2. The Propositions of that Evening

SOME OF THE PROPOSITIONS offered during that lively evening were:

“No one should be allowed to own a yacht.”

“The salaries of company executives are too high.”

“No one should be allowed to inherit wealth.”

But the statement that I found most intriguing, and the one that initially drove me to write, was:

“It is not fair that companies can terminate their workers just to increase profits.”

However, as I thought of a suitable response, I realized that this proposition was no different in principle from the others. While some statements were more radical than others, each basically contains a notion that something is unfair and that we ought to do something to right that unfairness by instituting prohibitions.

Reading these “is” and “ought” notions into the propositions, the statements then become:

“It is unfair that someone can earn much more than another, so we ought to prohibit people from earning that much.”

“It is unfair that someone can own a yacht, so we ought to prohibit such ownership.”

“It is unfair that someone can bequeath wealth to an heir, so we ought to disallow such transfers of wealth.”

“It is unfair that an employer can terminate workers just to increase profits, so we ought to prohibit employers from doing so.”

The “we” in each of these cases is the royal “we”—that is, the State. The royal “we” connotes a moral justification for physically forcing others to live their lives as the personal “I” sees fit. Imagine how alarming these propositions would sound if the personal “I” were used instead of the abstract and justifiable royal “we.” For instance:

“The salaries of executives are too high, so I will personally threaten to incarcerate any executive who accepts a salary and any company owner who pays a salary higher than what I think is reasonable.”

“I will incarcerate anyone who buys, builds, or sells a yacht that I consider too large and luxurious.”

Any prohibition by the State also implies incarceration or death if refusal to comply is carried to its ultimate end. Although incarceration and death hide behind each proposition mentioned that evening, the clear realization of such physical punishments comes to the forefront when we substitute “I” for “we.” The royal “we” seems to moralize and justify acts that the “I” would render reprehensible.