The above is a monstrously Orwellian slogan I keep hearing. Meaning what, exactly? Give back what? And to whom? Did someone steal something from someone? If so, they should definitely give it back. Anyone taking something that did not belong to him has an obligation to give it back. But if what someone has is not ill-gotten gain and was not taken from someone else, by what logic can there be said to be a duty to give back? And how? If it was not taken from anyone, then how can it be given back? Mind you, this is being pushed on college students, who for the most part owe huge amounts of money they borrowed, and which they will have to eventually give back, for that is the nature of being a borrower. Except that sort of giving back is not what the slogan references. The idea is that they should be social workers. Volunteers. “Give back” has come to mean “community service” work. I have no problem with that either. Voluntary charity is good. However, at the risk of sounding antisocial, I fail to see how doing community service constitutes “giving back” unless the community had given something to the community service performer in the first place.
So what am I missing? What does this slogan which implies indebtedness mean? How can people who are already indebted to their lenders be further indebted to total strangers they have never known and who have never done anything for them?
Isn’t owing bad enough as it is without owing what is not owed? Why do otherwise intelligent people fall for these slogans?
UPDATE: Many thanks to Sarah Hoyt (guest blogging at Instapundit) for the link, and a warm welcome to all!
Comments invited, agree or disagree.
Comments
26 responses to ““Give back!””
Then just call it “giving” and we’re all OK.
This again? Conflating “giving back to the community” as a debt which must be paid is obtuse–whether it’s leftists who do it or libertarians.
What’s really vile is the left’s core strategy of conflating forced communalism with real community.
“Give back” is a euphemism for “GIMMEEE!!”
… I thought you were talking about the West Bank.
Which Israel won in a defensive war.
Territories ceded to the Palestinians are regularly described as “given back” even though Palestinian national identity is a complete fiction, and there never was a state called Palestine.
We Israelis gave *away* territory that was/is rightfully ours, in the hopes of making peace.(Which proves that not all Jews are clever…)
There was a time when we gave back by actually giving to the One who gave it to us in the first place. Now that nobody actually believes that silliness (except for those of us who do) we still have a burning need to show that we know that we aren’t 100% responsible for providing for ourselves. We don’t know exactly where to put those traditional sacrifices, though, since the people we really do rely on to help us live our lives through products and services are already getting our money when we pay them. So we “give back” by giving to those who haven’t done anything for us. It’s the modern version of tithing. 😉
Cindy:
I suppose it is like tithing–the bad old sort of tithing, from when the Catholic church was truly catholic and was able to essentially levy taxes for the support of the bishopric. Like the “fat abbots” and “gluttonous bishops” of the Robin Hood legend.
By “it”, of course, I mean taxation for the purpose of redistribution. I don’t mean voluntary giving or investment.
Give back is, at best, silly. Give back what? To who? All the food/shelter/help your parents gave you – ok, give it back to them. But, no – that’s not what they mean.
I think Cindy has it right – as do you – tithing is a tax. As is “give back” – when you aren’t giving back to those who gave.
Umm, so, no – I’m not giving back anything – unless you gave me something. If I give, I give – but I don’t give BACK.
“Pay your bills when they come due.”
Not real sexy.
.
[…] HATE THIS IDEA TOO: Give Back! (I like the idea of paying it forward, for the help I got for nothing coming up. I do a lot of […]
Giving Back is just like Giving, except with the implication that you didn’t earn what you have in the first place.
In a religious context, it’s fairly a fairly reasonable construct, given its givens. In any other – i.e., material, human – context, it’s repulsive propaganda.
The premise of “give back” is precisely the same as that expressed more explicitly by “you didn’t build that.” “Give back” implicitly states that you owe the community for your very existence, and for a variety of intangibles, without which, we presumably could not have succeeded. We therefore come into this world immediately forfeiting all claim to our success. We owe the community for allowing us to live.
I have absolutely no problem with giving back. I give back to my ma and grandma all the time.
In fact, I have to be particularly sneaky to give back to them, as they can thwart my attempts to give back to them. But hey, it inspires me to greater creativity.
It’s hilarious the various methods we’ve learned to sneak cash or gifts such that they can’t be refused….
