"Giving Back" by Walter Williams

[A18]

Walter Williams is spot on. Of course, the wealthy may have a moral obligation to engage in charity. But it's the notion that they must "give back" to society that is terminally absurd.

[A18]

A basic definition of trade is "to give in exchange for something else." Williams is not claiming that these individuals have engaged in charity. Rather, he is making the point that should be absolutely obvious. If I receive money for nothing, then it may be legitimate to say that I should "give something back." But these individuals already "gave" to society in the form of their contributions to commerce.

A free market economy is based on mutual assistance. Too many people fail to grasp this basic (but fundamental) insight.

[A18]

To "give" and to "give a gift" are not always, and in all contexts, two expressions for the same thing. I did not think this required citation, but if it does, I suppose dictionary.com is as good as any other internet source. See various entries under exchange and trade.

The notion that a person should "give back" to society implies that he has taken something without offering any consideration. It seems to me that that alone is what Williams is addressing, when he says that these people have "given"--that they received their money by improving the welfare of "society."

But I suppose there is no need for us to quibble over semantics. It appears we agree in principle. Those who earn wealth in a free market have neither engaged in charity, nor have they "exploited" anyone (for lack of a better, equally succinct term). They have benefited themselves and society through mutually beneficial exchange; with, of course, the standard caveat that results are not always in line with expectations.

[A18]

Precision is important in stating and evaluating statistics. But I don't know what so-called social mobility has to do with this subject, anyway. Even supposing that the entire class of people arbitrarily defined as "rich" merely inherited large sums of money, they have not "taken" from society at large without offering compensation, but from family. A person may well have a moral obligation to, in appropriate form and in appropriate circumstances, "pay back" his parents for all they've done for him, but that's entirely beside the point. (The family members, moreover, have obviously in this case died.)

Of course, all the principles at issue in this discussion apply equally in the case of the non-rich.