Entitlement to the fruits and labor of others?

[Martinius]

Friends,
I spotted a thread on the "American Politics" forum that asked the question:
"Liberals, why do you believe people are entitled to the work of others?"

Since this was asked in a politics forum, the responses mostly were focused on politics or economics. But I think that the moral and ethical dimension of this question needs to be discussed. Here is the body of the OP (my highlighting):

Why do you think the less successful are entitled to things from the more successful?
Compassion is great, I am all for the rich giving to the poor, but there is no morality in taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor.
No one is entitled to the fruits and labor of another. If that were the case, society would cease to progress.
What am I missing?

If the OP was Catholic and not Protestant, I would have responded that he is missing the clear teaching of the Catholic Church. Even then, I think he is forgetting a few things a guy named Jesus said about it.

But please examine what this person is saying, especially the parts I bolded. I would agree that it is immoral to take money from the rich to give to the poor, but it is also immoral to take from the poor (and even from the middle class) and give it to the rich.

Also, if "no one is entitled to the fruits and labor of another", what about all those who have gained wealth and property off the backs of the poor, slaves, indentured servants, immigrant laborers, those stripped of their homesteads and farmlands, etc.?

To start it off the discussion, here is a quote from Pope Francis, in Evangelii Gaudium:

Today everything comes under the laws of competition and the survival of the fittest, where the powerful feed upon the powerless. As a consequence, masses of people find themselves excluded and marginalized. (Par. 53)

And a little more:

The thirst for power and possessions knows no limits...This system...tends to devour everything which stands in the way of increased profits...Behind this attitude lurks a rejection of ethics and a rejection of God.(Par. 56, 57)

So what attitude and response is right and just here?

 

[Rhamiel]

this is a complex issue

we can look at it from a moral view point or a Christian moral view point

on just basic morality that even secular people can get behind
we have the basic justification of taxes
you do better by being a part of an orderly society, so you must contribute to the common good
some basic social safety net is desirable for the vast majority of people, with the understanding that this will make our nation stronger

like I said, this is basic secularism
pay for what you get, make society stronger by setting up some kind of social safety net

now if we bring up Christianity
our Nation has a Separation of Church and State
how can you take money away from a rich atheist and just yell "this is what Jesus wants!"
I am a Christian, so I am ok with the idea of having Christian laws
so once you support measures like, no menial labor on sunday, get rid of divorce, ban abortion, ban gay marriage
then I will think you are serious about having Christian morality guiding our country

you want the "help the poor" part of the bible
but not the "if a man lies with another man it is an abomination" part of the bible

I think we should have both, because I like the whole Bible

 

[Martinius]

Rhamiel:
Thanks for your response.

Two thoughts here. First, all laws will never be as "Christian" as some would want because not every one is Christian, and there is no unified agreement among those who are about what those laws should be. This is most easily seen in the area of morality; beyond protecting the rights and safety of citizens, can we ever legislate morals? And should that be the role of government?

But this moves away from my original question, which you also touch on. And that is, can we say that the wealthy attain all their riches through their own "work", or in many cases do they attain it through the work of others? And if it seems unfair to share the "work" of the wealthy with the poor (a position that many Christians take), is not even more unfair for those with economic and political power to extract their wealth from the work of the powerless? And to in turn make those people even more powerless and dependent?

 

[Rhamiel]

beyond protecting the rights and safety of citizens, can we ever legislate morals? And should that be the role of government?

but is that not what Progressive Taxation seeks to do?
to make things more "moral"?
not letting the cold hand of the Market and Social Darwinism pick the winners and losers

like I said before, I am fine with a more Christian understanding of social welfare

I think he is forgetting a few things a guy named Jesus said about it.

what did Jesus say about taxes?

Jesus said that we should take care of the poor
but He never said we should use the government to take money from other people and use that money for the poor
I am not saying that there are not real reasons for doing that, I am just saying you can not pin it on Jesus

property represents our past
it is what we have worked for, what we have developed skills and learned trades so we can "make a living"

when we were kicked out of Eden we received the curse "you will earn your bread by the sweat of your brow"
so we have to work, but we are entitled to the product of our labors

I am not totally discounting your views on past crimes
the effect of Colonialism on the Third World are still very strong
systemic racism in the USA and Europe are factors....
I we need to talk about how to correct these horrible errors
but we need to start out with the foundation that a man has a right to his property

I mean, this disdain that some Liberals have for those who own Capital is sickening
hearing Obama rattle on about "you didn't build this" made my stomach churn, he shows more disdain for the men and women who create wealth in the USA then he does for Islamic Fundamentalists.

