The fallacy of 'giving back'

While this idea of 'giving back' has long been a pet peeve of mine, I must admit that this particular post was inspired by Walter Williams' column, "Understanding Liberals," where he concludes:

When a nation vilifies the productive and makes mascots of the unproductive, it doesn't bode well for its future.

Throughout the column he talks about the liberal concept of 'giving back' - rich people must be forced to 'give back' to the poor, as if what they'd earned had been taken forcibly from someone else. As Williams explains, liberals have a "misunderstanding" of the sources of income:

Suppose the true source of income was a gigantic pile of money meant to be shared equally amongst Americans. The reason some people have more money than others is because they got to the pile first and greedily took an unfair share. That being the case, justice requires that the rich give something back, and if they won't do so voluntarily, Congress should confiscate their ill-gotten gains and return them to their rightful owners.

A competing liberal implied assumption about the sources of income is that income is distributed, as in distribution of income. There might be a dealer of dollars. The reason why some people have more dollars than others is because the dollar dealer is a racist, a sexist, a multinationalist or a conservative. The only right thing to do, for those to whom the dollar dealer unfairly dealt too many dollars, is to give back their ill-gotten gains. If they refuse to do so, then it's the job of Congress to use their agents at the IRS to confiscate their ill-gotten gains and return them to their rightful owners.

Williams, in his plain and succinct language, details why this is a fallacy and certainly a wrong assumption to make:

Who should give back? Sam Walton founded Wal-Mart, Bill Gates founded Microsoft, Steve Jobs founded Apple Computer. Which one of these billionaires acquired their wealth by coercing us to purchase their product? Which has taken the property of anyone?

Each of these examples, and thousands more, is a person who served his fellow men by producing products and services that made life easier. What else do they owe? They've already given.

If anyone is obliged to give something back, they are the thieves and recipients of legalized theft, namely people who've used Congress, including America's corporate welfare queens, to live at the expense of others.

But it's not just in economic terms or redistribution of wealth that this concept exists. It's also routinely espoused by candidates as their reason for running for office, which is where my pet peeve comes in.

Too many candidates have no idea why they're running for office - other than they want to - but they can't come out and say "I just want to be..." a school board member, councilman, mayor, representative, senator, etc... That would be selfish, wouldn't it?

They don't say they're running with specific goals in mind, like reducing taxes, cutting costs, enlarging government, rewarding their friends. Such issues, whether liberal or conservative, don't resonate well with voters and have other, controversial, concepts associated with them.

So rather than tell the truth, they state that they want to 'give back' to the community.

My first thought when hearing such a phrase is: "Give back - what have you taken?!? And if you took something, running for office isn't the way to return it - that just puts you in a position to take more!"

Most who make this claim cannot even explain, when asked, what it means. They'll say that their 'community' has helped them in some way - been good to them, educated them, provided a safe place to grow up, given them an environment of clients for their business, etc...

But those things are 'purchased' - in fact, the education and safe environment are clearly paid for by themselves and their own families through income and property taxes and even fees. As for clients, that's a free exchange of goods - people willingly purchasing a product or service which has been offered. That's not a 'taking' (unless you're bilking them in some way) but an economic transaction.

Of course, in today's world, many people see such transactions as 'gifts of government,' failing to understand the economic principles behind the free exchange of goods, services or products. Too many think that their safety, for example, is not something purchased but something they, as a member of a community, are 'entitled' to without consequence (cost) and must, therefore, be 'repaid' to the community as a collective.

It is the implied collectiveness that so concerns me with this 'giving back' concept. It is as if they are saying that everything you have belongs to the community as a whole and you cannot earn them, as a result of your hard work, labor or ingenuity; they are 'granted' to you by the community as a whole which is responsible for dealing them out, obligating you to 'repay' them at some future date through service to the collective.

This collectiveness approach is clearly anti-American, as it is the opposite of individual liberty with the resulting consequences/rewards.

But there are instances when candidates have been the beneficiaries of charity - either by groups of people coming together in an organization or by individuals. If, in fact, a candidate has been such a recipient of someone else's charitable efforts, the way to 'give back' isn't to run for office, but to serve in a similar capacity, either by repaying to the individual(s) or organization through service or donations, or by 'paying forward' to some other in a similar circumstance.

The fallacy of 'giving back' as a reason for running for office is even more onerous when one considers the authority of such offices sought. Most individuals who are elected do not approach the duty of the office as 'service' to the community but as an authority over the community (or a warped sense of service being to tell others what is best for them despite their own opinions or wishes)- instituting laws, rules, regulations, fees, taxes, etc... to accomplish their own personal goals, even when such goals are contrary to the community as a whole.

