Obama: "If You've Got A Business - You Didn't Build That."
- Thread starter ly2 from WF
- Start date
Fucken guy. President of the US, Nobel Peace Prize winner, commander-in-chief of the world's largest army, and still not enough... now he wants to take credit for building everyone else's business too.
Let me play the devil's advocate and ask you folks a serious question...
Suppose a person believes your success is due, in large part, to him or her and the rest of "society." In other words, because you could not have become successful without other people, you owe your success - and by extension, much of your wealth - to them.
How would you persuade that person that such reasoning is misguided? How would you convince that person that your success and wealth should be yours and yours alone?
Here is the reason I ask:
The greater the disparity between the haves and have-nots, and the more desperate the latter group becomes, the more easily the state can compel them to support state-sponsored expropriation of your property. It is becoming increasingly important that you are able to state your position in as compelling a manner as possible. Given this, how would you combat this movement through persuasion? What would be your first, and most persuasive, argument?
Suppose a person believes your success is due, in large part, to him or her and the rest of "society." In other words, because you could not have become successful without other people, you owe your success - and by extension, much of your wealth - to them.
How would you persuade that person that such reasoning is misguided? How would you convince that person that your success and wealth should be yours and yours alone?
Here is the reason I ask:
The greater the disparity between the haves and have-nots, and the more desperate the latter group becomes, the more easily the state can compel them to support state-sponsored expropriation of your property. It is becoming increasingly important that you are able to state your position in as compelling a manner as possible. Given this, how would you combat this movement through persuasion? What would be your first, and most persuasive, argument?
This isn't particularly controversial and is also being misrepresented by this posts title and that blog's interpretation.
Although he has quoted it word for word so you can read it for yourself if you feel like being rational rather than herping some derp.
You don't operate in a vacuum, if you build a business you aren't operating in isolation from society.
Although he has quoted it word for word so you can read it for yourself if you feel like being rational rather than herping some derp.
You don't operate in a vacuum, if you build a business you aren't operating in isolation from society.
Were the relationships earlier in that persons life that led to his/her success, set up on a mutual agreement that they're to give away a portion of their money? Was a contract ever written and agreed to by both parties?
If not, it's not a voluntary relationship and instead it's theft.
You seem to have given implicit consent. If you disagree with the "social contract", are you doing anything to withdraw / cease to cooperate with its institutions, therefore denying implicit consent?
Everything I've ever received was bought and paid for. In the cases that I didn't buy it myself, it was my parents, but they are the only people I owe anything to.
Roads? My access of roads growing up was paid for by my parents. School? Same thing. It was all voluntary (or in the case of the government, involuntary transactions).
In the end my parents are the only people I owe anything to and they willingly gave all of that without wanting or expecting credit in return. And they certainly don't proclaim in front of large audiences how I am not responsible for all of the things I've done for social points.
The government is forcing you to enter a transaction (tax money in return for those "public services") and then taking credit for everything you ever do with what you "purchased" from them.
I don't hear Nike saying "we are responsible for olympic runners".
The US government doesn't let you withdraw from those "contracts" and it is impractical to assume that I even had a choice until I was 18.
Fox & Friends Deceptively Edits Obama's Comments On Small Business | Blog | Media Matters for America
this thread was a success to prove peoples ignorance.
and LOL at people using Fox as a viable news source
this thread was a success to prove peoples ignorance.
and LOL at people using Fox as a viable news source
If you notice, I pointed this out early in the thread, however, it only makes his statement marginally less disgusting, and it still remains a very fucked up thing to say.Fox & Friends Deceptively Edits Obama's Comments On Small Business | Blog | Media Matters for America
this thread was a success to prove peoples ignorance.
and LOL at people using Fox as a viable news source
I apologize, but editing it down doesn't really change ANYTHING except maybe make him MORE ignorant!
A lot of smart people work hard. Yup. But yet they don't build businesses.
And who is to blame for them not doing it or inactivity or failure? The folks that own/build businesses?
Government research created the internet so all these companies could make more money of it? I call bullshit. It was a defense project for the protection of this nation that created the Internet. The original intent was never for people to make money of it. That came later.
Government created the middle class?
FYI - not only FOX was reporting this ... it lead headlines all over news agencies...
The collectivist/Marxist approach is always effective, and will always be effective because there will always be more have nots than there are haves.
I find it interesting to see someone from a minority group work so diligently to deprive individuals belonging to another minority group of their property, income, and rights.
Now you know how I have felt for years.
His re-election is a slam dunk. Romney is going to get destroyed.
You can't. Ayn Rand wrote about this. The masses only understand when it becomes an obvious failure. As long as people hold any belief in the status quo or the way they have been educated, it is impossible to break that belief without a crisis that touches them and everyone around them in a really profound manner.
Simply put, people (at large) don't learn until it hurts. In this case, for the dependent class, that is when it is in their self-interest to switch allegiances, such as when the money becomes worthless or the state can no longer provide loot from the market.
Contracts don't work that way. You should really think this stuff through before you post it. It's obviously fallacious and dangerous.
Indeed, this is the root of the issue. People have been educated to believe that government produces something.
Government must confiscate from private individuals in order to provide anything. Yes, the USG invented the internet, with resources it confiscated from private individuals. It's sort of like a mugger giving you half of your money back and telling you it is a gift from him to you.
Even the 18 year old limit is something arbitrary and which you had no say in.
