Thursday, July 08, 2010

There is no such thing as 'free' lemonade.

Here is proof, were any needed, that some right wingers lack perspective. This bugger seriously needs to chill.

Last week, I was in a car with my brother and his fiancee, driving through their upscale neighborhood on a hot summer day. At the corner, we all noticed three little girls sitting at a homemade lemonade stand.

We follow the same rules in our family, and one of them is: Always stop to buy lemonade from kids who are entrepreneurial enough to open up a little business.

My brother immediately pulled over to the side of the road and asked about the choices.

The three young girls -- under the watchful eye of a nanny, sitting on the grass with them -- explained that they had regular lemonade, raspberry lemonade, and small chocolate candy bars.

Then my brother asked how much each item cost.

"Oh, no," they replied in unison, "they're all free!"

I sat in the back seat in shock. Free? My brother questioned them again: "But you have to charge something? What should I pay for a lemonade? I'm really thirsty!"

His fiancee smiled and commented, "Isn't that cute. They have the spirit of giving."

That really set me off, as my regular readers can imagine.

"No!" I exclaimed from the back seat. "That's not the spirit of giving. You can only really give when you give something you own. They're giving away their parents' things -- the lemonade, cups, candy. It's not theirs to give."

I pushed the button to roll down the window and stuck my head out to set them straight.

"You must charge something for the lemonade," I explained. "That's the whole point of a lemonade stand. You figure out your costs -- how much the lemonade costs, and the cups -- and then you charge a little more than what it costs you, so you can make money. Then you can buy more stuff, and make more lemonade, and sell it and make more money.
He not only found himself haranguing two children as they set about doing a good deed, but he is so pleased with what he did that he has actually written a column about it.

And he then concludes that what he witnessed shows why, "America is getting it all wrong when it comes to government, and taxes, and policy."

Two little girls and some free lemonade... To this nutcase it's the reason why the entire nation is going to the dogs.

His main argument is that this lemonade was not theirs to give away, it belonged to their parents. But doesn't the presence of the nanny imply that the parents were well aware of what they were doing and approving of it?

Or is he implying that they stole the lemonade against their parents will?

One thing is crystal clear, he loathes the fact that two little girls might want to set up a stall and not be doing so to make a profit.

He really needs to get a life.

Click here for full article.


Steel Phoenix said...

His point was towards the claim that the little girls had 'the spirit of giving'. It wasn't the girls who had the spirit, it was their parents. The ingredients came from somewhere, and the girls likely gave up nothing in obtaining them.

As silly as the article was, the point he was trying to make is that these girls are being trained to feel charitable for being so generous as to give away the belongings of others. It fosters the belief that something comes from nothing, that we could all live off of the kindness of strangers without ourselves having to contribute. He was illustrating the difference between charity and affirmative action.

Kel said...

I still think it's obscene that any adult could seek to make such a distinction towards a child who was trying to be generous.

Most of us would have felt the need to say nothing more than, "Well done". Usually we encourage children to share and to be generous, this plonker was actively promoting the opposite.

Steel Phoenix said...

I don't disagree, but neither do I consider it terribly shocking. People who wish to shelter their children from such things should probably refrain from propping them up on a street corner and encouraging them to give candy to strangers.

Kel said...

By implying that parents who wish to "shelter their children from such things" should refrain from allowing their children to give away lemonade on street corners, you appear to be implying that this nutbag's reaction is to be expected.

I disagree. I can't think of anyone who would hound children in this way and feel it necessary to give them a lesson in the ways and means of capitalism.

His behaviour is far from normal. Indeed, it's seriously nutty.