Submission by Tom DeWeese, American Policy Center

In the fall of 2006, I received a most unexpected invitation to travel to Cambridge University in Great Britain and take part in a debate before a 200-year-old debating society called the Cambridge Union. The issue we were to debate: “This House believes that the United Nations is a dead loss!” It was an issue I could easily get behind.

My opponents included Simon Hughes, a Member of Parliament and President of the Liberal Democrats; Lord David Hannay, former UK Ambassador to the UN; and Salil Shetty, Director of the UN’s Millennium Campaign. The two other debaters who were supposed to be on my side were both pro-UN leftists. So, it was a typical five-to-one debate.

I was the first speaker, which meant I opened the debate. In my opening statement, I said, “The UN’s only answer is government control—and confiscation of individual wealth and property. Nowhere is there mention in a single UN document I’ve read of advocacy for the right to own private property. In fact, quite the opposite is the case, as nearly every UN document, report, working paper, program, treaty, protocol, declaration, and resolution is dedicated to the confiscation, redistribution, regulation, and taxation of someone’s private property.”

To tepid applause, I concluded, “The United Nations is not ‘dysfunctional,’ as some ‘reformers’ have claimed. It is a criminal enterprise in which no moral nation should participate, let alone perpetuate.”

When it came time for Liberal Democrat Simon Hughes to address the issue, he got right in my face and declared, “I believe in redistribution of wealth!”

Unfortunately, at the time, I was not accustomed to the debate format and didn’t directly respond. I simply said, “Whose wealth—yours or theirs?” as I pointed to the audience. He ignored me.

But if I were given the chance to repeat that experience today, this is what I would say: People have dreams and plans for their lives—how they want to live, what they want to accomplish. It’s what drives them to move forward. They study, learn, and work toward their goals. And as they begin to achieve them, along comes YOU—the government powermonger—boldly declaring, “I’ll take half.”

By what right? What did your government policy contribute to help them achieve their goals that would grant you the right to take half of everything they’ve worked to create? When organized crime—the Mafia—takes this exact same action, we arrest them. But if you wear a government hat, well, it’s accepted as okay. In reality, it’s the same theft, the same abuse of power over someone’s life, and it’s all done at the point of a gun. Whether it’s considered legal or not just depends on who is holding the gun.

In the 1960s, some lower-income individuals from Liverpool, England had a dream. But they struggled every day to provide for their needs and meet unexpected demands to keep moving forward. Fortunately, they had incredible talent and the determination to keep going against the odds. They called themselves The Beatles. As they rose to success and achieved the wealth they had earned entirely on their own, the British government declared that up to 90 percent of the Beatles’ earnings belonged to “the common good,” rather than to the individual dreams and goals of The Beatles—whose talent and drive had independently and legally earned it.

No entity—especially government—deserves to seize 90 percent of anything created by an individual. That’s why George Harrison wrote the song Taxman, containing the line, “Be thankful I don’t take it all.”

After the Cambridge Union debate, our hosts held a reception to give the audience a chance to meet and talk with the participants. As it turned out, I was the only debater to attend. Apparently, being in control of Parliament or a member of the House of Lords makes you too special to rub elbows with the lower classes—whose dreams you intend to redistribute for your own grab at power.

I will never forget, as I walked into the reception, the young female Cambridge student who approached to ask me a question. She asked, “You really don’t believe in redistribution of wealth?” I answered, “No, it’s theft.” She responded, “But if you have more than you need, shouldn’t you share it with others?” I answered, “Why should I?”

This is what she had been taught through the approved curriculum of one of the most prestigious schools in the world. She had no idea how individuals pursuing their dreams created a free society. Involuntary sharing, forced sacrifice, and accepted despair were to be the plight of the masses in the collective planned by redistributing elites. And that’s the redistribution of wealth that Simon Hughes so passionately worked to enforce on his subjects.

I began to explain to her the ideals of free enterprise—controlled by individual choice—in order to guarantee quality. The free market is the root of innovation and progress. I told her how private property ownership is the most powerful source of individual freedom. It’s the means by which individuals build their personal wealth. Moreover, if you don’t have your own property to stand on, how do you have the power of free speech?

I asked her if she had dreams for her life. She said, of course she did. And I asked, “Will you achieve them through a government committee?” She looked at me, puzzled. I explained, “Only you know what interests you, what drives you to get up in the morning and push forward toward your dream. While your dream motivates you, the government simply doesn’t care.”

As I went through these details, more than fifty others attending the reception began to gather around and listen. Some asked questions. More conversations broke out among them. I smiled as I realized that right there in the middle of Merry Olde England, the ideals of John Locke and Thomas Jefferson were being debated.

Finally, the young student said, “What an interesting point of view. How can I learn more?” I suggested that she read the works of free-market economists like Milton Friedman and Hernando de Soto. And if she wanted to understand the fate of freedom lovers who found the moral strength to overcome darkness and suffering under government tyranny, I offered examples. These included the works of Russian writer Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn—especially his book The Gulag Archipelago. I also recommended the tiny book by Ayn Rand called Anthem, which in fictional form clearly demonstrates the dangers of governments erasing cultural history or controlling every action of individuals—right down to replacing names with government-issued numbers.

Each of these examples counters the economic policies and controls over individuals currently being pursued by the United Nations.

As I finished—seeing her intent interest and the positive reaction of those gathered around—I knew in that moment: I had won the debate.