Tell me, Huerta, is there no point at which private property becomes an absurdity? Are there no rational limits, simply a sacred principle that trumps all others? Suppose a man were to amass enough money to buy the Grand Canyon (or, more practically, buy enough Senators and Reps to make it so…) May he then fence it off for his own, personal enjoyment?
A rich man can afford better medical care for his children. Are his children more deserving that yours, or mine? Are they to be disciplined for their rather foolish choice in parents? A rich man can afford better education for his children, are his children inherently smarter, save for that initial choice? Are they, by some magic, destined to be better citizens, or simply more powerful citizens?
A rich man indulges his narcissism with a grossly self-indulgent mansion, with solid gold bidets. If we tax his wealth so that he cannot afford another, is he somehow injured, deprived of some essential human right? Are we to weep for his deprivation, when his fellow citizen, endowed by the same Creator with the same unalienable rights, has to choose which of his children to buy shoes for?
Private property is a right, of course, but it is not above all others. It is not as if property rights were the essential crown jewel, and all the other rights are mere embellishments, to be abandoned if they conflict with the most important right, property.
Our fellow Americans, are they our people? Or not? And if they are not our people, if they do not have good reason to rely on our generosity and good will, who’s people are they?
“Its not a crime to be poor in America, but it may as well be.”