We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Samizdata quote of the day “Obama also wishes us to believe that, because successful producers learned something from government teachers, used government roads and bridges, employed government research, and the like, this means they don’t really own their success or wealth. Rational Americans know full well that the government funds such things by forcibly confiscating the wealth of producers. Rational Americans also know that a bum is as free to use a government bridge as is a successful business owner, but the business owner chose to apply his intelligence and work hard to build something great.”
– Craig Biddle.
In some ways, Obama’s assertion that we don’t really deserve credit for, or earn, what we produce because of such factors is a bit like the idea that the guard-dog that protects our house owns it, not the owner. I get the impression that Obama’s comments are causing him quite a lot of damage, and I hope he continues to be pounded for them.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
I don’t see that there is anything incorrect about saying every success has piggy-backed off of someone else down the road. It’s a given in Market Theory. You can find mention of it as early as Adam Smith, and the essence is found in Milton Freedman’s famous comment (quote?) about how a pencil is made. One of Matt Ridley’s most important points is that all solutions are created by people cooperating in ways they do not understand.
Three things bother me about Obama’s statement:
1. He (along with Elizabeth Warren) believes he is the first to understand this.
2. He has no idea that the problem is that government spending is way out of control.
3. The solution is less spending, less taxing.
Dom,
If BO was merely saying that no-one operates in isolation and that we all benefit from the achievements and contributions of others (I see so far as I stand on the shoulders of giants, etc) no-one would disagree. And many free marketeers of various stripes would make the point. We benefit from secure laws, property rights, the work of teachers, etc. But the overall context of what BO is saying is to denigrate and pull down the idea of the entrepreneur as someone entitled to receive the full value of what they earn. It has to be seen in the context of a man who is simply hostile to the traditions of individualism, free markets, and the rest.
Methinks Obama just sank his teeth into the hand that, right now, conventional thinking suggests he should be trying to persuade to feed him. If it hadn’t been for donations from successful business owners, he wouldn’t have been able to run for any of the offices he’s run for, so far.
Hmm – I admit my knowledge of US political history is sketchy at best, but has there ever been a US election where one party has run the final straight up to the election date effectively unopposed?
Comments that amount to “you wouldn’t have got where you were today if your mother had not given birth to you” are true but mostly content-free and rather “no shit, sherlock-y”. Obama’s speech is entirely different, it’s suggesting that you owe a great deal of your success to The State. Which is bull-hockey.
“You Didn’t Build That” – The definitive poster collection
So would you say Anthony de Jasay was psychic re: Obama’s (and of course many other statists) thoughts and your analogy when he penned this in ’02?
http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/Jasaydog.html
Title: Your Dog Owns Your House.
It’s a bit like Joseph Fritzl asking for a cut of his victims future earnings because he had a hand in their rearing and education.
If you can’t say no it’s not a contract and you don’t owe anyone a damn thing.
Poosh,
“All You Zombies”
Otherwise, yes. Nobody conceived themselves.
@ DOM:
Your # 3
That will not be enough. No, I am not speaking to “more revenues,” I address the basic killers.
We (the U S) must phase out the three publicly worshiped programs that have no constitutionally authorized empowerment for the disbursements made through them.
None of them are disbursements for the General Welfare even if that were the basis claimed.
Each set of disbursements is for a specific class:
1. A particular group of individuals who survive to a certain age, who have been able to engage in particular employments for specified periods.
2. For certain expenses of a particular group of individuals who have reached a certain age, and have paid certain taxes.
3. certain expenses incurred by certain indigent persons.
None of those are “General.” Nor can diffuse benefits to the “quality” of society make them so.
We will continue to bleed fiscally until Social Security; Medicare and Medicaid are phased out of the operations and functions of the Federal government.
The public must find new idols.
The proposals to constantly extend the trough to accomodate more of the electorate, without regard to the who has the obligations to fill it, or how it shall be filled (let alone if), are calls for the “pigs who are less equal.”
Take a lesson from NPR in the U S:
Sweat, energy, things foregone, sacrifices, taxes paid, intelligence applied, as we have worked for ourselves and for one another, have provided those things; not politicians, not governments.
Thank You
I’ve read some very good commentary about this speech, and some dynamite satirical take-offs, but many are missing the main point of why people are objecting to it.
It’s not the sentiments expressed so much, although they do articulate a very specific collectivist view of society, but the utter disdain with which they are directed at anyone who has the least pride in their accomplishments.
