It is my firm belief that one of the great purposes in the lives of men are protecting those rights with which they are endowed firmly and without compromise. If anyone should try to take such rights away, it would be a violation of my rights as a citizen of this nation, which is nothing short of a crime. The government today exists to protect our rights, and expecting it to act against its citizens achieves just the opposite. Here I address the work of a John Stuart Mill, who recently threw his support behind the idea that the Greatest Happiness, or the collective happiness of society is an end that justifies the means, which would be depriving a few members of society of their property.
I am referring, of course, to the proposed Millionaire Tax. In his work, Mill has stated that such a tax would better society by producing the greatest happiness in the form of distributable funds that would then used in favor of society’s poorer citizens, through things such as welfare, or housing developments and the like. I fundamentally oppose such legislation for another of reasons.
First and foremost, the government should only be called upon to act in situations of public interest. There are issues between citizens that the government should have no power over disputing, and I believe that this is one of those issues. Mill has stated that across the nation, there are several excessive statistics that point to a problem of mass homelessness and the need to protect them through funds. However, I am inclined to believe that what citizens choose to do with their wealth is a private matter. Having a million dollars does not mean that you are the reason that someone is homeless. The actions of millionaires and their pursuit of wealth and happiness should remain protected from government overreach.
The second reason is my strong belief in man’s right to property. The citizens of this nation have earned their wealth, and have built their property up to where it is today. It would simply be unfair for the government to seize this and freely distribute it to those who are less fortunate. What is considered private property must never be touched by the government, and those who own it should never be told what they can and can’t do with it.
I firmly believe in the right to property, and Mill seems to trample on these beliefs in his search for a greater happiness. While I too, defend man’s right to pursue their own happiness, I firmly draw the line at pursuing happiness at the expense of the happiness of others. Mill has stated in his work that in some instances, it is okay to ask a few members of society to make sacrifices that will ultimately better a society that is larger than them. I disagree. I believe that each and every person has a right to protect their happiness and property, and it is simply unfair to even consider asking the government to target some of its own people in the form of an oppressive tax.
It is not entitlement or greed that makes me say these things. Though it is none of my concern, I do wish that people are able to achieve the happiness that they pursue. But allowing such a government overstepping of boundaries would only open door to an even more oppressive future. A millionaire’s tax would be only the first in a long line of government acts of tyranny, which should never be allowed to happen. Therefore, I, John Locke, refute Mill’s work and stand by my beliefs.