Saturday, September 25

Ban ‘giving back’

From The Independent Institute.

Ban “Giving Back”

By Mary Theroux

Christina Hoff Sommers offers a great fact check on the propaganda currently being spread to “Ban Bossy”, here. As she details, Sheryl Sandberg’s campaign is rooted in cherry-picked data and at least one extremely old study that conveniently support her premise. Girls overall are doing better than boys, and “Bossy” is irrelevant to the conversation.

I don’t favor campaigns against words. As the youngest of six children, I was the target of quite a bit of teasing growing up, and Mom well taught me, “Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.”

On a more serious level, Independent Institute Research Fellow Donald Downs was recently honored by the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, for his path-breaking work against campus speech codes (such as our book, Restoring Free Speech and Liberty on Campus).

Unfortunately, the largely liberal (now there’s a misnomer if ever there was one) attempt to control who can say what has now moved off the campus and into the mainstream, and has further expanded to witch hunts against private citizens’ private giving to causes liberals decide are verboten (e.g., Brendan Eich and the Kochs).

So I’m not really advocating for banning the term, but I would very much appreciate the enlightened disuse of the term “Giving back.”

“Giving back” is shorthand for “Giving back to the community,” the implication of which is that one’s blessings have been provided by the community.

The corollary of it is in statements such as President Obama’s, “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that.”

Yes, we are placed in community together, and yes, we are directed to share our blessings and bounty with our fellow creatures. But our blessings are from our creator, our relationships are as autonomous, equally loved and valued, individual creations, and our charity (from the Greek “agape:” love) is given, voluntarily, in reflection of the love our creator has given us. It is not repayment for value given, it isvoluntary, and taxes are not some kind of secular alternative.

The church leaders currently crusading in Illinois for a progressive income tax apparently missed that lesson in seminary. When they quote Jesus, “For everyone to whom much is given, much will be required,” to support their arguments, do they think Jesus was suggesting that one should render unto Caesar for him to benevolently provide for the people?

It is a short trip from accepting the concept of “giving back” to believing that the coercive misappropriation of higher percentages of productive labor equates with “justice”.

So, please: Just say No to “Giving back.”