Possibly the best analysis I read was that the reason the leader of the current regime thinks like this is that everything in his life happened just like that—he actually accomplished very little on his own merit, but was constantly rewarded for what he was instead of who he was, or what he had done.
One of the reasons so much of his alleged scholarship and other “accomplishments” in school have remained hidden is because there’s really nothing much there, and exposure would reveal a second class mind pretending to be a trendy, modern intellectual.
So many people are so surprised that he’s floundering and misspeaking on a regular basis, but if you view him as a mildly talented state level pol who lucked into the national spotlight, and then rode the train to the presidency, it’s not surprising at all.
He’s a one-trick-pony, as so many con men and phonies are. He sounds good in a carefully structured environment, and looks the way many people want their savior pol to look.
But underneath, there’s nothing there—an empty suit.
underneath is pure evil
MILITARY INSIDER: President Obama – “By Any Means Necessary”
Pray tell, what is the one trick?
It’s galling for those who have worked to earn the blessings of prosperity to be sneered at by the premier affirmative action quota baby of the age. I hope everyone who voted for him and does so again cries the racking sobs of a five year old when we fire his non-performing, not-good-enough ass (arse).
If a successful person has achieved success only because of the state’s support, does that mean that all those who are unsuccessful or worse, turn to crime, are similarly a product of the state’s failure? With such widespread failure, is the state fit for purpose?
I can’t understand who Barry is pitching to. The left already have this concept tattooed into their DNA and they’d vote for anyone with the appropriately coloured rosette. I can’t imagine he really believes he can persuade anyone with any intelligence with this argument. One conclusion is that he’s trying to throw the election to let someone else clean up the mess.. unless he’s entered the dictator mentality where reality is kept at bay by Yes Men.
…or he actually and sincerely believes this crap. Or all of the above.
“… a second class mind pretending to be a trendy, modern intellectual.”
Being a trendy, modern intellectual requires a second class mind.
As Elizabeth Warren’s rant, and Barack Obama’s similar rant, were making the news, I have been reading Thomas Sowell’s Marxism: Philosophy and Economics. In spite of Dr. Sowell’s clear and lucid style, it isn’t easy. Marx is tough sledding. Based on my understanding, Obama and Warren were both spouting a 100 proof Marxist concept: Surplus Value. According to this concept, all accumulated wealth in a capitalist economy is the accumulation of value created by workers in excess of their own labor-cost. This Marx called Surplus Value, and is the illegitimate source of all capitalists’ wealth. Thus, no capitalist can claim to be the legitimate owner of his wealth. It was created by the sweat of the brow of others, and is fair game for taxation, or outright seizure (come the revolution).
Why am I talking about surplus value instead of the infrastructure argument Obama and Warren made? Because the idea that the accumulated wealth of a capitalist is not legitimately his, is one of those things that “everyone knows.” That is, everyone in the faculty lounge. Obama and Warren were just being cagey to avoid using terminology directly from Capital or the Manifesto.
All should note that this recent outburst (Roanoke, VA.) has not been given play in the newspapers or most TV channels (Fox excepted).
However, it’s “out there” and the public is hearing it.
Hopefully, up here in Massachusetts it will also damage Elizabeth Warren another totally unqualified academic, by reminding all of her idiotic rant.
Another reason I object to the ‘you owe your success to a government program’ fraud is that the assumption behind it that a road built by my government becomes an open-ended, unlimited justification to tax any and all economic activity related to it.
Excuse me Barack but if what you say is true then just WHERE are the roads and infrastructure being built TODAY for those businesses that WILL use them and become successful SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE and that would NOT exist if the roads hadn’t been built
FIRST ???????
I won’t even address the the ignored fact that those roads were built with taxpayer money, forcibly extracted from the taxpayer(s), whether or not said taxpayer(s) created a successful business !!!
An interesting thing is how the story keeps spreading – in spite of the msm (the Financial Times newspaper and so on) totally misreporting it (if they report the story at all).
Even I have to admit that this is the power of the internet in action.
You know, Obama is right!
What Venice in Italy needs is a road-building program! THEN the place would thrive!
I love the line about Obama from The Whited Sepulchre (linked by Ted above):
“He’s a parasite that thinks he’s a host.”
That deserves spreading.
It does indeed Laird.
Government is a parasite upon civil society – civil society (not government) is the host.
And if the parasite becomes too big or too extensive – the host (civil society) dies.
For PMO:
“
Charles Murray; Irving Kristol Lecture at AEI 2009