ȃȆǿ Partʺʺ: Politics and Philosophyto be desired by the rich themselves. But if this coerced action would be
noble and praiseworthy, would it not be still more so for each rich person
to redistribute independently? A generous act is tarnished by being made
compulsory and by satisfaction in seeing other persons coerced along with
oneself. Ļose who failed to respond to a campaign for voluntary redis-
tribution—I am setting aside, for the sake of argument, doubts about the
desirability of even such a campaign—could be left unmolested as monu-
ments to the toleration of eccentricity so essential in a free society. Apart
from the matter of voluntary action versus coercion, much can be said for
distribution from numerous individual sources and in favor of a great vari-
ety of independent purposes rather than through the monolithic agency
of the State.
Ļe doctrine of coercive redistribution has a subtle affinity with mate-
rialism. Why should it disturb us that some people are very wealthy? If
we are unwilling to tolerate great superiorities in income and wealth, how
do we feel about superiorities in talent, physical and mental strength and
health, influence through family connections and personal friendships,
ability and time to appreciate conversation and art and music and sports,
amount of formal education, experience gained through travel, and so
forth? People’s circumstances can be different in innumerable ways. Why
do redistributionists single out material inequality unless they think that
money is—and should be—the prime measure of a man’s capacity to enjoy
life and of his worth to himself and other people, his social status, and
his personal dignity? Ļe reason cannot be that material inequality is the
only kind susceptible of being leveled down. We could partially level out
advantages of early training by requiring all children to attend democrati-
cally standardized public schools. (Even some self-styled liberals are per-
verse enough to recommend compulsory military training for similar rea-
sons.) We could level down physical attractiveness by requiring everybody
to wear masks and shapeless uniforms, or we could put especially heavy
taxes on beauty as well as on brains.
Auréle Kolnai has perceptively said:
the true Christian is inclined to feel a certain disdain for the wealthy
inasmuch as he disdains wealth, more or less factitious goods of which
the rich man is a slave, while the believer in the “social gospel” will call
for the elimination of the wealthy for the gain of all because wealth seems
to him to be the sole good that counts. (ȀȈȃȅ, p.Ȇ)
In the old liberal democratic conception, a poor man seemed invested
with human dignity, had a claim to honour and was entitled to freedom