So when I hear a candidate/politician say they want to 'give back,' I know two things:

1) They really don't know why they are running for office, or, if they do, they don't want the real reason known, and

2) They aren't going to be the type of representative that I want in a position of authority, as they clearly do not understand freedom versus collectivism and will make decisions based upon their 'misunderstanding.'

Questions for our presidential candidates

On February 19th, Toledo Mayor Carty Finkbeiner sent the following letter to the three leading candidates for president, Senators Hillary Clinton, John McCain and Barack Obama:

I write congratulating you for the outstanding campaign you have run against formidable competition.

I also write giving you the opportunity to outline for Toledo and Northwest Ohio residents your plans to stimulate economic recovery in the urban centers of America. I will personally pay to reprint – word for word – in the local paper, both the Saturday and Monday prior to the March 4th election, your response.

The cities of America have many families struggling to make ends meet. Nearly 40 million Americans are officially poor – a family of three living on less than $16,000 annually. And 80% of such poor are living in urban areas.

During the years 1992-2000, the mayors of America saw the following programs greatly assist those living in cities:

∙∙∙ Community Development Block Grants
∙∙∙ Brownfield Clean-up Grants
∙∙∙ Assistance to public housing agencies
∙∙∙ “Cops Now” money to increase the policemen on our streets

Since 2000, most of these programs have been dramatically reduced. And our citizens are hurting.

And I believe Toledoans would be interested in what you would do to reopen NAFTA discussions to protect American workers, particularly those living here in the mid-West. Will you commit to re-negotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and its sister agreements, which have been proven to disadvantage workers in this region of our country while simultaneously facilitating the exploitation of workers and the environment in Mexico and elsewhere in Latin America?

Please outline your programs to assist our citizens, including your ideas to assist those threatened by foreclosure action upon their homes.

I would ask for your response by February 27, giving me the time to reprint your response prior to the primary election on March 4.

Toledoans will appreciate your answers to the questions being raised.

I await your response, and thank you for assisting Toledoans in knowing where you stand on these important issues.

I do not know if he's received any responses yet, but if there are ads in the paper on Saturday, we'll know...

It's a creative idea for the mayor of a city to write to the presidential candidates, but I wish Carty had focused on things that are Constitutionally within the control of the President. 'COPS' grants, local housing and even brownfields clean-up are - or should be - the purview of local communities and states, not the Federal Government.

NAFTA - and the negotiation of treaties - is certainly a duty of the President. But for as many individuals who believe NAFTA has hurt them, there are others who have benefited from the increased trade and opportunities NAFTA has provided. Unfortunately, Carty's letter is written from the perspective of a Democrat mayor, as that is, after all, what he is.

Foreclosures are a problem locally, but despite all the media attention to them, only a small percentage of homeowners are in this situation. And his question to the candidates presumes that the President should do something about this 'problem' despite no Constitutional authority to do so and absent the understanding that Congress is really the entity that regulates this market.

And then there is this column by John Stossel which points out, better than I could, the lack of influence a President has to manage the economy.

"Politicians who talk about managing the economy ignore the fact that, strictly speaking, there is no economy. There are only people producing, buying and selling goods and services. Keep that in mind, and one realizes that government action more often than not interferes with the productive activities that benefit everyone. When politicians propose regulations to fix some problem, they should ask if some earlier intervention created the problem and if the new regulations will make things worse. The answer to both questions is usually yes.

The economy is far too complex for any president -- no matter how smart -- to manage."

Rather than ask what these candidates would do to solve our local problems, I'd ask them questions about the federal budget and financial obligations. Here are some of the questions I'd ask the candidates:

1. Do you believe that budget deficits matter? If so - what are you going to do about them?

2. What would you do to balance the federal budget? What specific spending cuts would you make to achieve a balanced budget?

3. The tax cuts passed since 2001 are set to expire by 2011. Do you support extension of the expiring tax cuts? Why or why not - and please identify if some should expire while others stay.

4. How do you propose to keep Medicare from overwhelming the federal budget?

5. By about 2015, promised benefits from Social Security will greatly exceed dedicated taxes. What steps would you take to close Social Security’s long-term funding gap?

6. Candidates often talk about the 'middle class' in terms of programs and taxation. Please identify earnings criteria (total family income for a family of four) that describes your definition of "middle class." At what level of earnings would this family of four move into the 'rich' category?

While these questions are not as pertinent to the City of Toledo budget as Carty's are, I think they are better questions to ask the people who are vying to lead our country.

What question would you ask????