Warren Buffet (Omaha, Nebraska, 1930), better known for some of the singularities he has displayed than for his intrinsic capacity -which is great- to do good business (he is, in fact, one of the most important fortunes in the world), surprised us once again some time ago with a caper that must have astounded more than one of his fellow billionaires. In a article published in The New York Times, he asked Obama to raise taxes on the rich to try to alleviate the crisis in which we are immersed: "Stop pampering the super-rich," he said. The renowned Stephen King has joined this unique campaign that, it seems, is shared by very few (of the rich, it is understood).

When a person has so much money that, in reality, he can't spend it even if he wanted to, what is he supposed to do? Increase his fortune and constantly tremble in fear of losing some of the much he possesses? Think that the family wealth should not diminish - in the name of who knows what law - and should be bequeathed to his children so that, in turn, they can continue to increase it?

I have always had great respect for people -they deserve it- who have been able to start up a business and after years of risk and effort -sometimes strenuous- have succeeded in getting ahead and becoming well-off. I have less respect for those who have inherited a fortune and have been able to maintain it: their merit is eclipsed by the advantageous position from which they started out. And I feel quite sorry for those who, simply and fraudulently (we must not forget the duties we have to society) are dedicated to enjoy and squander money that only belongs to them by the chance of birth. The right to property exists and must be protected - it is proper to a just society - but it must fulfill a social role and be for the benefit of all. Property cannot be "absolute", in the most vituperable of senses.

Entrepreneurs, so often misunderstood, deserve respect and should be the object of real pampering by society: they are the ones who invest, create jobs work, risk their money - often with little fortune - and often that of the credit that is granted to them. They energize society, push it to development and pull it out of the lethargy in which they find themselves. Millions of families depend on their creativity and drive and the State itself would be an inane organism without their contribution.

There is too much squeamishness about entrepreneurs, as if they were a caste of unassailable ambitious people. Of course, there are those who deserve more scorn than admiration, but many of the good things that work in this and many other countries -and otherwise would not be done because the State does not reach everything- are due to the creativity and generosity of some people who not only create wealth but also help social purposes that otherwise would not be carried out. Have we ever thought about the prestige of some of the most important universities in the United States - Harvard, Yale, San Francisco, Princeton, etc. and what they contribute to American society and the world in the field of Education, research and innovation? They receive enormous amounts of donations from businessmen, alumni and foundations to maintain these institutions at the highest level, provide scholarships to talented students and create wealth. The greatest satisfaction for the wealthy and even for those who do not reach that level but live comfortably is to help the many needs of society that can make life more bearable for many others. Society as a whole, individual people, should assume a leading role that is wrongly given to the government, which cannot and does not know how to reach everything.

I am a firm defender of private property and I do not believe that, clumsily, there are still those who deny it. But this property must also fulfill a social function. And it is the entrepreneurs -in the right climate- who can get us out of this critical morass that distresses us all, especially those who have lost their work. Government alone is utterly and hopelessly incapable of mastering the bewildering specificity and elusiveness of economic opportunity, as Gilder argues. I like Warren Buffet because he has an eye far above his fortune. He is aware that, when he goes, he will leave it here. But he knows that his money can be used to help others. Is there any other more far-reaching satisfaction?