GILLMAN JR. | ‘Yes’ or ‘no’: Welfare is coercive redistribution, on par with theft

• Tweet
• 

Walter Williams, syndicated columnist and professor of economics at George Mason University, posed the following questions in his latest column.

Outside of the context of punishment, do you think that it is moral and just to force one person to serve the purposes of another? Your options are ‘yes’ or ‘no.’

If that same person does not peacefully submit to the above course of action, do you believe that the initiation of force is justified? Yet again, ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ That’s it.

Just like Williams mentioned in his piece, there are going to be those out there fidgeting, just waiting to tell me that “it depends” or that “it’s not black or white.”

A ‘yes’ response to the above questions would mean things like slavery are good and fine. Clearly, people aren’t going to actually come out and say ‘yes.’

On the other hand, many people would be hesitant to answer ‘no’ as well. These are the people who support things like social security, bailouts and welfare.

These people also know that in order to operate, these programs required forced acquisition. Saying ‘no’ would require them to denounce such programs.

Deductive logic shows that the answers to the above questions really are black and white – you either support forced taking or you don’t.

With things like bailouts, for example, it’s not even an issue of whether a capitalist system would correct things on its own.

It’s an issue of the government forcefully taking your private property that you worked for and transferring it to someone else.

The interesting thing, though, which wasn’t brought up by Williams, is that other things are encompassed in the same moral sense that do not have a direct tie to property transfer.

I’ll use anti-smoking legislation for an example.

Making it illegal for business owners to allow smoking in their establishment doesn’t necessarily involve the transfer of property from one party to another. However, there is still involuntary third-party control exerted on the proprietor’s private property.

Another example is government involvement in labor relations. Part of the labor code, 29USC159, states that an employer is required to bargain with the elected representative of a union.

Yet again, property transfer isn’t occurring. However, the business owner’s private property rights are being abrogated – ironically on the claim that “it’s fair.”

So what say you? ‘Yes’ or ‘no’?