RoR: Forum

A reasonable argument: many people are successful in America, and they want to give back in a manner that they choose.

An unreasonable argument: many people are successful in America and Obama wants to take from them via state force and give to whom he sees fit without their participation or consent, other than as providers for his whims.

Why would The Participation Trophy President think that is an argument to anoint him and his "Emperors of Giving Back The Success Created by Others?"

Post 1

Monday, July 16, 2012 - 1:14pm

"We inherit the products of the thought of other men. We inherit the wheel. We make a cart. The cart becomes an automobile. The automobile becomes an airplane. But all through the process what we receive from others is only the end product of their thinking. The moving force, is the creative faculty which take this product as material, uses it and originates the next step. This creative faculty cannot be given or received, shared or borrowed. It belongs to single, individual men. That which it creates is the property of the creator. Men learn from one another. But all learning is only the exchange of material. No man can give another the capacity to think. " - Howard Roark's courtroom speech.

"Look, Gail," Roark got up, reached out, tore a thick branch off a tree, held it in both hands, one fist closed at each end; then, his wrists and knuckles tensed against the resistance, he bent the branch slowly into an arc. "Now I can make what I want of it: a bow, or a spear, a cane, a railing. That is the meaning of life."
"Your strength?"
"Your work." He tossed the branch aside. "The material the earth offers you and what you make of it..." (Fountainhead, hd, page 596)

Post 2

Monday, July 16, 2012 - 11:14pm

    Okay, let's call it, "giving back". The best way to do that is to BE successful in life. That great teacher in our past, would want her students to be successful. She would have worked hard at emparting the tools necessary for her students to think, succeed, and expand their abilities. To make the best judgments, in their self-interest, to be successful, and wealthy in the world. These things take nothing from her, or the rest around them. In fact, they ADD to the prosperity of us all. She would encourage that in every one of her students. --An educational system, worth anything, would encourage that!

    As far as roads, and bridges, etc... All our taxes have paid for those things. It is quite irrational to think we wouldn't have any of the things he mentions in this speech, "if it weren't for government" is a statement of one who doesn't apply logic, and reason to his own statements. These things were all provided by the mind of man...not government...regardless of how it all gets funded. The government's theft, is hardly "bragging rights". Much better products, and services would be had, if government DIDN'T butt in and fund these things.

    We give back by being the wealthiest, and most successful, we can be--as individuals in society, and enriching that society with the free trade with others that benefits our own self-interests. This President lacks the ability to see that, or he does see it, and wants to "take it all down" to further the cause of equal poverty, success, and destitution in all the world.

Post 3

Tuesday, July 17, 2012 - 7:06am

WSJ made the same observation. Scroll down to 'You Didn't Build That'.

Post 4

Tuesday, July 17, 2012 - 12:23pm

Of course, other people are involved in the operation of a business besides the originator or entrepreneur, but he is the person responsible for creating it, insofar as he is the one who borrows the money to start it and who organizes and pays for the factors or production, such as the land, labor and capital upon which it depends, and he is the one who must pay the bills in order to sustain it -- such as rent for plant and equipment, wages for his workers, and any debts that he incurs in order to meet his expenses. Most importantly, he is the person responsible for the decisions that determine whether the business succeeds or fails. Contrary to Obama, the entrepreneur is indeed the principal agent responsible for building the business (and for sustaining it). His teachers aren't, his workers aren't, his landlord isn't, and his banker isn't, although they certainly figure in its operation.

As for businesses' "giving back," to the community, there is nothing they need to give back, because consumers have already received more in economic value than they've given up. The reason is that in buying a product, they necessarily value the product more than the money they surrender in exchange for it; otherwise, they wouldn't make the exchange in the first place. Therefore, they've incurred no deficit that needs to be repaid. On the contrary, since they've profited from their purchases, they are better off than they were before they made them.

Post 5

Tuesday, July 17, 2012 - 1:24pm

What I haven't seen anybody point out is that the Warren / Obama claim gets you into an infinite regress. If nobody can take credit but owes it all to others, then those others can't take credit either; they owe it all to yet others, and so on.

Post 6

Tuesday, July 17, 2012 - 3:41pm