Skip to main content

Giving Back

Wrong headed liberal / collectivist ideology is frighteningly pervasive, often in forms in which it is unlikely the people involved are even aware of their infection.
As I was watching the latest professional golf tournament, I counted at least a dozen instances in which the announcers used a phrase with subtle, skewed implications. In reference to several PGA professionals' impressive charity work, the announcers referred to the activity as "giving back." As a paraphrase, they would say, "It really is impressive, Jim, how David Toms has taken the time and made the effort to give back." Or, "you can really see that these guys think that 'giving back' is really important."
It is not sufficiently tempting to simply write this off as benign happenstance of word choice. There are too many more obvious, and more longstanding phrases to describe the charity which these pros are performing. They are *giving.* They are NOT giving *back*.
Giving "back" implies that the property they are giving to the various groups was somehow once 'taken' from those groups in some sense. This is the evil idea propagated (sometimes knowingly, sometimes not) by liberals / collectivists for over a century.
When those who have property or wealth have come by it by looting or parasitizing his fellow man as in feudalism, tribalism, socialism, fascism, or communism, then, yes, for such a wealthy man to give to another in need could be considered 'giving back.' But in a free politico-economic capitalistic system, wealth is CREATED by individuals who think and exert themselves to provide a product or service which is DEMANDED by the freely choosing people who make up the market as a whole. The method by which a man in this system becomes wealthy is the moral 'day' compared to the moral 'night' of the listed collectivist systems. It makes all the difference in the world. A wealthy man within capitalism has created the good, the wealth. The market did not create it. The purchasers did not create it. The PRODUCER created. The others recognized the objective worth of his creation and freely traded value for value. **NOTHING** is 'owed' to those who sought and traded for the valuable good or service that the wealthy man created. NOTHING.
So to say that he is "giving back" is tantamount to saying that, like the despots, like the tyrannical mob of socialism, or like the feudal lord, the honest producer has in some sense 'bled' the public of that which was or could or should have been "theirs," and that now we can benevolently nod approval that the wealthy man is somehow doing his just penance and returning some of the good life that he 'took' from them by 'giving back.' This is evil. Though subtle, it is as great a wrong as can be committed. It is the calling the good, evil, and the evil, good. It perpetuates the uncritical ingraining of an evil idea into the vernacular. It furthers the continued unthinking acceptance of the idea that all wealth is generated by a manner of theft, and that therefore rightful claim to wealth is only with those who earned or created NOTHING.

It is good to expose the absurdity of this evil ideology.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Extreme Moderation

The next time you hear someone denounce the 'greed' of the extreme *free* market, of capitalism, try to remember that this is NOT what we have. The US economy was close but not entirely free during the early parts of the industrial revolution. Now, even the term 'mixed' economy is starting to be strained by the overwhelming pervasiveness of the American government in regulating, pressuring, tweaking, pulling, and adjusting all aspects of the economy. At times you will hear a leader of a big business disparage laissez faire capitalism or the free market. Do not be misled into thinking that, well, if a big business man thinks the free economy is unfair or ill suited to producing a just, profitable economy for all, then surely we are justified in fiddling with it. Without exception, this will be a businessman whose interests and competitive advantage depends on PULL in Washington. The very presence of the innumerable Congressional lobbyists and the billions pou...
Post a Comment
Read more

Universal Slavery

We all want people who need health care to get care, just as we all want the hungry fed, etc. In accomplishing this, however, it is immoral to revoke another human's right to the product of his mental and physical effort - his property. It is evil to steal from Bob and give to Jane, and this will always be the case, even if Bob is rich and Jane poor. (This may not have been true in the case of a rich feudal lord or monarch whose wealth came by forcible economic rape of the people, BUT, in American capitalism, wealth is CREATED by the producer of value through mental or physical effort. The value is in the created good or service. Men voluntarily trade monetary markers of value for that CREATED value. Except for those rich who became so and thrive by lobbying (bribing) the government to favor their company/interests with legislation, regulation, or the competition stifling tax code --- except for those evil parasites --- wealth in America is NOT come by through the oppressi...
3 comments
Read more

Inflation

From Mises "Human Action" terms inflationism and deflationism, inflationist and deflationist, signify the poIitica1 programs aiming at inflation and deflation in the sense of big cash-induced changes in purchasing power. The semantic revolution which is one of the characteristic features of our day has also changed the traditional connotation of the terms inflation and deflation. What many people today call inflation or deflation is no longer the great increase or decrease in the supply of money, but its inexo- rable consequences, the general tendency toward a rise or a fall in com- modity prices and wage rates. This innovation is by no means harmless. It plays an important role in fomenting the popular tehdencies toward in- flationism. First of all there is no longer any term available to signify what inflation used to signify. It is impossible to fight a policy which you cannot name. Statesmen and writers no longer have the opportunity of resorting to a ter- minology accept...
Post a Comment
Read more