« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Which Comes First, People or Government?

[promoted from the diaries as part of the Ambitious Writer's Program]

Which comes first, egg or chicken?  It’s a philosophical question that could be answered either way.  There is really no right or wrong answer to this question.  Ever since Obama spoke foolishly out of his mouth with his now infamous quote, “You didn’t build that,” as if business must depend on some assistance from government in order to succeed at all, I’ve been doing a lot of thinking on this subject.  I realize that this is old news by now, as most people’s attention span is short and anything that happens 2 or 3 weeks ago might as well count as an eternity, but in my opinion, this is something that’s worth to debate.  So, please bear with me.

Obama claimed that his statement was taken out of context, and that he was actually referring to somebody investing in roads and bridges.  Well, let’s talk about that, shall we?  Again, the philosophical question of egg and chicken can be applied in this situation.  By what means were roads and bridges built?  If it was government investing in roads and bridges, then by what means did it collect enough funds to fund these projects?  Through taxes, right?  On whom or what were taxes levied on?  Private companies and individuals.  The only way government could collect enough taxes to fund various public projects was if the private sector made enough profit to be taxed.  In the other words, government depends on the private sector in order to be able to function smoothly.

Obama is also forgetting one very important fact, while it’s true that government did invest some in roads and bridges as to create an environment that’s conducive for entrepreneurs to thrive in, there were some private companies that specialized in building roads and bridges!  For instance, are you aware of the fact that Keystone Bridge Company founded by Andrew Carnegie built some well-known bridges like Eads Bridge in St. Louis?  During the 19th century, there were more than 2,000 privately owned companies that built roads over all America.  I don’t deny the fact that government at all levels probably did finance some of roads and bridges, but let’s not delude ourselves into thinking that only government could build roads and bridges.  All of this information can be simply obtained from a few minutes of a simple Google search on the Internet, perhaps that is something Obama should have done before he opened his mouth.

So, which comes first, people or government?  That’s the question we must begin to answer honestly if we want to pursue the theories of small government and free market economics into actual practice.  Of course, some critics will be quick to point out that while all of this is perhaps true, the private sector still depends on government to ensure law and order are enforced, so that everyone may conduct their business in peace.  I agree with this point.  I call it interdependence.  The private sector depends on government for law and order, and likewise, government depends on the private sector to collect enough funds in the service of various public interests such as funding the national defense.  Each side does its part by working in harmony with each other, but who gave it the first spark?

It’s the people who have given their consent to form a strong, central government in order to ensure America will grow as a prosperous country.  The people first invested their energy, time, and resources into forming the government we have today.  Any government formed requires people to give their consent in order to have legitimacy and powers vested in itself to ensure law and order are enforced.  For Obama, it’s as if he skipped over the part in the Constitution, where it says, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union..”  Based on this preamble, it’s clear that we as the People invested first in forming a more perfect Union.  It’s not the other way around.  Therefore, from this point on forward, the government obtained its powers from the consent of the People.

For many business owners and those who work hard without asking for public assistance from government, it’s understandable how they would feel offended by Obama’s foolish statement.  But this is an opportunity to gain an insightful view into the minds of Obama and his supporters alike.  We can at last see how by imbibing Marxist principles, they might have arrived at the conclusion that no one really builds anything by himself without government’s assistance.  It’s a scary thing to behold.  Ironically, many liberal critics often mock Reaganomics as the concept of “trickle-down” economics, but in the reality, it’s they who are in fact practicing such concept by giving Government at the top more power, and as its effects and benefits trickle down to the people at the bottom, prosperity will at last flourish like never seen before.  It should give you some food for thoughtful poundings.

We can debate the philosophical question of egg and chicken for as long we wish, and no answer will be completely wrong.  But in terms of answering which people or government comes first, there can be really no debate on this philosophical question.  An honest answer to this sort of question will undoubtedly produce a different kind of expectation for our government and how we try to succeed in our lives without government breathing down our necks all the time.

In a sense, Obama is right, we didn’t build this kind of government, even though he was actually referring to the private sector.  So let’s invest our energy, time, and resources into building the kind of government we want and demand – the government that’s reduced in its size and scope of authority that permits the private sector to thrive without being strangled by excessive regulations and taxes.  What do you say to this?

