Obama gave a nice little lesson for a five year old.
[Obama] also suggested to the first-grader that wealthier people should help those who are less fortunate.
“We’ve got to make sure that people who have more money help the people who have less money,” Obama said. “If you had a whole pizza, and your friend had no pizza, would you give him a slice?”
Of course, that’s a false analogy, since what he really means is “If you worked hard and earned money to buy a whole pizza, and I wielded the coercive power of the state, shouldn’t I take half of from you at gunpoint, eat some myself for my trouble, and give the rest to a pizzaless stranger who may not have worked at all, whether you agree or not?”
13 responses so far ↓
1 Milton // Nov 2, 2007 at 7:22 pm
Well its more like the state built the roads, the schools, hired the police, and fireman and they paid for the basic infrastructure that allowed you to get a whole pizza, but you are such a tight wad and ungrateful brat that the state has to force you to give up a little slice of entire pizza so somebody can have the energy to try to get there own pizza
2 pax // Nov 2, 2007 at 8:18 pm
I’m perfectly happy to pay for that stuff, provided by private enterprise. What I object to is paying for all the other nonsense the government spends money on, without any choice in the matter.
And don’t say that it’s a democracy so I should ante up. Six wolves and five sheep voting on what’s for dinner is a democracy too.
3 Jason // Nov 6, 2007 at 12:32 pm
witholding comment in the interest of our friendship.
4 pax // Nov 7, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Heh.. I don’t really understand the hostility to this post, because I’m *not* saying that those with more should not help those with less. I’m not even saying they don’t have the moral duty to help those with less if they can. I’m just saying that the government shouldn’t be *forcing* them to help.
This is a common strawman erected by those who oppose libertarianism. They claim that because libertarians are against the goverment forcing people into doing something positive, that we are against it being done, which is just not the case at all. I am definitely in favor of those who have more helping out those who have less, I’d just like to see it done via private charity and by choice rather than by government fiat.
5 Jason // Nov 7, 2007 at 6:06 pm
There’s just not enough people in this country, or this world, that will do it without being forced. There would just never be enough $ for anything meaningful to get done.
6 pax // Nov 7, 2007 at 6:15 pm
So does that mean using force is morally correct? The end justifies the means?
In my opinion people would probably help the less fortunate, assuming they had the extra money in their pockets due to the much lower taxes. I also think that private charity would have a much greater incentive to ensure that the money went to the truly needy, since they’d be in competition with other charities. The government agencies have completely perverted incentives, since they don’t have funding cut by being unsuccessful, and if they actually helped people they would no longer be necessary.
7 Jason // Nov 7, 2007 at 7:27 pm
The bottom line dude, in this world, is that in many instances, the end DOES justify the means. If you went back and killed Hitler, it would be murder, and that’s wrong. But murdering him saved 6 million lives. Even if the world didnt know it was going to happen. The problem is that the government is so dirty, immoral and corrupt, that the money isnt used properly. It’s not that we have to give it up, it’s that most Americans dont have a clue where their money is being spent, and/or how to have a voice in that spending. - And let’s face it. Most americans couldnt have a real voice in where their money was spent if they tried.
8 pax // Nov 8, 2007 at 2:32 am
But what you don’t comprehend is that the government can *never* use the money properly. It’s the nature of the beast. The necessary feedback can never filter through. If a capitalist wastes money, he loses it, but if the government wastes money they just raise taxes and keep wasting it.
TW: esthetic will
9 Jason // Nov 9, 2007 at 1:06 pm
of course i realize that. but if the power to spend money for infrastructure, helping others, etc was put directly (and only) in the hands of the people on a day to day basis, do you honestly think it would be better? would the individuals of the populace be any less wasteful and stupid than the government? it’s a “best of the worst” situation. what you’re talking about sounds like anarchy to me.
10 Jason // Nov 9, 2007 at 1:08 pm
to take it a step further….say a random highway has developed potholes. really bad ones. and they are causing accidents. So what do you suggest? Putting up a website where people can donate money to fix the highway? do you think there would ever be a POSSIBILITY that any road would get built? that any school would get repaired? that any airport would be expanded, if it was left in the hands of the private sector to get it done?
11 pax // Nov 9, 2007 at 2:22 pm
It’s a “tragedy of the commons” problem, in that since no one owns it no one has incentive to spend for upkeep. Ideally the road would be privately owned and the owner would do that, but that’s getting into libertarian ideals and this is the real world.
I have no major issue with taxes being levied for that infrastructural purpose, but they should be levied as locally as possible to where the money is being spent, since that allows the most oversight by the voters. And let’s not pretend that all, or even most government spending falls under that category.
And you use the word “anarchy” like it’s a bad thing..
12 Jason // Nov 9, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Now let’s hope you were kidding and you don’t really think that the human race is responsible enough to live in a world of anarchy and actually survive. Seriously?
That’s the problem with libertarianism IMO. Most of the things that libertarians believe in just flat out arent possible in the real world. Private ownership of the infrastructure, for real?
13 pax // Nov 9, 2007 at 5:43 pm
Ideally, yes, but most libertarians recognize that the rest of you aren’t ready to understand how that could work and why it would be better yet.
I debate with myself whether actual anarchy would be a good idea.. but what you don’t understand is that when libertarians say “anarchy” they don’t mean some kind of thunderdome-like reality, but the absence of *government*, not the absence of order. I can’t explain it in a comment or blog posting, but if you’re interested I’d suggest reading any of the books I have listed here.
But anyway, regardless of whether actual full blown anarchy is a good idea, moving in that general direction is definitely a good idea. Hell, just stopping the movement in the other direction would be nice.
Leave a Comment