:

Santa Claus is a thoroughly American invention. ... In 1822, an American named Clement Clarke Moore wrote a poem about a visit from St. Nick. It was Moore (and a few other New Yorkers) who invented St. Nick's physical appearance and personality, came up with the idea that Santa travels on Christmas Eve in a sleigh pulled by reindeer, comes down the chimney, stuffs toys in the kids' stockings, then goes back to the North Pole.

...Santa implicitly rejected the whole Christian ethics. He did not denounce the rich and demand that they give everything to the poor; on the contrary, he gave gifts to rich and poor children alike. Nor is Santa a champion of Christian mercy or unconditional love. On the contrary, he is for justice -- Santa gives only to good children, not to bad ones.

When Congress declared Christmas a National Holiday, in 1870, Christmas ceased being a strictly religious observance and became a secular holiday. A legal religious holiday in a nation dedicated to freedom of religion and conscience is a contradiction. (The Founders used the terms “religion” and conscience” interchangeably. They understood religious freedom to include the freedom not to believe in or practice any religion, or even God—in effect, not just freedom of religion, but freedom from religion as well.) Being a national legal holiday, Christmas can have non-religious, non-Christian meaning just as validly as a Christian meaning. It’s a matter of individual preference. Otherwise, what’s the point of freedom of conscience?

So, regardless of your personal beliefs, go ahead and enjoy Christmas on your own terms.

On that note, let me extend to everyone a hearty wish for a joyous, safe, and thoroughly non-contradictory…

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

Related Reading:

How the Welfare State Stole Christmas, by Yaron Brook and Don Watkins

Don't Need Christ to Celebrate Christmas

Why Christmas Should be More Commercial—Leonard Peikoff

Conservatives’ Christianization of Christmas and the Left’s Multiculturalism Are Both Un-American

David Greenberg of Rutgers posted a guest editorial in the New Jersey Star-Ledger just before Christmas 2017 lamenting the battle over holiday greetings. In a 12/23/17 print article titled ‘“How Christmas Became a Political Hot Potato” (Trump's dreaming of a white man's Christmas - an unhappy holiday for most is the online title, 12/15/17), Greenberg writes, in part:

The holiday season is here again, and as a break from arguing about sexual harassment, we can all look forward to a lovely spell of denouncing and unfriending one another over which holiday greetings to use. 

With Donald Trump as president, we can be sure that no cultural scab will go unpicked. After all, among his many pioneering achievements, Trump is our first president to win the White House— at least in part — on a pledge to roll back the freedom to say “Happy Holidays.” 

“I’m a good Christian,” he insisted on the campaign trail. “If I become president, we’re gonna be saying ‘Merry Christmas’ at every store. ... You can leave ‘Happy holidays’ at the corner.”

How on Earth did such an innocent gesture become so politically charged?

Of course, the Christian Right has been railing about “Happy Holidays” for a long time. It’s part of their campaign to fight an imagined “War on Christmas” and to lecture us to “keep Christ in Christmas.” But Greenberg makes the valid point that Christmas has become increasingly secular:

The secular consensus gained strength in the 1960s and ’70s, as the Supreme Court ruled prayer in public schools to be unconstitutional and otherwise reinforced the traditional wall between church and state. 

As recently as a few years ago, Trump bade his fellow Americans “a wonderful holiday” and “happy holiday season” — precisely the sort of inclusive messaging that he would assail as a candidate.

This is true. I would add that, since Christmas was made a legal holiday by both the Federal and state Governments, it is by definition a secular holiday. How can a religious observance be a legal holiday in a nation dedicated to the separation of religion and state? It can’t—not without violating the constitutional protection of religious freedom and freedom of conscience, which reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an estabishment of religion." This issue went before U.S. District Court in Ganulin v. United States, in which the Court ruled that the recognition of Christmas as a legal holiday for purposes of a paid day off did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because “the Christmas holiday has become largely secularized” and that the government was “doing no more than recognizing the cultural significance of the holiday.” The attempt by any political leader to Christianize Christmas is therefor un-American and a violation of the very Constitution that our political leaders pledge to preserve and protect. People are, of course, free to celebrate the Christmas season in any way they like, with or without Christ, with or without religion, and with or without the greeting “Merry Christmas”. The First Amendment also forbids Congress from "prohibiting the free excorcise [of religion] therof." That’s America.

