Some so-called intellectuals in our society these days really come up with the most asinine methods to solving issues affecting the country. This is no more apparent than listening to the words of Thom Hartmann, a liberal political commentator and former psychotherapist.
In a recent broadcast of his radio show, he had Peter Schiff on to discuss astronomical wealth. Hartmann argued for banning and confiscating wealth – ironically enough, Schiff attended the 2012 Democratic National Convention and the people he spoke with wanted to do the exact same thing.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with a man or a company in earning $1 million, $500 million or $1 billion as long as he or the business operates within the market and not using the coercive hand of government or operating fraudulently.
What is wrong is when egalitarians fight against liberty and say it’s for the benefit of the state and the people. The problem is that these individuals are economically illiterate and can’t understand that the root of most problems is government intrusion and central banking.
When proponents put equality ahead of freedom they end up with neither.
Here is what Murray N. Rothbard wrote about wealth confiscation in “Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays”:
“The great German sociologist Franz Oppenheimer pointed out that there are two mutually exclusive ways of acquiring wealth; one, the above way of production and exchange, he called the “economic means.” The other way is simpler in that it does not require productivity; it is the way of seizure of another’s goods or services by the use of force and violence. This is the method of one-sided confiscation, of theft of the property of others. This is the method which Oppenheimer termed “the political means” to wealth. It should be clear that the peaceful use of reason and energy in production is the “natural” path for man: the means for his survival and prosperity on this earth. It should be equally clear that the coercive, exploitative means is contrary to natural law; it is parasitic, for instead of adding to production, it subtracts from it. The “political means” siphons production off to a parasitic and destructive individual or group; and this siphoning not only subtracts from the number producing, but also lowers the producer’s incentive to produce beyond his own subsistence. In the long run, the robber destroys his own subsistence by dwindling or eliminating the source of his own supply. But not only that; even in the short-run, the predator is acting contrary to his own true nature as a man.”
Anyway, Schiff has definitely had some very interesting interviews as of late. This is one of the latest so be sure to check back for any more in the future.