Tax Cuts for the Rich
By Arnold Kling
Philosopher Keith Burgess-Jackson dissects the phrase.
Nobody, to the liberal, has a valid claim on anything, even his or her talents. Those who produce or acquire wealth do so not because of effort, initiative, creativity, or sacrifice. They’re just lucky. They were born healthy and into loving families. Others are unlucky. They were born unhealthy or into indifferent families. Since none of us is entitled to what we have at birth, none of us is entitled to anything we produce thereafter. We might call this, to borrow a term from the criminal law, the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine. Wealth, to the liberal, belongs to all of us in common, not to any of us in particular. There are possessions, but not property.
For Discussion. John Locke argued that man has an inalienable right to the fruits of his labor. Is there a reasonable compromise between that view and the view attributed to contemporary liberals by Burgess-Jackson?