The Marriage of Jeff Bezos in Venice

The vocal discontent expressed by some Venetians regarding Jeff Bezos’s wedding underscores a larger conversation about the intersection of wealth, tourism, and community identity. As reported by the Financial Times in their article, “Jeff Bezos’s Wedding Draws Storm of Protest in Venice,” dated June 24, 2025:

“What is happening here is blatant arrogance,” remarked Marta Sottoriva, a 34-year-old high school English teacher and activist. “He is exploiting the city in the same way that he has been exploiting workers worldwide to build his empire.” …

“Bezos’ wedding is a symbol of extreme wealth, privilege, and all the things that are currently going wrong in the world,” said Clara Thomson, a Greenpeace campaigner. “And it’s happening in one of the world’s most climate-vulnerable cities.” …

“Venetians feel betrayed, neglected, and forgotten,” stated Tommaso Bortoluzzi, a municipal councillor with the opposition Democratic Party. “Many citizens feel they have lost the ability to live in their own city in a calm, traditional manner, as Venice has become an open-air museum.”

A classical-liberal perspective would prompt a thoughtful critique of these objections. The notion that residing in a location bestows the right to dictate the actions of others within a specific radius is, frankly, a flawed premise. Property rights are designed to empower individuals to use their own property as they see fit, not to impose restrictions on the actions of others on their own or rented land. Otherwise, the entire concept of property rights devolves into a chaotic free-for-all, where everyone is entitled to meddle in their neighbor’s affairs.

To claim ownership over a geographical area not personally held is akin to asserting a right against competitors for one’s customers. For instance, if domestic workers were to argue that they could prevent their clients from hiring foreign or non-local help, we would quickly descend into incoherence or authoritarianism. Such a theory implies that customers lack the freedom to choose their suppliers, just as claiming a right to one’s own Venice implies that other Venetians cannot enjoy their version of the city. Enforcing these expansive rights would mean regulating what others can bring into or take out of Venice—an ironic twist given that tourism itself is an economic export.

In contrast, a coherent understanding of free exchange—the principle of buying from or selling to whomever is willing—supports Bezos’s right to celebrate his marriage in Venice on property rented from accommodating owners. The same logic applies to his right to purchase pastries from any baker, local or foreign. In a truly free society, neither buying nor selling should face arbitrary restrictions, save for a few exceptions like the sale of stolen goods or hiring a hitman.

The demand for an overarching property right, enforced by political authorities, highlights Anthony de Jasay’s critique of the adversarial state. Here, the state, or its representatives, selectively favors certain citizens while disadvantaging others—specifically, the expansive right claimants versus the local businesses that are eager to service such high-profile events.

Furthermore, the locals advocating for the expulsion of tourists raise pertinent questions about mob influence in anarchy. In a 2016 EconLog piece, de Jasay entertained the notion that a territory—be it a country or a locale like Venice—is an extension of the personal domain of its inhabitants. This idea could easily morph into the belief that a Venetian mob has the right to oust tourists from the city. However, the challenge of enforcing formal rights in an anarchic environment remains a significant hurdle, which is equally true in a state-run society.

In the case of Bezos’s wedding and tourism at large, it is noteworthy that commercial interests—often labeled as “special interests”—align themselves with principles of free exchange, while a faction resembling a mob articulates its discontent. Interestingly, the long-standing conservative mayor of Venice also sided with Bezos. Historically, it can be argued that non-crony commercial interests have consistently supported liberty. As explored by thinkers like William Salter and Andrew Young in “The Medieval Constitution of Liberty,” and John Hicks in “A Theory of Economic History,” there’s a historical precedent for commercial interests to favor freedom. One might speculate that many Venetians were either supportive or indifferent to the Bezos celebration; in a free society, individuals and groups generally engage in voluntary exchanges that align with their interests. However, this does not negate the importance of ethical considerations for maintaining a free society, as articulated by James Buchanan in “Why I, Too, Am Not a Conservative.”

******************************