Two weeks ago, the most persecuted man in America committed moral suicide.
Bill Gates, the target of endless criticism by the media and a lawsuit by the "Justice" Department, announced his largest philanthropic endeavor to date: A $1 billion minority scholarship program. To be eligible for the scholarships, students must write an essay explaining their goals, which must include some form of community service.
By requiring scholarship recipients to commit to community service, Gates meant, in effect, that a condition of their success is to be morally obligated to serve others. This gesture is a wholesale acceptance of altruism, the moral code preached by Gates's oppressors. These moochers and looters claim that Gates has an unfulfilled obligation to society, to which he is supposedly indebted.
Altruism is not benevolence. It literally means "other-ism." Altruism defines virtue as self-sacrifice for others and vice as selfishness. Though accepted in some form by every major religion and most philosophies, altruism has a major logical problem. If it is moral to sacrifice to others, then what is the moral status of the person receiving the sacrifice? Isn't the recipient being selfish?
The disgusting answer to this question is that it is moral to accept and enjoy something, provided one cannot produce it. In short, those who create wealth have no right to it, only those who produce nothing do.
The opposite of altruism is egoism, or rational selfishness. Egoism holds that the individual's life is an end in itself, not the means to the ends of others. Egoism rejects sacrifice-an egoist does not sacrifice himself to others, nor others to himself. The egoist admires and encourages the success of others, understanding that rational individuals can coexist peacefully, happily and prosperously by pursuing their own interests. Egoism is the morality of laissez-faire capitalism, in which individuals trade values by mutual consent for mutual benefit.
As a businessman, Gates has been the ultimate egoist, creating an incredible amount of wealth for himself, his shareholders and Microsoft employees. Consumers have benefited as well, getting tremendous value for their money. Gates owes society nothing-if anything, society owes him. In a just world, he would be universally praised for his great achievements.
Instead, Microsoft has become the target of a government assault that threatens to break up the company. It is charged with being too successful, with ambiguously defined terms like "predatory pricing" and "unfair competition" directed at it.
Microsoft has never initiated physical force against another company. The involvement of physical force is the one standard by which the legality of an action should be judged. The proper purpose of a government is the protection of individual rights-the fundamental right being a right to one's life and to that which one produces. A government should only use force against those who initiate it, never against peaceful individuals.
No customer has ever been forced to buy a Microsoft product; they have all done so voluntarily. Refusing to sell Microsoft Windows without Internet Explorer is not using force. In any business transaction, both the buyer and seller must agree on the terms of sale. The buyer has the right to buy that which the seller is willing to sell. It is not a violation of anyone's rights for Microsoft to price its products lower than any other company in order to increase its market share.
The only way that Gates can successfully defend himself against the ongoing assault is to assert his moral right to run his company as he chooses, as long as he does not use force or fraud. But he chose to defend himself on altruistic grounds, claiming that Microsoft's dominance in the software industry benefits society. Now, he is setting up a scholarship fund that tells applicants that their lives belong to the community-to which they must make a commitment to serve-just as the government is telling him that the purpose of his company is to benefit society, which he has a duty to serve.
In Ayn Rand's greatest novel, Atlas Shrugged, industrialist Hank Rearden defended his rights in a manner Gates would do well to emulate if he values his business:
"I could say to you that I have done more good for my fellow man than you can ever hope to accomplish-but I will not say it, because I do not seek the good of others as a sanction for my right to exist, nor do I recognize the good of others as a justification for their seizure of my property or their destruction of my life.... If it is now the belief of my fellow men, who call themselves the public, that their good requires victims, then I say: The public good be damned, I will have no part of it!"
Alex Epstein is a Trinity sophomore and the associate publisher of The Duke Review.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.