You Don't Do It Yourself

There's a room where the light won't find you
Holding hands while 
The wall come tumbling down
When they do, I'll be right behind you
--Tears for Fears

I have now heard several renditions of a curious argument by people on the Left. It goes something like this. No one goes it alone on the road to success. Public institutions play a significant role. If you are a successful businessperson, for example, then your employees were students at public schools, and your supply chain is supported by public roads.

Without such public works, you would be less successful. Therefore, you are obligated to pay your fair share to support government works.

This argument appears to be nothing more than a rationalization for Big Government. Anyone holding up this claim as truth would need to address several issues in order to be convincing, including:

Pre-paid usage. Those who are economically well off pay the majority of taxes in the US. As such, these people have largely funded the public institutions that they are said to be exploiting. In fact, they could be seen as majority owners of public works who are reaping dividends from past 'investments.' If the argument is that successful people benefit from public institutions, haven't they already paid for that privilege?

Forced participation. In protection rackets, people are 'asked' to pay gangsters to protect property from destruction from those same gangsters. Pay up and be secure. This is a form of slavery.

Imagine Southern plantation owners in the early/mid 1800s telling slaves, "The roof over your heads and the food on your tables comes is a benefit of the institution of slavery. Be thankful. You owe us slave owners your continued support."

Currently, society (a.k.a. The State) forces the surrender of wealth. Some of the booty is deployed to keep those who are robbed productive enough so that they may be robbed again down the road.

Why isn't the you-don't-do-it-yourself argument a pro-slavery argument?

Ex post contract changes. People voluntarily engage in trade to better their situations. Trade is governed by contract law. If an employer and worker reach a wage agreement made in good faith, for instance, that agreement must be honored unless both sides voluntarily renegotiate.

The you-don't-do-it-yourself argument implies that contracts governing past trades are invalid and that new rules can be made ex post--by one side of the trade. In the present context, if a person becomes 'successful,' then the entity on the other side of the trade can hit the successful person up for more than the original agreement.

The moral and economic implications of such an arrangement are obvious. Anyone who feels slighted in past exchanges can approach past trading partners and claim, "You owe me more."

Why, then, is it reasonable to ignore contract law governing exchange?

Absent sound responses to these issues, you-don't-do-it-yourself is just another slogan chanted by Statists and their mindless followers.