Economic limitarianism

Only a comfortable academic philosopher or sociologist could come up with theorized thoughts cloaked in jargon labels to limit anyone's accumulation of personal wealth. I, for one, do not wish to limit anyone's bank accounts or properties. However, I believe everyone should pay taxes on every dollar — no offshore accounts — and every piece of property. Then, the government will have the money in its general coffers to address poverty, infrastructure, environmental concerns and more.

I'm not a millionaire, billionaire or centi-billionaire, but we know the names of some who are. We, having less, have no right to that of those having more, even if it is much, much more. Of course, they, having so much, also do not have the right to what little we have. I feel most people do not envy or covet that of others.

I agree not with the idea of putting a cap on the super rich's money and properties. You see, if that could be done, then, the day could very well arrive that the same authority and legislation could be used to adjust certain figures that could cast me and you into a category or bracket to limit our accumulations. Moreover, we collectively, by our preferential selections, assured that some would accumulate wealth.

Philosophers and sociologists deem "normative" and "normativity" generally as actions or outcomes as good, desirable or permissible, and others as bad, undesirable or impermissible. Normative economics means what ought to be versus what it is. For example: "I pity that man who wants a coat so cheap that the man or woman who produces the cloth shall starve in the process" — attributed to a former U.S. President.

In a nutshell, I wish all men were as rich as I am. Having put away the dreams of avarice, I make both ends meet. From the end of one pay period to the beginning of another, all expenses are sufficiently managed. I am thankful for all that is in place.

As any other person, I'm concerned about the House of Have and the House of Want. And, as you do, I also do give to pious and worthy causes upon having a bit left over after disbursements, but too, I'm sometimes regretfully wasteful. Other than philanthropy that media keeps track of, it is presumptuous to opine what the superrich do with much of their wealth. We have a measure of hope that they do and shall endorse noblesse oblige for distributive unmet urgent needs.

The concept of reining in the mega-wealthy is a novel theorized topic stamped by opinion. At any rate, we must be entirely neutral and objective about the issue. Sure, the wealthy wish to be influential in certain spheres — but don't we all? — however, I think few do desire or wish for government by the wealthy.

By the way, the memorable expression the rich get richer and the poor get poorer has been handed down to us by tradition from previous generations. It does not always ring true. I was once poor as a church mouse, and now, through blood, sweat and tears — mostly tears, I'm in a bit of a better class. I'm economically viable, and I hope no one finds that morally objectionable. That's my two cents worth.

The author (wrjones@vsu.edu) published the novella "Beyond Harvard" and presently teaches English as a second language.