Obama: "If you got a business, you didn't build that!"

[DC_Vol]

Seriously, at least you're honest about it....

I could be totally wrong, but my take on it is this. Successful people receive support in life, and they are dependent upon other people in society. They do not hatch out of a void or a jungle, like Tarzan. Some people believe that they owe nothing to other people after they become successful. It means that successful people do owe something to the other people in society ... because without society, they could never become successful. We all rely upon other people, and we all owe certain duties to other people.

He might as well have given a speech that said the sun rises in the East, 1+1 = 2, etc...

I believe it's a very old principle of common law that property rights are not absolute.

Do you believe this?

Property rights are the foundation of our law in the United States.

 

[Vol Main]

Do you believe this?

Property rights are the foundation of our law in the United States.

Yes, property rights are a foundation of our law, and our common law has maintained for centuries that they are limited rights, not absolute. It might come as a shock to you; I know it went against me when I learned this, but it's nonetheless true.

 

[DC_Vol]

Yes, property rights are a foundation of our law, and our common law has maintained for centuries that they are limited rights, not absolute. It might come as a shock to you; I know it went against me when I learned this, but it's nonetheless true.

Please explain further.

 

[BigPapaVol]

I could be totally wrong, but my take on it is this. Successful people receive support in life, and they are dependent upon other people in society. They do not hatch out of a void or a jungle, like Tarzan. Some people believe that they owe nothing to other people after they become successful. It means that successful people do owe something to the other people in society ... because without society, they could never become successful. We all rely upon other people, and we all owe certain duties to other people, e.g. taxes. If our society enables people to become successful, then shouldn't successful people enable society?

I believe it's a very old principle of common law that property rights are not absolute.

who believes that successful people owe nothing? Which of them paid nothing, save the Kennedy clan?

 

[dreVol]

You can listen and hear that the "you didn't build that" directly references "roads and bridges," which are built by other people with other peoples' tax dollars. I think he's saying that successful individuals do not create their businesses in a vacuum. Our American society enables people to become successful if they work hard and smart. How can anybody disagree with that?

He specifically said that a lot of people work hard and a lot of people are smart. He went on to say that just because you work hard or are smart, you aren't responsible for your own success. It's patronizing. Frankly, his speech reeked of envy.

 

[VolFan32]

He specifically said that a lot of people work hard and a lot of people are smart. He went on to say that just because you work hard or are smart, you aren't responsible for your own success. It's patronizing. Frankly, his speech reeked of envy.

Exactly. The quote may have been about roads, but the whole tone of the speech did reek of envy.

 

[DC_Vol]

Yes, property rights are a foundation of our law, and our common law has maintained for centuries that they are limited rights, not absolute. It might come as a shock to you; I know it went against me when I learned this, but it's nonetheless true.

VM - Can you provide more color into which property rights are limited and which are absolute? And in what cases which applies?

I don't know much about this area of the law and would like to know more.

 

[Vol Main]

VM - Can you provide more color into which property rights are limited and which are absolute? And in what cases which applies?

I don't know much about this area of the law and would like to know more.

Rights are not absolute; they all have limitations. The First Amendment does not give a person the right to yell "fire!" in a crowded theater when there is no fire. Owning a watermelon patch does not give a person the right to unload a shotgun on a watermelon snatcher. A person's right to life has more power under the law than the property right of the owner of the watermelon. Generally, there are circumstances when an individual's property rights conflict with another individual's rights which hold more power under the law. Also, there are circumstances when an individual's property rights hold less power than a community's rights.

Your question really does deserve a better answer than I can give now, because my thinking is focused on other issues. So I need to get back to you on this. I'm not trying to evade the question or blow you off. I will try to get back to you with a more salient reply. I can tell you that common law restricted property rights in court decisions long before our Constitution was written.