If that’s not what they’re talking about, i’m a alittle confused
(no, i’m not cnfused as to what they mean. it’s just that, like the other commenters, i see no obligation to “give back” to moochers… the sincerely handicapped, fine, but feeding the maw of govt ain’t giving back)
Since you didn’t build it, you should have no problem giving it back.
I remember the first time i called someone out on this. It was rather dumbfounding. Anyway, i argued successfully that giving back puts limits on your charity. We are called to charitable to the fullest and adding “back” to the equation hardens the heart and turns us into accountants. I remember a priest explaining that going 50/50 in your marriage with your spouse is a recipe for disaster. You should instead strive for 100/100 thereby eliminating the need to keep score.
It’s become a big thing to demand that business people ‘give back to the community’, or someone who’s worked their ass off and become rich ‘give back to the city/state/society/fill in the effing blank’; the supposition being that they somehow looted someone else or denied someone else something(they think it’s a zero-sum game) and therefore they OWE other people.
If Ayn Rand were still around, she would have a field day doing “philosophical detection” around that phrase. The best I can do is to surmise that it’s partially just an appeal to altruist/collectivist ethics. “You are your brother’s keeper.” “You owe a debt to society,” and all that.
But it’s more than that as well. It’s not just an altruistic exhortation to “Give.” It’s give *back* — implying some moral guilt on your part, as if you actively took something that didn’t belong to you.
I have always hated the phrase as well. It is indeed monstrously Orwellian.
1. After I accepted this phrase for years, some time ago it triggered a double take. It’s been an irritant ever since.
2. When I did volunteer work, I did not perceive it as repayment of an obligation; in fact, I would have been less likely to do it had it been so presented.
Afaic philanthropy is commendable, but its least commendable forms are philanthropy performed out of social pressure or for self-promotion. Even philanthropy performed for tax advantages strikes me as preferable to the foregoing.
How can you “give back” the shitty education that you got in an American public school?
A bishopric isn’t what you seem to imagine it is, Neil. (Hint: It’s not the same thing as a diocese.) A bishopric is a feudal territory the title of which is held by a bishop instead of a secular lord. So of course taxes would be rightly collected, for the purposes of governing the land. (You’re confused about tithing, too.)
Try again.
A bishopric isn’t what you seem to imagine it is, Neil. (Hint: It’s not the same thing as a diocese.) A bishopric is a feudal territory the title of which is held by a bishop instead of a secular lord. So of course taxes would be rightly collected, for the purposes of governing the land. (You’re confused about tithing, too.)
Try again.
I have a friend who talks about the “give backs” associated with aging. Not only do I agree with him, I think the term is being used fairly. What he means by “give backs” is the loss of strength, stamina, and flexibility. He also refers to the loss of earnings power.
I am not sure who we are giving this back to, but it was once ours and now is gone.
“Why do otherwise intelligent people fall for these slogans?”
Because, they are NOT “otherwise intelligent”.
The government provides services: roads, an educated work force, contract enforcement, enforcement of property rights.
Those who succeed in the greatest measure get the most direct benefit from these services, is it not right that they should pay proportionately to their benefit (i.e. about the same percentage as everyone else if not somewhat more)?
This isn’t redistribution of wealth, it is supporting the system that you benefit directly from.
It’s interesting to note that the most prosperous time for America, the time of greatest growth, corresponded to a top bracket tax rate twice the current level. We weren’t socialists then, and we had recently kicked the fascists to the curb.
I’m not saying that if we raised the top tax rate we would prosper similarly now (lots of other things have changed as well), but the notion that there is any relationship at all between the top tax rate and the overall health of the economy doesn’t fare well in the face of the historical record.
“Give us more money and we’ll spread it around” flies in the face of “I didn’t get rich by spending money I didn’t have to”.
Micha, as I said, “it” = “taxation”, for the bishopric, which was a feudal grant. The church justified that tax as “tithing” and tried to make it a religious responsibility in addition to a civic responsibility. Try reading for comprehension.
However, I still think that “giving back” to the community is a good and necessary thing. Any Rotary club or Kiwanis, SCA, Little League, church or synagogue will do. Libertarians who infer a non-voluntary debt from that phrase are committing an evil just the same as progressives who try to enforce a twisted version of “giving back” at gunpoint.
I hate this phrase too. Thank you for writing this.