I think that is part of the problem, while many more conservative folk do see that there are serious problems with wealth inequality and neo-colonialism and systemic racism
they are afraid that Liberals are not operating under good will
the old saying "give them an inch and they will take a mile"

 

[Martinius]

Rhamiel:

You have included a lot of thought provoking statements. Let me comment on just a few.

I agree that Jesus was not saying government should redistribute wealth. Rather, he said to those who would follow him that they needed to do so. It was voluntary, not by fiat.

People have a right to their property, but do they have the right to use whatever means are available to attain that property? Also, if by attaining that property in an amount far exceeding what they need, while at the same time depriving others of the property they need to survive, is that right and moral?

Finally, yes we are entitled to the product of our labors, but should that be at the cost of denying others a fair share of their labors?

 

[Soyeong]

But please examine what this person is saying, especially the parts I bolded. I would agree that it is immoral to take money from the rich to give to the poor, but it is also immoral to take from the poor (and even from the middle class) and give it to the rich.

Taking from the poor to give to the middle class or rich would also be immoral, but has anyone advocated that?

Two thoughts here. First, all laws will never be as "Christian" as some would want because not every one is Christian, and there is no unified agreement among those who are about what those laws should be. This is most easily seen in the area of morality; beyond protecting the rights and safety of citizens, can we ever legislate morals? And should that be the role of government?

All laws are about legislating morality.

But this moves away from my original question, which you also touch on. And that is, can we say that the wealthy attain all their riches through their own "work", or in many cases do they attain it through the work of others? And if it seems unfair to share the "work" of the wealthy with the poor (a position that many Christians take), is not even more unfair for those with economic and political power to extract their wealth from the work of the powerless? And to in turn make those people even more powerless and dependent?

In areas where there is a lot of poverty, the most beneficial thing a rich person could do would be to buy a property there and build a business, which would provide them with jobs and services. Naturally, they would make a profit by investing in that community, but the community would still be much better off than before. People don't tend to get out of poverty by giving them money and making them dependent on the system, but rather by giving them the opportunity to earn a living.

 

[Rhamiel]

Also, if by attaining that property in an amount far exceeding what they need, while at the same time depriving others of the property they need to survive, is that right and moral?

if someone earns 400,000,000 dollars fairly and legally
then, after taxes, they have the right to do whatever they want with that money

I would hope that they would be moved to give a lot to charity
support the church, feed the hungry, set up scholarships so the disadvantaged can get a better education, fund environmental research, support evangelistic efforts

but if this person chooses to drink himself to an early grave
well that is his right too

is it moral and right of him to do that
no
but is it right for people to worship Vishnu?
no, Vishnu is a false god
Jesus is God and should be worshiped, not Vishnu.

But I do not think the Government should be used to make people stop worshiping false Gods

we have to win hearts and minds

you said that you do not think the Government should be used to legislate morality

Finally, yes we are entitled to the product of our labors, but should that be at the cost of denying others a fair share of their labors?

but we have minimum wage laws in the USA
we have workplace safety laws

I think the minimum wage should be raised to atleast 12 an hour, and we can talk more about tightening regulations on other things
but I do not think we need a fundamental change

also, those laws are only in the USA
we could talk about not trading with countries that have serious human rights abuses

we can talk about how to encourage people to buy Fair Trade products
I try to buy fair trade tea and sugar.... to be honest, with some economic set backs I have not really kept up with that since May

so there are things we can do

I am sorry if my reactions sound extreme
I have to work on rejecting my knee-jerk reactions

there IS a lot of injustice and suffering in this world, thank you for speaking up about it
thank you for starting a dialogue

 

[Rhamiel]

Taking from the poor to give to the middle class or rich would also be immoral, but has anyone advocated that?

well cooperate welfare is a major problem in the USA
along with tax loopholes for major corporations

All laws are about legislating morality.

very good point

 

[Soyeong]

well cooperate welfare is a major problem in the USA
along with tax loopholes for major corporations

Ya, businesses should be allowed to fail. The government should regulate businesses, but it should not be subsidizing any of them. I'm in favor of a flat tax rate.