COMMENTS

  • westcoastpatriette

    but for me, the answer is simple. It is all the people’s doing. Government exists only because the people allow it, finance it, and through their elected representatives, approve what projects belong in the government’s hands.

    Furthermore, when liberals are in charge, they want the government to do more and control more of our lives through confiscating more of our money and using it for things we don’t need them to use it for.

    Only a liberal could think that any of us owe our success to the government. The government “owes” its very existence to us and without us, could not function or have any purpose.

    Every business owner contributes their share of taxes to pay for the infrastructure necessary to function in America, so they owe the government nothing more for their success.

    • Cheetah772

      I agree with everything in your comment, so there’s no further need for me to add anything to yours.

      In a nutshell, government depends on the successes of privately owned companies in order to function smoothly, and somewhere down the road, Obama believes it’s the other way around.

      Perhaps for Obama, government IS the ultimate tool for the betterment of humankind, thus it must be built up by any means even if it means taking away the fruit of our labors.

      That’s the worst thing he could do to us, and we must pound this message into the minds of the voters when they vote in November.

      • westcoastpatriette

        It was hilarious. Now, it’s gone.

        • Cheetah772

          He did email me explaining his reason as to why he deleted the image. He actually did say that he agreed with me, but for the site’s sake, he had to delete the image.

          I get that. I have no problem with that. After all…Streiff is the boss (or one of bosses anyway).

          Nonetheless, I am thrived that my diary is now on the front page.

          • westcoastpatriette

            I can see how some couldn’t have handled it in the light that it was meant.

            And, yes. Congratulations on making it to the front page. Good job.

    • noveldog9

      You are so right in your post. Liberals want to make Slaves of us through a larger, and larger government. They want us to think we could not exist or succeed without their blessings. The problem is most often they prevent innovative ideas from becoming reality through their harmful regulations.

      To simplify things look at it this way. The Democrats are for a One World Government. They want to boss us around and tell us what we can, or can not do. They impede more often than they assist. They want humble obedient slaves who will bow down to them.
      Even Moochelle, she has about three dozen slaves (assistants ) to wait on her.

      As for BHO he blames all his failures on someone else. He is like a J A C K A S S running around braying into the wind, “It he fault, he fault, he fault”!

      The best thing is to vote for a smaller government by voting for the Republicans this time around. They want to cut taxes and cut spending. The Democrats want to increase spending, and raise taxes making us their slaves. So make your choice…it should be clear.

  • fredflintlock

    While Obama focused on roads, bridges and teachers in his Roanoak speech, he was, in fact, making another redistributionist appeal. This is typical Obama, using infrastructure as a proxy for the welfare state while he pitches for tax increases on the wealthy as a benefit for the rest of us.

    Further, his claim that business owners don’t shoulder a fair share of the infrastructure burden is unfounded. Roads and schools are not supported by income taxes. Those revenues are generated by property taxes, local business taxes and gasoline taxes, as well as state and local use fees. Increasing the income tax will add nothing to my county road commission’s coffers.

    Obama’s language was plain enough. Win elections by promising to give voters other people’s money. The theme of the Virginia bus-stop tour was, “My Vision for the Middle Class in Virginia”. Obama’s vision is nothing but old school redistributionism. He and his ilk will not rest until they reclaim the 70% tax rate for top earners that Reagan, Kemp and Roth repealed in ’81.

    And don’t forget, middle class tax rates were higher before Reagan too. Thais is the dirty little secret about democrat plans to tax the rich. It is really a plan to tax everybody (with exceptions for key democrat voting blocks).

    • Cheetah772

      That the only way government could collect enough funds was through taxing the privately owned companies and individuals. But the thing with taxes is that in order for taxes to be collected, you first have to have some sort of income from work or business.

      This is what Obama missed. He believes that government invests in the infrastructure first, but it’s actually the other way around. In the other words, his counterclaim is bogus.

      By the way, thank you for stopping by and commenting on my front page diary.