But the Left’s “solution” to the Christian Right’s pushback against “Happy Holidays” is at least as bad, if not worse. Greenberg goes on:

As the Republican Party adopted a right-wing populism on cultural issues, it was only a matter of time before this delicate balance was upset. The country grew polarized. 

Democrats championed multiculturalism and drew on their civil libertarian bona fides to paint themselves as the natural home for Muslims, Hindus and members of other religions whose ranks were swelling. On the right, Christian leaders such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson led evangelicals into the political fray, forming a bedrock of a new GOP coalition.

Multiculturalism is a rejection of American culture, which is rooted in individualism.

More precisely, multiculturalism obliterates the very idea that America has its own unique culture. It rejects the idea that all people are created equal by virtue of our common humanity as beings possessing the capacity for reason. America's unique culture of individualism declares that every single one of us should be judged on the content of our character, not our race, cultural background, national origin, or other insignificant attribute. Of course, every person is free to follow her own cultural traditions without interference, within the context of American individualism. But that is not how the Left portrays America. They don't say that America is an individualist nation that allows for the peaceful observance of many different traditions. They say America is a multicultural nation. Under a veneer of “inclusiveness”, multiculturalism sneaks in collectivism by tribalizing America into racial, cultural, or ethnic group identities, undercutting American culture and the individual rights that naturally flow from that individualist culture. The corollary of this is to undercut the principle of inalienable individual rights, held equally by all individuals, and protected equally at all times by government under the law—and to switch the concept of rights from the individual to the group, paving the way for government to favor some groups over others at the expense of political equality.

Whether the religious conservatives’ attempt to Christianize the secular end-of-year Christmas season is a reaction to the Left’s multiculturalism, or the other way around, both are an attack on Americanism. I reject both viewpoints. America is neither a Christian nation nor a multicultural nation. It is an American nation—a nation of the Enlightenment including the values of reason, individualism, freedom of conscience, and free market capitalism.

In honor of America’s unique, singular culture of secular individualism, let me say HAPPY HOLIDAYS and to all!

Related Reading:

A ‘War on Christmas?’ No: A War on non-Christians

Move Over, ‘Happy Holidays’: Starbucks’ Cup Opens a New Front in the ‘War on Christmas’

Christmas: A Holiday for All

"Learning Experience", or Anti-Americanism?

My Commentary On State/Church Separation: "What's hard to understand about 'separation'"?

‘Finance-Free Politics’ Would Free Politicians from Accountability to the People they Legislate Over

Former federal government economist Alan L Moss has posted a guest column for the New Jersey Star-Ledger calling for a constitutional amendment to outlaw private campaign financing. His motive is blatantly political: It’s “How we can avoid another Trump-type presidency.”

But deeper than that, he wants to “provide candidates with freedom from the need to raise enormous amounts of money”:

The Founding Fathers visualized an American republic that would provide enlightened respect for common citizens and require dedication, honesty, and virtue in its elected representatives. The ills that frustrate today’s voters are the result of the unchecked power of special interests and lobbyists, and their interaction with our method of campaign financing. Political representatives who serve special interests instead of the greater good of the nation are the predictable consequence of the absence of countervailing power to offset the impact of factions and their massive resources.

To rectify this dilemma, we must open the door to finance-free politics so our elected representatives return their focus to legislation and the quest to serve the public. To free our representatives to do what’s right, we must eliminate the corrupting influence of private campaign contributions. A constitutional amendment to restrict funding for all federal campaigns to resources administered by a federal government agency could provide candidates with freedom from the need to raise enormous amounts of money.

