Calls to 'Abolish Billionaires' Are a Moral Travesty by Keith Lockitch

There’s a new campaign slogan among Democratic politicians: “Abolish Billionaires.” Nobody can honestly deserve a billion dollars, they claim, so they want to impose radical new taxes on the super-wealthy. Indeed, people are arguing that the very existence of billionaires is some kind of moral outrage.

Wealthy people are being blamed today for all the world’s problems. Yet all of those problems are actually the result of the very ideas being preached by the same leaders and intellectuals who want to “abolish” the billionaires.

But instead of vilifying and hating billionaires, we should be thanking them for improving all of our lives on a massive scale with the products they offer for voluntary trade on a free market.

As Ayn Rand argued in her novel Atlas Shrugged, if anyone deserves thanks on Thanksgiving, it’s those productive Atlases who carry the whole world on their shoulders.

Join Keith Lockitch as he argues that the real moral travesty is the campaign to abolish billionaires.

SUBSCRIBE TO NEW IDEAL, ARI'S ONLINE PUBLICATION

SUBSCRIBE TO ARI’S YOUTUBE CHANNEL

SUPPORT THE AYN RAND INSTITUTE WITH A DONATION

EXPLORE ARI

FOLLOW ARI ON TWITTER

LIKE ARI ON FACEBOOK

[mikeyhartman]

I worked since the age of 11. I'm now 63 and have earned my fortune I had businesses that provided jobs, created revenue for the feds, put kids thru school, fed families. No one did it for me. My companirs, were started from scratch, some succeeded most failed. It eas much pain and suffering. People who want us to pay and give away for our success like I did to gain the large zeros are really ignorant. They have never failed, struggled, lost everything more than 3 times like these peopke did. Despite my hard times I still chugged along. Took 35 years to get there. People who never did this have no clue what it takes to earn wealth. Nobody gave it to me. But they sure know how to take it from the producers. These billionaires are a necessity and the bums don't know the consequences of punishing them for creating value.

[TheTektronik]

"We live in a time when producers are demonized, those who refuse to produce are subsidized, and those who complain are canonized". - Thomas Sowell

[williamsawyer]

Some of the comments appear to reflect an absence of understanding of the actual argument being presented in the webinar. Those comments also suggest that somehow only the rich 'fund candidates having their interests at heart or willing to enact legislation favouring them'. Small contributors do exactly the same thing. In fact, many candidates in the US boastfully point out how much of their campaign revenue comes from 'small' contributors, and even eschew contributions from corporations and wealthy donors. Are those small contributors somehow uniquely selfless, or iconoclastically disinterested? Hardly. And, if elections are 'bought', it is NOT the individuals, wealthy or not, who make contributions to campaigns that are at fault. It is the people who are persuaded by messages that are not logical or reasonable, irrespective of WHO pays for them. Billionaires don't exploit anyone, they don't become rich on the backs of society. They get to be billionaires by innovating / developing / providing a product that is worth the money that many people are willing to pay for it. Not one single person on the face of the earth is forced to buy a JK Rowling book. But, apparently tens of thousands do, for their own personal pleasure. If any other person is creatively capable of writing a book, or series of books, that is as appealing as any of the books she has written, they should, and can, BY ALL MEANS do it! Then, they will earn the money that she has earned by producing a better product. No person is forced to buy an Apple iPhone, or a Microsoft operating system. And, if any other person is creatively capable of creating a product as functional and appealing as an iPhone, or that is as functional and productive as the Microsoft operating system, BY ALL MEANS do it! No person is in any way forced to use Amazon. There are plenty of retail outlets - physical and cyber-based - selling the same products. Yet, Jeff Bezos has fundamentally transformed commerce by implementing an idea that HE had. If anyone else had something of equal intellectual or commercial value to offer, they could have done the same. But, apparently no one did. And, suggesting that the money earned by billionaires somehow sits unused in a bank account is ludicrous. Wealthy people invest, in small businesses, in big businesses. Yes, they even invest extensively in charitable foundations. The 'trickle down' is absolutely enormous. Bill Gates doesn't store his money away in a mattress, unused, and untouched. Steve Jobs did not. Jeff Bezos doesn't. They, and others, have applied their creative ability to the development of products that OTHER people find valuable, that OTHER people are willing to pay for. If you don't want them to make that money, don't buy their products or use their service. The same comments could be made about Elon Musk, about Larry Ellison, about Richard Branson, about George Soros. Frankly, the point of the webinar was really not about somehow 'defending' their wealth, but emphasizing the moral iniquity of singling out a minority for discriminatory treatment. And, that is exactly what the calls to abolish billionaires represents

[eanu]

Those who want to be rich should NEVER talk negatively about those who are rich. Why? They will never reach riches and remain where they are financially.

[jish]

Fine, once there's no more homelessness and poverty, THEN billionaires can exist. Until that happens, we need to abolish them in every way shape and form. If we want to reduce inflation immensely and return to everything being more achievable, we need to remove the incentive to keep raising prices, which means abolishing the concept of having a billion dollars or more.

[freeenergyeducationinterna]

The issue is who is Mouch and Dagney's brother on one hand, and Rearden and Gault on the other? Anyone rich on Federal reserve notes is guilty of a lot of injustice all the way down the supply chain. The question is when are we all going to get violently sick of ourselves and leave civilization like we are supposed to?

[Deltelly]

This "attack" on billionaires isn't an attack on innovation, I'm sure most of the "attackers" greatly appreciate what they have created and it is disingenuous to frame it as such. What disgusts them most is the huge wealth disparity, especially when far too many are struggling to even eat, that and a feeling that we are all in this together. Didn't the billionaires get that way on the back of society as a whole? I doubt that a wealth tax would damage innovation. No one has ever said "I don't think I'll bother with this business venture unless I can become a billionaire".

[Deltelly]

On the question of power, I don't believe you are so naive to believe there is no corruption in government, the very rich and large corporations fund candidates having their interests at heart or willing to enact legislation favouring them. So the rich do have political power right now. I think it would be great if you could end the corruption entirely but it's hard to imagine. Remember here that it is those with money who intentionally try and buy power to favour their interests so the fault of coercion lies with them too. By the way, the idea of a free society with no coercion sounds like an impossibility given human nature. At the very least wouldn't you have to coercively control those that would coerce others?