  • Pingback: Paul Cozzy

  • Pingback: Brady Twyman

  • Pingback: Morris Nocon

  • Pingback: Automobile Forum

  • Pingback: Welcome to My Blog

  • Pingback: Reverse Number Lookup

  • Pingback: Investment Opportunities

  • Pingback: portal randkowy

  • Pingback: βιβλια

  • Pingback: wielu ludzi w jednym miejscu

  • Pingback: distilling rum

  • Pingback: darmowa strona z randkami

  • Pingback: strona z randkami

  • Pingback: rewelacyjny portla randkowy

  • Pingback: randki internetowe

  • Pingback: steel strapping

  • Pingback: alcohol distillery

  • Pingback: girls in white dresses

  • Pingback: Virus

  • Pingback: Why Not Try These Out

  • Pingback: Pop Over To These Guys

  • Pingback: You Can Try These Out

  • Pingback: breastactives pills

  • Pingback: web design barrow

  • Pingback: skachat karos nachalo

  • Pingback: madamlux

  • Pingback: desain interior rumah

  • Pingback: biaya bangun rumah

  • Pingback: Keneth Serrata

  • Pingback: Ty Baudoin

  • Pingback: Store Fixture Installations

  • Pingback: growing aloe vera

  • Pingback: wzór cv

  • Pingback: curriculum vitae

  • Pingback: sofy rozkładane

  • Pingback: air compressors

  • malvernpa

    We have a huge mess on our hands because Obama understands his job to be one of creating economic fairness as HE sees fairness to be. You didn’t build that is an all encompassing term to Obama, listen to his discussion on the constitution in his 2001 radio interview in Chicago it is easy to Google. Unlike Bill Clinton Obama has core beliefs, his beliefs are simply Marxist ( Marxism is redistributionism) he told America this when talking to Joe The Plumber ( we need to spread the money around ) and I believed him, so I voted against him, so I did not build this government mess that we have. No where in any of our documents that define our government is ” the president will determine what is fair economically” part of the job description, he is to be sure that the laws passed by the congress are executed. This fairness is pure PC verbiage for Marxist policy. The government, “by the people”, has the power of taxation. That taxation is for the needs of the community managed by government. Here is Obama’s problem, he does not want to successfully manage the government for the people, he wants fairness as he and only he sees it to be the result of the taxation, we MUST look at all of Obama’s words. We are all adults here, well mostly, so we are capable of listening to a man and decide what it is he said. This is not about a safety net for those who are unable for some legitimate reason to care for themselves. Obama’s mission is Marxist redistribution to achieve fairness as defined solely by Obama if he can get away with it. If there is a context for him manifested by 3 1/2 years of words and actions that is it. That is why we have the mess that we do. A casual observer can only come to that conclusion. I prefer to look at the content of the character, Obama has none. He is a raw Marxist not a fuzzy socialist. At least with Bill Clinton if you looked deep enough inside him you find an appetite, Obama is Marxist to the core.

  • Cheetah772

    I like one of your sentences, you wrote, “That taxation is for the needs of the community managed by government.”

    Exactly! But for Obama, the taxation is for the desires of the government managed by…government. We’re abusing the real purpose of taxation. It’s not supposed to be used for entitlement programs, or to expand the scope of authority for government into all aspects of our daily lives.

    Thank you for stopping by and commenting on my front page diary.

  • funwithknives

    could possibly imagine he said anything other than what he so obviously meant, clearly shows that sad state of affairs where Critical Thinking is concerned.

    What we see here is no less than a true reflection of what passes for ‘Education’ in the public sector.
    A demonstrated inability to think through a problem and to simply swallow what is suggested , is just a milepost of what passes for ‘smarts’ in this day and age.
    ‘Your own’ misguided opinions , beating facts in the Marketplace of Ideas is a topic we all see and bear witness to , daily.

    Since Barry was elected , he has made statements that are then walked back, re-explained, and parsed unto utter boredom.
    Then, The Acolytes and Syncophants can pull from their palettes what they choose to espouse, for the short and long term historical records.
    He effectively says nothing else to clarify, and for many *Boobus Americanii*, this is a settled issue, and the memory simply fades……..

    …until the same tactic reappears, yet again,…and the cycle repeats.