My emphasis. It’s shocking that he would think the Founding Fathers would approve. The Founders clearly believed that “do what’s right” should be up to the people as individuals engaging through intellectual freedom. That’s what the First Amendment is all about. That’s the Amendment Moss would partially repeal. I posted these comments:

Freedom of speech is a fundamental right, and money is fundamental to the freedom to express that right. Freedom of speech is not mere freedom of opinion, but freedom to express one’s opinions to others--as many others as you can reach at your own expense. Private campaign financing is a key form of free speech, and to eliminate private financing is to outlaw a crucial means to free speech.

A key way to keep politicians accountable is private campaign financing. Someone who seeks office must go hat-in-hand to the citizenry for money. That some candidates can self-finance is beside the point. It’s their money, and voters still must decide based on what they say. A lawmaker with “freedom from the need to raise enormous amounts of money” —his own or others’—is a lawmaker who is free from accountability to the people he represents.  

Politicians wield legalized force. That’s what legislation is. Law is force. And the people making law should be accountable to the people they legislate over, not to a federal government agency that they create, control, and fund with money they taxed away from the citizens whom they have stripped of choice regarding political spending. 

An Amendment to ban private campaign financing would let the most dangerous faction, the political class, monopolize who could run for office. Moss’s narrow personal aim is clear--to prevent the “mistake” of someone who opposes his political agenda from getting into office. Far from countering “the impact of factions”—and more ominously—it would empower victorious factions to stifle opposing factions via the federal campaign control agency. It would immorally force taxpayers to finance candidates they wouldn’t otherwise, protect incumbents from challenge, and partially repeal the First Amendment. 

The statists are getting more brazen. They are now openly declaring that if they lose an election, the people’s individual liberties must be curtailed.

Related Reading:

Why Free Speech and Spending on Speech are Inextricably Linked

Incumbents’ Fear of 'Wild, Wild West' Campaign Funding is a Good Thing

Yes, ‘Big Money’ in Politics Fosters Ideological Debate—and That’s a Good Thing

A Constitutional Amendment to "Limit" Campaign Spending Would Neuter the First Amendment

Government Monopsony vs. Private ‘Monopsony’

One of the most devastating threats to free markets in particular, and freedom more broadly, is to evade the distinction between economic power and political power.

Economic power to derived from voluntary choices. It is a measure of the value consumers place on the goods of producers. It doesn’t matter whether the goods are produced by a giant corporation like Amazon or Merck, or by individuals like plumbers or secretaries. When a consumer buys something from Amazon, that consumer is awarding economic power to Amazon. When a consumer hires a plumber, that consumer is awarding economic power to that plumber. Importantly, that consumer can withdraw that power anytime she decides that a different retailer or plumber better suits her purposes. It’s all voluntary: Economic power is the power to create economic value for consumers willing to buy it.

Political power is the power of physical force; that is, the power to legally override the voluntary choices of consumers. You have a choice on whether to patronize Amazon or abide by its terms of sale, by virtue of the freedom to just not buy its product. You have no choice on whether to “patronize” Medicare or conform to a government law or regulation. You cannot simply walk away, lest you be fined or thrown in jail. 

It has been said that “power is power.” That’s not true. There is a black-and-white difference between the power to produce and persuade and the power to physically force. To fail to recognize this distinction is dangerous. One of the areas in which this distinction is evaded is in the issue of monopoly. A true monopoly is when the government protects a business by legally forbidding competition, leaving the consumer with no alternate choice. A good example of this is electric utilities or the United States Post office regarding first class mail. These have been labeled “coercive monopolies” because their “market” position is cemented by political power. That is a coercive monopoly. A market monopoly—a dominant market position earned without access to government protection—is not a true monopoly, because competitors are free to enter and compete.

The corollary of monopoly power is monopsony—the capture of a market through buying rather than product activity. And like with monopoly, there is a sharp distinction between a coercive monopsony and a market monopsony. Blurring the distinction between the two is the classic tactic of the statist.

