You don't have to look far to find people who equate their hatred of the rich with concern about "social justice." So you also don't have to look far to find politicians who equate their confiscation of the earnings of the rich with concern about "the people."
I don't expect to generate much pity for former Russian oil tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky. Heck, the term "oil tycoon" is enough to send class warriors - as well as people who should know better - into slobbering fits of rage. (The nerve of those bright, successful entrepreneurs making the rest of us feel inferior!)
But Khodorkovsky is the victim of an injustice that would be no less ghastly if he had lived his life penniless (or ruble-less). And if we have no interest in impartial justice even for the despised rich, then all that talk about social justice for the poor is just lipstick on an emu. (For further reading - on impartial justice, not emus - see Leviticus 19:15: "Do not twist justice in legal matters by favoring the poor or being partial to the rich and powerful. Always judge people fairly.")
Now back to our story.
Some years ago, Khodorkovsky made the mistake of openly calling into question the policies of autocrat Vladimir Putin, a former KGB operative who had risen to power in Russia. Khodorkovsky even supported opposition parties. Next thing you know, he was facing tax evasion charges. He was arrested in 2003 and sent away to serve eight years in prison - in Siberia. His Yukos oil company, not coincidentally, became government property.
But close to what should have been his release date, fresh new charges appeared out of the political ether. Now he is likely to be put away for up to 14 more years.
This is the point at which Russian horsemen should be hollering, "The Soviets are coming! The Soviets are coming!" Instead, there's limited public outcry within Russia because the people fear who might be shipped off to the Arctic tundra next. And the protests from outside Russia are muted. Some folks undoubtedly would rather see a successful businessman rot in prison than feel inadequate from watching him prosper, even if he prospers by producing goods that raise the standard of living for the rest of us.
Khodorkovsky gave a searing closing statement at his latest show trial, the verdict of which will be delivered late this month and is expected to be a foregone conclusion.
The world, he said, is "watching with the hope that Russia will after all become a country of freedom and of the law, where the law will be above the bureaucratic official. Where supporting opposition parties will cease being a cause for reprisals. Where the special services will protect the people and the law, and not the bureaucracy from the people and the law. Where human rights will no longer depend on the mood of the czar - good or evil. Where, on the contrary, the power will truly be dependent on the citizens, and the court - only on law and God."
Dare to dream.
If Atlas Shrugged
Speaking of tycoons and class envy, it would be interesting to see how fast some legal case would be trumped up against Bill Gates if he declared one day that he was going to focus almost exclusively on business, not charity.
Gates gets a lot of deserved praise for his multibillion-dollar philanthropy. But imagine how rapidly his popularity would fade if he pointed out - with absolute accuracy - that his work with Microsoft had averted more human suffering and improved the lives of more people than his philanthropic efforts could ever hope to achieve. Imagine the congeniality contests he would start losing if he further stated that he would slash his charitable giving by 90 percent and invest the difference strictly in companies that produce jobs around the world.
No, I'm not questioning the philosophical foundation for charity nor its practical value. It eases suffering by meeting immediate, serious needs that long-term economic growth might not get around to for a while. It's also good for your soul, so if you're not doing anything sacrificially for anybody, hop to it.
But whatever plenty the people of America and other nations enjoy is due mainly to a free-market economy. If you have a home, car and more food than you possibly need, you probably did not get it from charity but from the valuable labor you provided to a company or directly to customers.
I imagine Gates has the best of motives every time he gives philanthropically. But whether he's conscious of it or not, his donations may be all that stand between him and a government that has conditioned the public to believe the rich should be tolerated only if they divert enough of their earnings to social causes.