  • talgus

    Government attracts liberals as it fulfills their need to be in charge and do something for others without committing any of their stuff.
    Conservatives want personal success and see personal efforts as means to that end. In most cases, they want nothing to do with government. This, of course, leads us to where we are.

  • 6eorge Jetson

    is the two-sided trade.

    That’s how wealth is created above and beyond our own efforts.

    Government does and can produce services and goods that are involved in transactions that leave both sides better off.

    But at the margins given the current state of the economy, which types of transactions are likely to create the most utility for society? Government-mandated transactions in which one side dictates to the other, or transactions that are voluntarily entered by both sides (presumably to the benefit of both sides except for those involving fools which are soon parted from their money)?

    I wish Hannity would stop booting by claiming ONLY the private sector creates wealth, when a more precise, correct framing is still a conservative home run. No, a far more correct framing would state that, of economic activity above and beyond that which already exists, voluntary trades between two free-acting parties would benefit society more than one-sided, mandated transactions BY AN OVERWHELMING DEGREE. A historical examination of free versus central command societies provides OVERWHELMING evidence.

    I think of the role of government in three spheres:

    1. Establishing security and a parsimonious set of rules

    Our wealth is maximized in the world when the Hitlers, the Hirihitos, the Stalins, and the Mao Zedong’s are defeated. Likewise, our wealth is maximized when within our country, the right to personal safety and personal property is respected. The government sets the parsimonious rules of the football game. The government doesn’t insist that you must run up the middle on third and one.

    2. Large scale investments that aren’t well incentivized in the private sector

    This includes NASA, basic scientific research (for which someone down the road may figure out how to capitalize on), infrastructure and road building, mass education for everyone (everyone gets at least some education, even though it is not top end), etc.

    Obama, this is Earth. We do engage in these types of activities. You should have seen this anytime you’ve been on the beltway in at least the past three years, as the beltway has been under a constant massive upgrade construction state over that time.

    Also, the next time someone quotes a trade union study grading the US infrastructure at a D so it can profit from more business, please point out the conflict of interest. (It can’t be an F, that would imply incompetence, but the D is just perfect for profit maximization.)

    3. Other spheres which the private sector can fill

    The government has no business here. The activities of many free actors will innovate far more effectively that the govt with its top down static plans. (Call it many blind squirrels in the private sector finding the nut. They still have found the nut.)

    And note that activites in sphere 2 can transition to sphere 3 over time, for example, SpaceX.

  • Cheetah772

    I’d like to expound on some of your points a bit more, that is if you don’t mind me doing so.

    1. Establishing security and a parsimonious set of rules

    Our wealth is maximized in the world when the Hitlers, the Hirihitos, the Stalins, and the Mao Zedong?s are defeated. Likewise, our wealth is maximized when within our country, the right to personal safety and personal property is respected. The government sets the parsimonious rules of the football game. The government doesn?t insist that you must run up the middle on third and one.

    True. The government should act as a referee. Think about it. The NFL referees are paid by NFL to referee the games. They don’t set up the rules, and such rules are dictated by a NFL ruling committee made up of head coaches (I think). In real life, it is WE who dictate what sort of rules the government must play by in order to ensure domestic tranquility for all.

    You bring me to tears…why? Because NFL season is upon us! Go Pack Go! ;)

    2. Large scale investments that aren?t well incentivized in the private sector

    This includes NASA, basic scientific research (for which someone down the road may figure out how to capitalize on), infrastructure and road building, mass education for everyone (everyone gets at least some education, even though it is not top end), etc.

    That’s true, except for mass education. In the early part of American history, we managed just fine with local and privatized educational systems. I don’t buy into the idea that it’s now 21st century, so only the government is capable of providing mass education. I strongly believe mass education CAN BE privatized if the right buttons can be pushed.

    As for NASA and basic scientific research, it’s true that occasionally the government must step in and invest into such things. It’s all in US Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause VIII). But let us be cautious in not wasting away the hard-earned dollars on frivolous adventures like…sending a probe to Mars for what…searching life or studying the rocks? Maybe we can find John Carter (look up his name on Google, it’s a movie) over there. Come on. Know what I mean?