Monopsony power is the latest tactic of the economic regulators. In Booker, Warren take aim at chains that use ‘non-poaching’ deals to keep workers stuck at one store, Washington Post reporter Jeff Stein reports:

Say you work at a Jiffy Lube 30 miles from your house. You're happy enough there, but when you see an opening at another Jiffy Lube that's around the corner from where you live, you can't resist applying. You think you've got a decent chance; after all, you're already trained for the job. After you apply, however, you don't hear anything back.

It's possible you just weren't the candidate they wanted. But it's also possible that you were never even considered because your local Jiffy Lube was barred from hiring you, thanks to a “non-poaching” agreement it signed with the corporate headquarters. The non-poaching pacts vary, but generally they eliminate or limit franchise owners' ability to hire workers from other locations within the franchise.

The agreements are common at fast-food giants like Burger King and chains like Jiffy Lube and H&R Block in other industries, and they’re gaining prominence: Non-poaching clauses are now included in up to 56 percent of large franchises, up about 20 percent from two decades ago, according to a report published Wednesday by two prominent economists.

Worker advocacy groups have long opposed such agreements, arguing they hurt employees' leverage in negotiating raises and stifle worker pay. And now the agreements are drawing renewed scrutiny from Democratic lawmakers — as well as from President Trump's Justice Department.

Democratic Sens. Cory Booker (N.J.) and Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) on Thursday introduced legislation that would make these arrangements illegal, calling them an “anti-competitive” practice and giving workers the ability to sue and the right to claim damages.

But this is market monopsony power. The “non-poaching” agreement Is just that--an agreement. It is non-coercive and limited to within the company. It is mutually agreed among all parties--the parent company, the franchisee, and the employee. The employee is free to seek employment outside the company, and the franchise owner is free to hire from outside the company. 

But “This is patently unfair and against the ideals of a so-called free market,” Booker said in an interview, forgetting that the “free” in free market means free from government coercion.

This attack on private voluntary contract is particularly outrageous since both Warren and Booker have endorsed the mother-of-all coercive monopsonies--Medicare for All. The existing Medicare program is already a monopsony over the over 65-year-old healthcare market. If Warren and Booker were truly against monopsony power, they would call for the phaseout of existing Medicare. Instead, they want to expand the Medicare monopsony to the entire healthcare market. The same goes for the public school monopsony.

How do Warren and Booker get away with so blatant a double standard--seeking to ban market monopsony power limited only to private parties who voluntarily agree while expanding coercive monopsony power enforced by law? By cashing in on ignorance of the difference between political and economic power, and then inverting the two so that coercion is seen as good and voluntarism as bad.

In fact, just as with monopoly, a market monopsony is not a monopsony at all, because coercion is absent and therefore competitive alternatives cannot be blocked. As with the issue of monopoly, a true monopsony can only grow out of the barrel of a governmental gun—that is, by law.

Warren and Booker have it exactly backwards. Private companies like Burger King, Jiffy Lube, and H&R Block have every right to make “non-poaching” agreements. Whether preventing an employee from moving to a job 30 miles closer to home and thus risk losing a valuable employee, the example cited in the beginning of the article, is good business is questionable. And the example may be a red herring. And if an employee is not made aware of the non-poaching aspect of his job when he is hired, critics may have a case based on transparency or anti-fraud issues. But it is the right of the company to allow such agreements among its franchisees. It is an abuse of power for the government to outlaw such private agreements, or to use its power of law to monopsonize any market for goods and services.

Political versus economic power: That is the issue that must be grasped. A good place to grasp and understand this distinction is Harry Binswanger’s essay The Dollar and the Gun, reprinted by permission from Why Businessmen Need Philosophy on his HBL newsletter.

