faoecqu452

On Friday, President Obama gave a campaign speech in Roanoke, Virginia. The of his speech was:

“There are a lot of wealthy,moncler doudoune, successful Americans who agree with me because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t… look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something: there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet. The point is, is that when we succeed,doudoune moncler femme, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires,air jordan pas cher, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.”

This speech merits dissection and refutation from a free market libertarian perspective.

“There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me because they want to give something back.”

They do give something back. America is the in the world. Obama's insistence on stealing from the rich by means of taxation deprives them of money that they would have put toward charitable causes of their own free will. His policies that ignore this are not only an example of the , but as Penn Jillette , “...you get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think is right. There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at gunpoint.”

“If you’ve been successful,ralph lauren Photographing Iceland's Fiery Vo, you didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something: there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.”

This excerpt begins with an absolute statement, so all one has to do is find a single person who is completely self-made to provide a counterexample that refutes the argument. There is also an unfortunate implication that intelligence and hard work are not tools for success.

“There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges.”

This is true. But there was a time when that somebody was the private sector. Innovation combined with the natural selection of the free market allowed for advances in education and the development of efficient transportation systems. But then the state weaseled its way into such matters, destroying competition and establishing a violent monopoly. The quality of education would be improved by putting it back in the hands of the free market,doudoune moncler pas cher, as Andrew Young and Walter Block . Mr. Block also has an for why roads would also fare better in private hands.

“If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

Tell that to the millions of entrepreneurs and small business owners who have worked 80 hours every week for years to build their businesses. Some statements are so obviously false as to be unworthy of a lengthy refutation.

“The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.”

This statement assumes that the Internet could not have been created without the government. This is another , because the private sector also has an interest in the increase of knowledge,air jordan, and would fund research in the absence of the state. In a stateless society, scientists would have still wanted a method of sharing data quickly, and private defense agencies would have wanted a computer network to coordinate operations,moncler pas cher, just as the U.S. military does in this society. Finally,chaussures air jordan, the statement that the government created the Internet for the purpose of corporate profits is false. Corporations such as Netcom, PSINet, and UUNET made the Internet widely available for this purpose, not the state.

“The point is, is that when we succeed,polo lacoste 2012 February The Pakistan Policy B, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.”

This is true when taken at face value,doudoune moncler, but it is a nonsensical non sequitur to make the implication that because people need help from someone to get started in life or business, people owe a debt of gratitude (and tax money) to the state.

“There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.”

Once more, the implication here is that if the government did not do this necessary thing,louis vuitton outlet, it would not get done. This statement also shows a remarkable ignorance of the operation of the free market versus the operation of the state. Consider a from November 2010 in which a government fire department watched a man's house burn down because he had not paid a $75 fee, even when he offered to pay more than the fee and cover all costs associated with putting out the fire at the time of the incident. A private fire department in a free market would never do this,moncler pas cher, for fear of the bad press and resultant loss of market share associated with such an uncaring act. In a competitive market, there is accountability. In a violent monopoly, there is none.

In closing, it is worth noting that this sort of thinking that Obama displayed on Friday is not new. 150 years ago, Karl Marx had similar ideas about collectivism and . There were also people who thought like this 200 years ago. They were known to ask, “If we free the slaves, how will we pick the cotton?” But it does not matter how the cotton is picked once the slaves are free. What matters is that slavery is immoral. and are the modern forms of slavery in America, and it is time to strengthen the abolitionist movement.