Mukesh Ambani's decision to build Antillia — a 27-story private residence in the heart of Mumbai requiring a staff of 600 to maintain, estimated to have cost between $1 billion and $2 billion — generated a debate about wealth, inequality, and the social obligations of the ultra-rich that has not resolved in the years since the building was completed.

The arguments against Antillia are familiar. Mumbai is a city where millions of people live in conditions of extreme deprivation, where slums abut some of the most expensive real estate in Asia, where the gap between the wealthiest and poorest residents is among the most extreme in the world. In this context, a billion-dollar private home is not merely conspicuous consumption but a statement about priorities that many Indians find deeply troubling.

The arguments in favor of Ambani's freedom to spend his money as he chooses are also straightforward. The money is his. He earned it — or at least acquired it legally — through the operation of Reliance Industries, which employs hundreds of thousands of people and contributes substantially to the Indian economy. A liberal democracy that protects property rights cannot selectively restrict how individuals use their legally acquired wealth based on whether their choices seem appropriate to observers.

What the debate over Antillia really exposes is the inadequacy of either pure position. The freedom to accumulate and spend private wealth is a foundation of market economies, and the alternative — state control over consumption decisions — has a poor historical record. But the conditions under which extreme inequality becomes socially tolerable depend on shared investment in public goods — education, healthcare, infrastructure — that provide pathways out of poverty for those without inherited wealth.

India has the wealth to provide those public goods. The question of whether it chooses to is a political question, not one that can be resolved by an individual's spending decisions, however spectacular.