Related Reading:

A Lesson in the Crucial Distinction Between Economic and Political Power

Blaming the Remaining Fragments of Healthcare Freedom for Problems Caused by Government

The rest of my articles published under the label “Economic vs. Political Power” that relate this dangerous equivocation to concrete issues.

The Dollar and the Gun by Harry Binswanger

QUORA: 'What makes Wikipedia so detested by teachers?'

QUORA: What makes Wikipedia so detested by teachers?

[Sub-note from QUORA: “You were redirected because the question What makes Wikipedia so detested by teachers? was merged with this question.”]

Who knows? Maybe frustrated intellectual power-lust. The teaching profession has lost some power to influence their students’ minds because Wikipedia has made it so easy to check what they’re being taught. Or maybe teachers just resent being questioned by students who have consulted Wikipedia.

In any event, at least one teacher gave Wikipedia it’s proper due. Richard Muller, Prof Physics, UC Berkeley, author of "Physics for Future Presidents", had a great answer. Not only does Muller not discourage kids from consulting Wikipedia, he affirmatively encourages them to use it. 

[Students] have been scolded for using Wikipedia. And yet they had discovered that starting with Wikipedia was the best way to research a topic. Finally, from me, they heard someone in a position of authority confirming what they already had determined to be true. 

I agree. It’s refreshing whenever I encounter a teacher who has such a strong sense of self to proclaim that he doesn’t know everything. A true educator seeks to encourage self-learning and expand his students’ knowledge, wherever that comes from. Collectively, the teaching profession is the most full-of itself profession. It’s over-inflated sense of its own importance evades the fact that by far most learning occurs after the student has left school. The ability to self-learn and a love of doing so are the legacies of a great teacher. And there are great teachers. Muller concludes:

When I was a student, Wikipedia didn’t exist, and the teachers admonished us never to look up answers in an Encyclopedia. Of course I used encyclopedias! And I learned how to disguise the fact that I did so. Now it is Wikipedia.

Amen. A “teacher” who discourages students from looking outside the classroom for knowledge and perspective and bringing it into the classroom, be it Wikipedia, Fox News or CNN, books, et al, is not a true educator. There is no one source for learning.

I left this simple reply to Muller:

My middle school granddaughter told me that a teacher discouraged students from using Wikipedia, saying “You can’t trust everything you read on Wikipedia.” My answer: “You can’t trust everything a teacher tells you, either.”

QUORA: ‘Why do law schools teach constitutional law but not the Declaration of Independence as an animating principle?’

QUORA: ‘Why do law schools teach constitutional law but not the Declaration of Independence as an animating principle?’

Here is my posted answer:

I can’t answer the question directly. But I strongly suspect that the answer lies in the field of political philosophy and that the omission is not accidental.

The question points to a crucial philosophical conflict that has been raging for 200 years. The final outcome of this battle will ultimately determine the future of America as a free country. Constitutional and legal scholar Timothy Sandefur takes on this divide in his book, The Conscience of the Constitution: The Declaration of Independence and the Right to Liberty. In this book, Sandefur answers the question “Is liberty or democracy the primary constitutional value?”

At a time when Americans are increasingly facing violations of their civil liberties, Timothy Sandefur's insightful new book explains why the Declaration of Independence, with its doctrines on the primacy of liberty, the natural rights of man, and the limits on legitimate government, should serve as the guidepost for understanding the Constitution. The author takes the reader through the ideas of substantive due process and judicial activism and defends them from mainstream criticisms while drawing on examples from literature, television, and Supreme Court cases. The Conscience of the Constitution: The Declaration of Independence and the Right to Liberty argues that modern legal doctrines, which value democracy over liberty, are endangering individual rights and corrupting our civic institutions.

 

Obviously, those who value liberty honor the Declaration of Independence. Statists have every reason to devalue the Declaration. Sandefur comes down squarely on the side of individual liberty, as do I. Pro-liberty forces have powerful backing for the belief that the Declaration is the Constitution’s, and the nation’s, “animating principle.” Giants such as leading Abolitionist Frederick Douglass drew upon the Declaration in his fight to end slavery.  Emancipationist President Abraham Lincoln, Civil Rights leader Martin Luther King, and Gay Rights leader Harvey Milk did as well in their fights for equal political rights. 