 

[Martinius]

Taking from the poor to give to the middle class or rich would also be immoral, but has anyone advocated that?

Not exactly advocate for it, but it happens nonetheless.

All laws are about legislating morality.

Not really. Most laws are in made to maintain order and regulate society for the benefit and safety of all. I have no empirical data available, but it may be that the proportion of laws attempting to regulate morality has decreased over the past 50 years or so.

In areas where there is a lot of poverty, the most beneficial thing a rich person could do would be to buy a property there and build a business, which would provide them with jobs and services. Naturally, they would make a profit by investing in that community, but the community would still be much better off than before. People don't tend to get out of poverty by giving them money and making them dependent on the system, but rather by giving them the opportunity to earn a living.

One must first ask why there is a lot of poverty in that particular place. In way too many cases (Brazil, Central America, Philippines and other SE Asian countries, and several African nations) the systemic poverty is the result of, and exacerbated by, the few who have used their economic and political power to intimidate and repress the powerless, take their land, move them from their homes, and force them to work for starvation wages. All in the name of profit, none of which was used to "reinvest" in the community from which it was obtained. No, your scenario assumes an altruistic attitude which is rarely seen. Someone wanting to build a business anywhere will look first at the economics of doing so, rather than at whether it will improve the community.

As much as we like to think the U.S. is somehow better in this regard, keep in mind that it is often U.S. based multi-national companies that are prime movers in creating these conditions in other countries.

 

[Martinius]

if someone earns 400,000,000 dollars fairly and legally
then, after taxes, they have the right to do whatever they want with that money.

Depending where you are doing business, some of the most despicable acts can be legal. Fair is another question. Here is a true story.

When I was a boy, one summer day I was riding in the car down a country road outside our Midwestern town. We saw people working in the fields along the road, picking peas and beans for the nearby cannery. We also saw a flat bed truck full of people; the truck was taking them from one field to another. I asked my father who all those "brown skin" people were. "Migrant workers", he said, "Mexicans". I noticed that it wasn't just men working, but also women and children. "Where do they go when they are finished?", I asked. "To the next job, or back home," he responded. My father knew someone who ran the cannery so we stopped there so I could see how the peas and beans were unloaded, then processed by the big machines and eventually canned. I realized that the canned peas that my mother served had come from those fields, picked by those workers.

Along the way we passed an area with small, square buildings. Several rows of them. They appeared to be concrete block storage buildings. But they were the "homes" of the migrant workers while they were employed by the cannery. Dirt lanes between the rows of houses, no evidence of indoor plumbing, maybe electric lights, but generally just a place to sleep and cook food.

So I asked my dad another question. "Why do they use migrant workers from Mexico? Why don't they just hire people who live here to do this?" "People here would not do this work for the low wages they pay," he said. "The migrant workers will, since they make more here than they would in Mexico."

As we went back into our small city, we drove down a boulevard. For several blocks on each side, at the end of long driveways, were big homes, some of them what I considered mansions. Who lived in some of those homes? Yup, the owners of the cannery. If not right at that moment, at some point I thought about the contrast between the temporary homes of the workers and the big, fancy homes along the boulevard. I wondered: Would those workers and their families ever get out of the cycle of continuous migration and low wages they were in? How would their children be educated if they spent most of the year traveling around, with no schools to attend? Would those children be doomed to the same life as their parents?

Everything I witnessed may have been legal (although I suspect that some violations of laws were overlooked by the authorities) but was it fair? Was it just? Was it Christian?

When I read the Apostolic Letter of Pope Francis, I recalled all this, which had obviously made a great impression on me.
My questions from a half century ago remain. But now I think I know the not-so-pleasant answers.

 

[Soyeong]

Not exactly advocate for it, but it happens nonetheless.

Any way you look at it, it's wrong to be entitled to the labor of others. The fact that people have exploited others doesn't make it less wrong.

Not really. Most laws are in made to maintain order and regulate society for the benefit and safety of all. I have no empirical data available, but it may be that the proportion of laws attempting to regulate morality has decreased over the past 50 years or so.

