I have previously characterized the “libertarians are free-riders” argument as nonsense, as a slimy tactic which poisons the well with unearned guilt. Recent discussion threads at Reddit caused me to re-examine the “social contract” the most convincing arguments in support of which, although still fallacious appeals to emotion, fall back on the “free rider” argument: those who do not pay their “fair share” are somehow cheating everyone else, they are “stealing” from society. In a nutshell, anyone who works for a living, anyone who produces anything whatsoever of value, is not a free rider.

I want to take the time to extrapolate on that line of thought.

Collectivists of all creeds typically resort to some argument that relies on one’s acceptance of the subsidies of history as the base justification for their “social contract”. It is of paramount importance to understand first and foremost, that although history could have been different, none of us having had any say in the matter, the entire course of human existence happened in only one particular sequence, he culmination of which is the Present, imperfect as she may be. The consequences, to some extent, we all bear, and the benefits to some extent, we all reap.

The Present could have been different, but it is not. The Present only is.

We can not deny the language that has evolved over the millenia, the wheel, the lever, the wedge, the inclined plan, the transistor, the cotton gin, the x-ray, the microchip, penicillin or any of the myriad inventions, discoveries and luxuries that make all of our lives easier than they were in generations past. One “accepts” these subsidies, not because he or she is a “free rider”, but because one can not deny them.

What we deny, is that merely because we inherited these things, owe a debt to future generations (who will also inherit these things, and then some!). Further, we deny that we owe a debt to past generations who created these things; they did not invent for our sake (and even if they did, this does not create an obligation for us), they invented for their own sake, the benefits of which they have fairly reaped.

But neither can we deny the many injustices or atrocities that have been perpetrated by men long dead, which served to injure us or our brethren, to impede the progress of humanity, to reduce by some amount the real standard of living which we could otherwise enjoy. The question then is, what can be done about the sub-optimal distribution of property?

I content that in order to alleviate those now suffering from past wrongs, it is not necessary to perpetrate further injustices on some scapegoat, class warfare-style. It is not necessary to cause injury.

We can not, nor should we be asked to, make penance for the sins of our fathers, except by arresting any ongoing injustices, removing impediments, breaking down the walls that cage us all, and tolerating them no longer, forever. We can set things right only by freeing ourselves and ceasing to rely upon that which is wrong.

All we need to do is stop hurting people.