Do the law schools really not teach the Declaration of Independence as an animating principle? If not, shame on them, because as Harvey Milk put it, 

In the Declaration of Independence it is written “All men are created equal and they are endowed with certain inalienable rights . . . .” That’s what America is. No matter how hard you try, you cannot erase those words from the Declaration of Independence.

Related Reading:

On This Constitution Day, Remember the Declaration of Independence

There is No Society to “Pay Back” To

Letter published in the New Jersey Star-Ledger, March 26, 2018, page 6 (not available online as of this writing):

It’s called paying back to society

To the letter writer who wants to know why he should have to pay for NJ transit upgrades when he doesn’t use mass transit (“Murphy’s taxes will eat up federal tax cuts,” March 23): All the people who do use mass transit could be in their own cars, which would make everyone’s lives more miserable because of the massive increase in traffic and pollution. And why should you pay school taxes even though you don’t have kids in school? Because the kids in school today will be the health care providers and scientists and engineers, etc., who will be running the world that you live in tomorrow. That is what a society does.

Barbara Egger, Lakewood

This is one of the most devious arguments for forced redistribution of wealth.

Society doesn’t “do” anything. “Society”  is an abstraction denoting a number of individuals. Only individuals think, learn, work, and trade. The premise behind catchphrases like “paying back to society" is that some people must be forced to hand their money over to the state, so that some politically connected others can use the gun-backed machinery of government to legally force their values on unwilling individuals.

It’s true that, without mass transit, traffic would increase. But that doesn’t explain why an auto commuter should subsidize a rail commuter. I may benefit with less traffic. But he benefits through lower auto expenses, less traffic aggravation, and convenience. Mass transit is not conducive to all travelers and all occupations. Why should I, a construction tradesman, subsidize a professional who works out of the same office day after day? Why does he rate a lower fare at my expense?

The argument for school taxes is even worse. Many become health care providers, scientists, and engineers. But I don’t benefit from any of those fields without paying an actual health care provider, scientist, or engineer—not all of them, just the few that I patronize. And many people go into fields I never use, such as work for tobacco companies. Why should I pay for them? Others may go into a life of crime, or become politicians who advocate for government policies with which I disagree, such as government schools. Why should I pay for them?

Collectivism is a great moral escape hatch. It serves as a semi-plausible justification for running roughshod over others. But there is no moral justification for forcing some individual members of society to pay the expenses of other members—especially in a field like education, where school taxes in effect put government officials in charge of what is being taught, how it is being taught, and to what end. State schools are not a feature of a free society.  

In a just society, parents pay for educating their own minor children. Career education is ultimately the responsibility of the adult individual. I pay for the education of the doctor, the engineer, the plumber only indirectly as and when I need a doctor’s or an engineer’s or a plumber’s service, through the fees, salaries, or wages of the doctor, engineer, or plumber, when and as I choose. I have no unchosen obligation to pay for anyone’s education, kid or adult, under the rationalization that they “will be running the world that you live in tomorrow,” when in fact they will be running their own lives and financially benefiting from their own chosen occupations. And no one has the obligation to pay for mine. To force people to pay other people’s expenses through government taxes is a moral abomination. To justify the moral abomination through collectivist sloganeering—like “paying back to society” or “That is what a society does”—just adds an unhealthy dose of dishonesty to the moral abomination.

Related Reading:

Society’s ‘Lottery Winners’ and ‘Give Back’ vs. Win-Win

Give Back? Yes, It's Time For The 99% To Give Back To The 1%—Harry Binswanger

'Give Back' Is One of the World's Most Impoverishing Commands—Yaron Brook and Don Watkins

"Give Back" is a Sinister Ploy to Guilt Achievers Into Giving Up What They Have Earned