It’s OK To Voluntarily Give Back, Mr. President
August 1, 2012 § Leave a comment
The emperors bears no clothes.
The President showed his hand and expressed his true idea of what the role of government should be in a recent speech. It was said on July 15th, and I’m sure you have read plenty of articles and saw lots of talking heads comment on it. I’d like to finally give my two cents.
When the President accredited “working together” to starting your business, and said “you didn’t build that [business],” what “working together” means is the government redistributing your money. He went on to say some teacher taught you, and the road helped you travel to and from that business that you–oops, I mean government–started. Nevermind that public school teacher is already paid for with your personal and business taxes, along with that road; nevermind that. You owe the government more.
Sure, there are “a lot of hard working” and “smart people out there.” But not everyone is chosen by the Success Gods to become a, say, Bill Gates. Not every hard working and smart person will make or deserve a billion dollars. Will the state force billionaires to give to those who are hard working and smart?
The President received a lot of applauds for that line. The line is really more of a philosophy, that you owe other people–or, essentially the government–for your success. That, if you produce fruit, you owe it to the government, so it can dole it out to those who “helped” you along the way. (Since half of Americans don’t pay any federal income taxes, the odds are they didn’t help you but nevermind that too) That the government enables your private activity. That the individual and government are one, an inextricable, benevolent force.
This is a complete rejection of natural rights, capitalism (based on private property), individualism, and the Constitution.
Proponents of this philosophy seems to believe your rights to pursue your own interests is granted by government, as opposed to them being inalienable and natural, coming before the creation of government. That capitalism (based on private property; freedom of association and trade, and all the others pieces that make up capitalism), what some call “free disposal of private property” is something permitted by government, instead of private property being a natural extension of you, and freedom of association and trade natural rights. That one must always, even if by force, give to a group and be a piece of the collective, instead of excercising individual liberty and personal responsibility. Perhaps, even that government and the collective is first, then it is the individual. (I like to think the individual is first and foremost; government and the collective would not exist without the individual and his inherent rights and desires.) That government is to act as a charity; a body that dishes out your money to who they deem as unfortunate and deserving.
Obamacare is a clear example of this. Being forced to purchase a service, and taxed as a consequence of not purchasing, is worth accomplishing federalized healthcare. Plus you are still taxed should you agree to purchase the service. The leader must accomplish the collective’s end, by any means, regardless of what the individual’s desires.
The philosophy sounds great on the surface–“Give back to those who give to you.” It is dangerous upon closer examination.
Do rights come from governments or do we have them naturally, upon birth, from our Creator? Of course, they come from the latter source, and the government was created to protect those rights. If rights came from government, then it could pick and choose what things it allowed us to do–life, freely speaking and writing, speedy trial and jury, privacy, etc. If rights were natural, then no body (or body of people or institution) could withhold those rights from you. Hence the Bill of Rights which start out as “Congress should make no law…” As a former Constitutional law professor, the President has to know this document was purposely written to limit the government’s power, and the Bill of Rights was clearly a document to protect individual’s right
He is not talking about giving back. He is referring to taking a particular group’s money (or you as an individual in general), and allowing the government to do what it pleases to cure the economic realm. Part of the government’s solutions is more welfare, and more stimulus and money pumping. Welfare is part of giving back to those people who helped, and the stimulus is meant to pump more money back in the hands of the have-nots to increase consumer confidence and rejuvenating depressed cities.
But of course this is not giving back. To give is a voluntary act. As the most giving nation, we give to whom we please; and as individuals, we have the right to give to whom we please. Money used for welfare–be it human or corporate–is not given. It is taken by force, regardless if the giver agreed to or not.
The stimulus and money pumping has been used over, and over, again, and QE3 is on the way…the question is just when. Despite a slow growing economy, the solution is always more of the same thing. Those who suggest an alternative to more government intervention are labeled as “inconsiderate” and “careless.”
Recently, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers Paul Krugman admitted after receiving June’s poor job numbers, “Employment is growing but it is not growing fast enough given the jobs deficit caused by the deep recession.” Solution? You guessed it.
The President clearly has no concern for capitalism, based on private property and freedom of association and trade. People do work together, but by choice; associations should also be voluntary.
If you are a business owner, do not thank the government. You have already paid for that teacher, roads, etc. The government is supposed to allow capitalism and the pieces that make it. Any belief contrary to this is foolish.
I invite you to join the conversation and subscribe to Minds Alike or e-mail me at BabAdetiba@gmail.com