Today is Martin Luther King Jr. Day, a national holiday to honor one of our nation's greatest spiritual and moral leaders. Many remember MLK as a champion of civil rights, as a crusader against injustice, and as a paragon of virtue. Many remember his "I have a dream" speech, and remember his commitment to non-violent resistance. His crusade against injustice and oppression was not confined to issues of race, however, but extended to any iniquity that is perpetuated by man. Those who feel that America has lived up to MLK's dream have a shallow understanding of that dream and do not understand how deeply King understood oppression, whether overt or otherwise.
I will lead with a quote that is particularly apropos considering the present economic state of things: "One day we must ask the question, 'Why are there forty million poor people in America?' And when you begin to ask that question, you are raising questions about the economic system, about a broader distribution of wealth. When you ask that question, you begin to question the capitalistic economy... You begin to ask the question, 'Why is it that people have to pay water bills in a world that is two-thirds water?'"
Economic inequality is a very real and present danger, and poverty is more rampant today than it was during King's time. Never before have so few owned so much, and so many gone without. Here's a simple pie chart summing up the issue. The bottom 80%, the vast majority of Americans, possess a mere 12.8% of the wealth in the country. If there is one economic law that everyone agrees on, it is that it takes money to make money. If the bottom 80% control only a third of what the top 1% possesses, is it really any wonder that income inequality continues to worsen?
King was by no means a socialist. He rejected it as a social philosophy because it made no mention of God or spirituality, which were central to King's code of ethics. Nevertheless, he acknowledged the critiques that socialism makes of the capitalistic-colonial system. While the solutions for which socialism advocates may not be the correct solutions, one cannot ignore its critique of the iniquities inherent to capitalism. Capitalism may be the most efficient socio-economic system in terms of producing wealth for some, but it is surely not the most democratic, nor the most egalitarian.
King's questions raise the specter of that American taboo: redistribution of wealth. Why is redistribution such an ugly word? No politician or civic leader dares to mention redistribution, for to do so is political suicide. Redistribution of wealth has come to be viewed as synonymous with outright theft and oppression. If the present distribution of wealth and power is oppressive, however, is this not the pot calling the kettle black?
Redistribution of wealth does not need to be absolute, it does not need to be theft, and it is not necessarily communistic. Sure, it is socialism, but it is socialism that expands the access to basic necessities to millions more people. Currently, there are very few people who are doing very well, and very many who cannot subsist on their own. Is it really so evil to propose redistribution of wealth to address the wrongs of generations of inequality? To put it another way, is the right to property supreme to the right to food? Or the right to water? Or shelter?
In my view, there are few truths that are universally accepted. One statement that is often bandied about in the Beltway is that everyone is entitled to certain basic rights, and "among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Earlier drafts had the right to property included among these inalienable rights, but this clause was stricken in later revisions. The right to property is not enshrined in America's founding documents; the right to life is. But if the right to life is fundamental, inalienable, and universal, how can we continue to support a system of commerce and government that allows citizens to starve, freeze, and die on the streets? Are not food and shelter the preconditions necessary to sustain life? Then is it not morally incumbent upon the nation to provide for the poor, regardless of their work ethic or net worth?
King's quote questions the righteousness of ownership, especially of something so basic as water. Who is so arrogant as to proclaim himself the owner of a basic resource, something which the land offers up for free? Man needs water to survive; water is not free in America; therefore it is not free to live. For those who proclaim redistribution runs counter to economic freedom, I argue that the present distribution runs counter to the freedom to live. Which is more fundamental, the right to life, or the right to property? This is the question that King, and socialists in general, have posed again and again.
To those who argue that America is a nation of bootstrappers, I ask: how can a man pull himself up by his bootstraps if he cannot afford the leather itself?
