Posted on 07/26/2012 9:21:14 AM PDT by Greg Swann
It's vampire versus vampire at the National Review. In response to President Obama's "you didn't build that" attack on individual initiative, a New Hampshire contractor insisted that he did so build his business. Except, as Think Progress reports, the guy is a rent-seeker. He built his business by the sweat of the tax-payer's brow in the form of government-subsidized loans, grants and contracts.
The Think Progress article is disgusting, and the comments are worse, but the National Review piece isn't much better:
This man pays taxes that support this government endeavor (and many others he does not benefit from),That would be the logical fallacy Two Wrongs Make A Right.
and he is operating in a business environment in which all his competitors have access to government funds.And that is the logical fallacy Tu Quoque.
This is me in Man Alive!:
The paths to error are infinite, but two landmarks I have learned to rely on, in listening to people trying to justify their evil actions, are the logical fallacies Tu Quoque and Two Wrongs Make A Right. Tu Quoque is Latin. It means, “You do it, too.” When you catch your teenager swiping a beer, the pre-fabricated rationale will surely be, “Well, you drink, why can’t I?!?” And you were probably very young when you first heard some little proto-brute justifying his vengeance by bellowing, “Well, he hit me first!” -- ergo, two wrongs make a right. You should probably be on your guard against any statement that starts with a “well” and ends with an exclamation point. That particular verbal construction seems to fit very comfortably in the mouths of liars and thugs. But when you hear those two logical fallacies being deployed in tandem, what you are hearing, almost certainly, is a cunningly-crafted rationalization of an abominable injustice.This is the comment I left to the atrocious argument at National Review:
Taking money from the government in any form is welfare -- receiving stolen funds.That was a conversation stopper. I shouldn't complain, though. Very often, when I leave comments at conservative web sites, they never show up at all.You can't avoid using government roads; the state is a coercive monopoly on roads and other so-called "public services."
You definitely can avoid taking money that has been stolen from innocent tax-payers.
When you take that money, no matter how you rationalize it, you are a moocher, a looter, a thug, a welfare slave.
This is obvious, no need to tap-dance around it.
Are you bursting with the need to say, "Yeah, but..."? Let me do it for you:
"Yeah, but surely I'm entitled to get something back from my taxes." The word 'entitled' almost always denotes welfare-slavery, but it means nothing in a context where you do not have a legally-enforceable contract. Your money was stolen from you, yes. But once it was, it became part of a vast pool of stolen funds, and none of that money is yours. When you presume to claim some of it, you are making yourself complicit in the slavery of innocent people whose sole crime was working to provide for themselves and their loved ones.
"Yeah, but if I don't take that money, somebody else will." If so, the people who take it will have soiled themselves. What benefit to you self-adoration will you realize by soiling your self?
"Yeah, but just because I built my business with coerced 'investments,' that doesn't make me the bad guy!" Yes, it does. There is no way to tap-dance around theft.
In truth, most small-businesses don't take government money. The owners of those firms are the victims of the state's countless intrusions, and they persevere gamely while bearing unbearable parasitic burdens. They did build their businesses themselves, with no stolen funds or rent-seeking favors, and they have every right to be proud of themselves. But by giving rent-seekers cover -- by permitting tax-looting thugs to call themselves business-people -- they arm their own enemies.
Here is a sign I made for honest entrepreneurs:
I would love to see this posted prominently in every place of business in America. If you are not the crook, the leech, the moocher that the president of the United States says you are, tell it to the world -- starting with your customers.
And if you have taken tax money in the past? If you have campaigned for competition-killing laws? Go forth and sin no more. You were wrong, but now you know you were wrong. The past cannot be changed, but the future can. If you continue to try to live as a looter, you will know without doubt what you are -- and so will everyone else. When your neighbors and competitors finally get up the nerve to celebrate their own virtue, they will have no trouble at all expressing contempt for your vice.
And in the battle of vampire versus vampire, scrupulous honesty slays every demon.
well, bye.
In which case you are a mocher, a thug and a welfare slave since you accept the protection of your local police force and the US Military.
You sir are a scum-sucking, communist pinko bed-wetting slime ball. You have no clue and it shows.
(PING to TheOldLady)
Thats PRICELESS!!!!!
Feel free to steal for future use. I make ‘em to share. ;)
At every opportunity the whole family regales anyone who will listen with the horror stories of eyewitness accounts of government waste in the building trades.
Hoo Boy. With this post #30, you’ve just called Jim Robinson a “moocher, a looter, a thug, a welfare slave.”
And I see (post #41) how he feels about that.
~snort~
If I LEND you my car for the trip or RENT you my car for Vegas, you have either signed a rental lease and shaken hands and agreed to RETURN the car with a FULL gas tank.
THEFT (taking) is having no intention of ever returning the car and maybe even “forgetting” to tell me you are the one who has it.
When I took my “GI Loan”, the guarantee was by the VA, but the money came from a local bank. I took nothing and paid it monthly until “paid in full”. The bank made money, the town collected the taxes, the furniture stores made money, and everyone involved had nothing TAKEN from them.
“POST of the day” BUMP!!!
"The VA" is a proxy for "The Taxpayers". Had you defaulted on that loan, we the taxpayers would have been on the hook for it. A country can get in real trouble with that sort of thing ...
You're welcome.
That swann fellow was a d-bag, for sure. His comment #30 clearly marked him so.
There are a lot of things the government is doing, and some of "us" even benefit from them, that the government SHOULD NOT be doing. Let's not defend the indefensible just because we happened to benefit from it and some self-righteous creep was criticizing it.
I draw a distinction between accepting welfare in various forms, versus being an honest employee, contractor, or supplier to a government entity. Providing goods and services at an honest price is not "stealing".
An exception would be the affirmative-action crowd who get money for stuff that the government wouldn't pay for if it came from a straight white male with no connection to politicians.
” I swear to almighty God if Obama gets re-elected, I’m quitting my job, selling all I have, moving what’s left of my on-shore money over-seas and moving to the lowest tax state I can find. I’ll find a minimum wage job and become a burden to the system first, before this jerk in the White House gets another thin dime from me. F’ him. “
Having owned a few businesses, I agree 100%. I just closed my last one, as it wasn’t worth the anguish.
So, providing a service or product to the government, based on one's qualifications to do so, and at a fair market price (the same price paid by private sector clients) is welfare?
Sorry, but I disagree.
Now, taking government money to subsidize your business without providing fair market value in return - I definitely agree.
A vainglorious Swan(n) zotted into a little crispy, smoldering duckling!
And the smoldering little duckling is probably still squawking "YOU WILL BOW TO MY AUTHORITAH!"
It certainly has been interesting to see the comings and goings of various FR participants over the years.
Thanks for the ping, the thread was .... ummmm ... interesting, to say the least.
No need to hide. Just don't pretend to give validity to all the welfare that has been hung onto Social Security with no contribution whatsoever and treat it with the same disdain as the original contract (enforced, with no choice in the matter) between government and every long-term worker of the last 70 years.
Get rid of all the parasitic welfare first, then we can have a rational discussion.
The fact that one party to a contract engages in criminal neglect does not invalidate the other party's claim of non-performance.
The half of the SS budget, including Medicaid, and all welfare programs can make no such claim.
And we can dispense with the related claim that not taxing all actually working taxpayers more is a form of subsidy.
I wonder where in the Federal Rules of Evidence that one shows up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.