    One very important thing we need to keep in our minds is this: law enforcement and promotion of scientific progress are paid out of our taxes. Such endeavors still require the private sector to be successful, just so that government can create public goods and “wealth”. NASA wouldn’t receive its funding if the private sector tanked in 1950s.

    The harsh truth is that for Obama, he has to live on our good graces, and it’s time to show him the door. It’s clear that one half of America doesn’t want him anymore.

  • Cheetah772

    Thanks for stopping by and commenting on my article.

    Have a great day!

  • 6eorge Jetson

    I’m no fan of the NEA near-monopoly. And we should be seeking to reduce its harmful and limiting effects on our children.

    Do you really mean to privatize mass education? Or are you advocating an outsourcing of education to a form other than the typical public school system? That’s not removing government, it’s just changing the shape of its involvement. (I’m not saying that there aren’t better shapes available.)

    How do I the taxpayer opt-out of funding your “privitization”? And if I can’t, it’s not privatized.

    Nice article :)

  • 6eorge Jetson

    requires eternal vigilance.

    What is learned solving the technical challenges of sending a probe to Mars is likely to be far more valuable than the actual study. But there is always the law of diminishing returns. If we don’t engage in any cutting-edge space activities, we don’t learn anything in the engineering aspect of the endeavor.

    There are far worse examples of govt funded, boondoggle “research”. Like studies showing folks are more attracted to the opposite sex when they are drunk, etc.

  • Kyle-MI

    Spain got rich by colonizing much of South America. The whole Columbus thing probably sounded like a boondoggle at the time, too.

    I think there is huge potential as well as need to explore and eventually colonize Mars. For example, think asteroid hitting Earth in the need category. And, at some point, we just need more room.

  • http://www.mauiisland.com mauiisl

    the eggs. The eggs, upon hatching, declined to remain in the cultural family of chickens and kicked the mother-cluckers out of the coop. And then…

    About two-hundred-years ago, with considerable trepidation, our federal government was established to ensure the well-being of the “several states.” This national government, with strictly enumerated powers, was viewed to be ‘tolerated.’

    Thomas Jefferson opined that “the care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government.” Such was the spirit of our entry into the league of global governments.

    As long as government confined it’s activities to such ‘care,’ it was to be tolerated as necessary. “Necessary” as in a necessary evil. An evil whose potential for good mitigated, or checked it’s potential for evil if properly constructed.

    America is suffering under the ‘fundamental’ change the current administrated threatened during the run-up to 2008, now implementing with grim, humorless determination. Remember the finger-in-the-face denouements delivered by Michelle Obama, in a speech to UCLA students in 2008?

    Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.” Michelle’s stern warning says it all.

    Uninvolved? Uninformed? Who is Michelle to make such assessments? Further, what powers invested in an American president give him or her the right to “allow” or “disallow” anyone the right to live lives, whether uninvolved or uninformed? (Which explains, in part, the election of Obama. Bet Michelle is rethinking that line today.)

    And now…

    “We, the People” are the tolerated. Tolerated so long as we line up and shut up. Step out of line, open your mouth and the hounds of hell are unleashed.

    “Hope and Change” is looking drearily similar to Mao’s Cultural Revolution in a number of ways. Like Mao’s revolution, the Progressive Party of America is leveraging masses of disaffected youth and the poverty-stricken. Masses created, in large part, by the PPA over the last five decades: Created (intentionally or otherwise) for a time such as this.

    By the way, the last time an employee lectured me along the lines of how ‘they’ made money for me (in the spirit of Obama’s “you didn’t build that…moment), I asked her if she thought she was hired to lose money for me. A week later, I fired her. Not for her comment, rather for the fact that she was, indeed, losing money for my company.

    It’s time to end this funky toleration of creeping socialism. It is time to return government to the “care of human life and happiness.” It is time to fire America’s Mistake. He is, after all, our “employee.”

  • checkmate2012

    build this unruly gov’t, more precisely we let it happen. We let our guard down as it grew bigger and bigger into what is now an abomination that is out of control except for controlling our lives.

    Government was created with the consent of the people with much apprehension. We the people have to return it back to what our Founders envisioned it to be; a necessary evil with enumerated powers and limited scope.

    O stands for just the opposite and must be sent a pink slip.