|
--Robert D. $utton Anyone who doubts the generosity of private individuals, giving voluntarily to causes they support, no longer has any justification for such doubt. In what amounted to the largest private donation ever, Microsoft CEO Bill Gates recently gave over $3.3 BILLION dollars to support health, art, education and internet access in low-income communities. What is most worth noting in this case is not how much Mr. Gates� generosity will help low-income families (although it will, indeed, help them greatly), but that every cent of that $3.3 billion was his own property, earned through voluntary exchange with others. There were no sacrifices here. There was no looting and redistributing of taxpayers� wealth. This was simply an individual, using his own money for his own cause. This is in stark contrast to those who seek to finance their causes with the confiscated wealth of others. These are the "bleeding-heart liberals," who believe that "everyone has the right to a decent standard of living"�regardless of how many people must be looted to pay for it. They believe in "social justice," which means: robbing those who have earned their wealth, to subsidize those who have not. I do not know Bill Gates� political leanings, but I do know that he is a man who puts HIS money where his mouth is. Gates deserves praise for more than just his charity, however. He has my praise, not for giving his money away, but for making it in the first place. What made the $3 billion donation possible was not Mr. Gates� generosity, but his ability to create wealth. As Howard Roark (from Ayn Rand's Fountainhead)puts it, "Creation must come before distribution�or there will be nothing to distribute." If you ever hear some mediocrity denouncing the rich and prattling on about "social inequality," tell him that his intellectual flatulence is useless to mankind�that mankind�s greatest benefactor is the man who makes wealth possible: the capitalist. It may be objected that a true capitalist would not have made the donation, since capitalists are "selfish." However, it is, in fact, quite possible to have a selfish motive in charity. If one gives aid to others in response to their potential, and not their need�that is a selfish motive. If one helps others in return for the pleasure of seeing human happiness�that is a selfish motive (human joy is contagious--maybe you'll catch it next). If one promotes education, in order to foster the rational, pro-liberty environment that makes capitalism possible�that is a selfish motive. Whether Mr. Gates had a selfish motive--or just felt guilty for his wealth--is irrelevant. The point is: charity for a selfish motive is both probable and possible. I must mention that it would not be a selfish motive if Gates were trying to gain leniency from the antitrust division. Such an act would be a "sanction of the victim." It would be an admission that he, Bill Gates, existed only to serve the public, with the weak argument that the public would be better served if the government did not prosecute (or is it persecute?) him. It would be equivalent to slitting one�s wrists in front of vampires. Tragically, I fear this is precisely what Mr. Gates is doing. He has basically conceded the government�s case on empirical grounds, and is now using the "I�m really not such a bad guy�pretty please go easy on me" argument in place of a rational defense. He has allowed the government the banner of reason and moral righteousness, and now he is groveling for mercy. How did Gates come to this? Better yet, where did this all begin? The government, urged by Netscape, brought suit against Microsoft for so-called "anti-competitive practices." Specifically, Microsoft was accused of using its dominance in the desktop industry (90% of people use Windows) to give its browser, Internet Explorer, an "unfair advantage" in the browser market. Microsoft allegedly did this by requiring computer manufacturers�at least those who wanted to include Windows with computers�to pre-install Internet Explorer. Consumers ended up with a "free" browser, while competitors like Netscape ended up with no chance of beating Microsoft�s price. The government�s alleged "solution" for this "problem" was to force Gates to include Netscape�s Navigator (and how many other browsers???) with Internet Explorer on the Windows desktop. Gates� defense has been unforgivably weak in what should have been a straightforward case. His biggest mistake has been to dispute the particulars of the case, without challenging the principle. He has denied signing contracts with computer manufacturers and others to exclude competitors. Yet the government has easily shown that Gates did, indeed, use exclusive contracts requiring his competitors to incorporate his software�or forfeit his business. Gates has tried to argue that including other browsers on Windows would slow the system down. The government has determined that the speed difference is negligible. Quibbling over details, Gates and company have overlooked the one principle that could save them: PROPERTY RIGHTS. The right to property�the foundation of America and capitalism�means the right to own and USE property as one desires (provided one does not violate the legitimate rights of others). It means that one may buy or sell with whomever one pleases, on whatever terms one chooses. It means that men must trade for property, and cannot forcibly expropriate the wealth of others. If property rights still exist, then Bill Gates has the absolute RIGHT to require computer manufacturers to pre-install his�and only his�browser on HIS operating system. And computer manufacturers have the absolute right to reject those terms, and find someone else to deal with. Furthermore, they have the right not to deal with Netscape, as stipulated by their contract with Microsoft. Conversely, Netscape does NOT have the right to have computer manufacturers install Navigator on Windows, without the voluntary (uncoerced!) consent of Microsoft. The question is not whether Gates signed this or that contract, but whether he has a RIGHT to. If an individual is the owner of his own mind, then he must have a right to own, use and trade that which his mind creates. The question is not whether including other browsers would impede the performance of Windows, but whether those browsers� manufacturers have a RIGHT to be included. There is no right to use the property of others against their will. There is no right to force people, no matter how wealthy, to finance their own destroyers. The question is not whether Gates� activities are ultimately beneficial to the "public"�the argument could certainly be made that they are�but whether an individual is an end in himself, and does not need the good of society as a justification for his right to exist. America was founded on the (implicit) principle that man is an end in himself (i.e., has the right to pursue his own happiness). Nazi Germany was founded on the principle that man is a means to the ends of society or the state. If America destroys its Bill Gateses, it will be the Hitlers (or Stalins) who take their place. If Bill Gates truly wants to do some good for others, he can start by giving himself the kind of defense he deserves. He needs to get on the bully pulpit and say, as Hank Rearden from Atlas Shrugged puts it: "If it is now the belief of my fellow men, who call themselves the public, that their good requires victims, then I say: The public good be damned, I will have no part of it!" Notes Notes |
