« Open Letter to Jennifer Granholm, Governor of Detroit and other outstate communities | Main | Insanity »
Giving back? What was taken?
By John | August 18, 2008
“Giving back to the community.” Do you realize how many times that expression shows up in various articles each day? What does it mean?
Well, I think I know what it means, and I don’t like it. The implication is that, if someone has become successful, it is because the “community” made him so. Success does not derive from individual effort, it is an outcome of something that was taken from others.
So, for example, successful NBA basketball players are expected to work in the community, “giving back.” Let’s examine that idea.
Michael Jordan dedicated his life to becoming the best basketball player he could possibly be. He worked countless hours, days, weeks, months, years - most of his life - to become one of the best in the world. He competed against literally millions of others who also wanted to become one of the best in the World. Upon attaining his goal, Michael Jordan’s skills were at such a high level that millions desired to watch him play, both live and on TV. Collectively, Michael’s fans were willing to pay millions of dollars each year for his services - to watch him play basketball at a very high skill level.
Michael Jordan’s fans willingly paid to watch him. Why? Because he gave them pleasure. He entertained them. He provided them benefits for which they gladly paid.
Now, in what sense does Michael Jordan owe more than he has already given? In what sense has Michael Jordan “taken” from the community, so that he must now give something back? Michael Jordan was well paid for his performances. But he earned everything he got. How do I know that? Because Michael Jordan offered his services in an open and free market. No one was forced to pay money to him. Everyone paid voluntarily. That is the way the free market works in a capitalist economy. Providers of goods and services offer them to the public, and the public decides what they will choose to purchase. They will only part with their money if they believe they are receiving something in exchange that they will value more.
Millions of people chose to voluntarily relinquish their cash in exchange for the entertainment value provided by Michael Jordan. Michael gave repeatedly over many years. Fans kept coming back. Voluntarily. Giving up their money in exchange for entertainment benefits.
All participants in all of these transactions acted without coercion. There was no fraud involved. In what sense does Michael Jordan still owe more than what he has given?
We are regularly bombarded with NBA ads that show NBA basketball players “giving back to the community.” Again, implying that they took something, and now they owe something in return.
I cannot think of many people who owe less than NBA players. They Have given - much more than most. Why should they be the ones asked to “give back?”
I am in no way suggesting there is anything wrong with volunteerism or community service. I think it is a good thing. I think it is great that NBA players are willing to set an example by volunteering.
What is wrong here, however, is the characterization of that volunteerism. It is just that: “volunteerism.” It is not paying back a debt. That is something criminals do, not professional athletes.
The reason I object so strenuously is that words do matter. And I am afraid the use of the expresssion, “giving back to the community” perpetuates the socialist belief that no one should rise above the average. To do so establishes a debt to society.
I am a capitalist. I believe people deserve what they have earned.
No, it doesn’t “take a village.” It takes effort, determination, perserverance, commitment. Let’s not pretend that we all make an equal contribution, or that our contributions happen without the prospect for reward.
Capitalism works. Socialism doesn’t.
Topics: Uncategorized |