Morality is regard to what ought to be done and laws are in regard to what legislators think ought to be done.

One must first ask why there is a lot of poverty in that particular place. In way too many cases (Brazil, Central America, Philippines and other SE Asian countries, and several African nations) the systemic poverty is the result of, and exacerbated by, the few who have used their economic and political power to intimidate and repress the powerless, take their land, move them from their homes, and force them to work for starvation wages. All in the name of profit, none of which was used to "reinvest" in the community from which it was obtained. No, your scenario assumes an altruistic attitude which is rarely seen. Someone wanting to build a business anywhere will look first at the economics of doing so, rather than at whether it will improve the community.

As much as we like to think the U.S. is somehow better in this regard, keep in mind that it is often U.S. based multi-national companies that are prime movers in creating these conditions in other countries.

My scenario is why government regulation is important. Exploiting others is wrong, but so is being entitled to the labor of others.

 

[Hank77]

Depending where you are doing business, some of the most despicable acts can be legal. Fair is another question. Here is a true story.

When I was a boy, one summer day I was riding in the car down a country road outside our Midwestern town. We saw people working in the fields along the road, picking peas and beans for the nearby cannery. We also saw a flat bed truck full of people; the truck was taking them from one field to another. I asked my father who all those "brown skin" people were. "Migrant workers", he said, "Mexicans". I noticed that it wasn't just men working, but also women and children. "Where do they go when they are finished?", I asked. "To the next job, or back home," he responded. My father knew someone who ran the cannery so we stopped there so I could see how the peas and beans were unloaded, then processed by the big machines and eventually canned. I realized that the canned peas that my mother served had come from those fields, picked by those workers.

Along the way we passed an area with small, square buildings. Several rows of them. They appeared to be concrete block storage buildings. But they were the "homes" of the migrant workers while they were employed by the cannery. Dirt lanes between the rows of houses, no evidence of indoor plumbing, maybe electric lights, but generally just a place to sleep and cook food.

So I asked my dad another question. "Why do they use migrant workers from Mexico? Why don't they just hire people who live here to do this?" "People here would not do this work for the low wages they pay," he said. "The migrant workers will, since they make more here than they would in Mexico."

As we went back into our small city, we drove down a boulevard. For several blocks on each side, at the end of long driveways, were big homes, some of them what I considered mansions. Who lived in some of those homes? Yup, the owners of the cannery. If not right at that moment, at some point I thought about the contrast between the temporary homes of the workers and the big, fancy homes along the boulevard. I wondered: Would those workers and their families ever get out of the cycle of continuous migration and low wages they were in? How would their children be educated if they spent most of the year traveling around, with no schools to attend? Would those children be doomed to the same life as their parents?

Everything I witnessed may have been legal (although I suspect that some violations of laws were overlooked by the authorities) but was it fair? Was it just? Was it Christian?

When I read the Apostolic Letter of Pope Francis, I recalled all this, which had obviously made a great impression on me.
My questions from a half century ago remain. But now I think I know the not-so-pleasant answers.

Your story made me think of this.

Child labor in the US before child labor laws were passed.

 

[parousia70]

Any way you look at it, it's wrong to be entitled to the labor of others.

What about as a business owner, should I be entitled to turn a profit of the labor of my employees?

Or instead, As a worker, Should I be entitled to all the profit the company I work for makes off my labor?

How about, Should I be entitled to drive to work on roads other people built?

Should I be entitled to check a book out of a library that I didn't build myself and fill with my own books?

Where exactly does "entitled to the labor of others" end, and "The Commons of a society" begin?

 

[Soyeong]

What about as a business owner, should I be entitled to turn a profit of the labor of my employees?

Or instead, As a worker, Should I be entitled to all the profit the company I work for makes off my labor?

How about, Should I be entitled to drive to work on roads other people built?

Should I be entitled to check a book out of a library that I didn't build myself and fill with my own books?

Where exactly does "entitled to the labor of others" end, and "The Commons of a society" begin?

No to all. A company exists to make of profit, but a business owner is not entitled to make a profit, and many times they do not. In order for a business to be profitable, the value of their employees must be more than what they are paid and you are not entitled to that. You are not entitled to use anything that someone else paid for. Someone else might allow you the privilege of using that you haven't paid for, but that certainly doesn't make you entitled to it.