If you go to http://www.givingback.org/, you will see an admirable display of good will toward all people in need. I am sincere when I say it is admirable. I actually participate in these activities, although not through that particular site. Actually, you won't notice anything at all to disturb you. You will probably feel very "warm and fuzzy" inside. This is good. It's called human caring and empathy. The fact that you don't notice anything amiss is the very thing that is most disturbing. When you stop to think about it, a charity website even using the phrase "giving back" is not only disturbing, it is divisive and even calculating.

What exactly does "giving back" mean?

The answer to the question depends largely on the context. In the most literal sense, the term would apply when a borrower returns what was borrowed. It can apply if you do a favor for someone who has done favors for you. It could apply to helping your parents who have obviously given a lot to care for and raise you. In short, it can apply anytime there is some manner of debt that is somehow being repaid.

Ask yourself if the use of the term "giving back" applies to the many times we hear it. The answer, of course, is that it does not apply. For example, if you go to http://hiltonworldwide.hilton.com/en/ww/promotions/charities/, you will see how the Hilton company is connecting the term "giving back" with their charity work.

Well, what is charity?

Merriam-Webster, as always, has many definitions of charity, but the most applicable to our discussion is "a gift for public benevolent purposes." A gift is defined as "something voluntarily transferred by one person to another without compensation." The key here is there is no compensation. In other words, the giver hasn't been given anything in return. There is no debt or obligation applicable to the giver. In other words, the giver can't be giving back, because he/she hasn't received anything in return. As established above, giving back implies a debt repaid.

Back to the Hilton charities; the most alarming fact is they are accepting the "giving back" label. Surely, they know they don't owe the money they give; they probably just know that using the "giving back" phrase is very good for public relations and marketing. They aren't the only ones. I have heard this term used to describe charitiable activities by Toyota and Target, and I am sure there are many more.

You may ask, "Where did they get all their riches? Don't they owe something to the community that made them rich?"  Well, let's think this through step by step. Yes, they are rich. Where did they get their money? From paying customers. Why did the customers choose to give them money? In a free market with plenty of competition and unfettered by over-regulation, the customer had other choices for the goods or services, so they must have felt the exchange was beneficial for them. In other words, they either felt the exchange was equal or in their favor, or they would have chosen another option. So generally, for every million dollars a company takes,  they give a million dollars in goods and services. If they don't do this, then they will go out of business, because no one will patronize them.

So any largely successful business, is almost certainly giving out as much or more value as they receive, which is the very reason they succeed. Therefore, they don't owe anything to anyone. Any business that receives donations can truly give back to those who gave to them, but this is generally not what we are talking about.

Even if you accept that successful or "rich" businesses do actually owe something to others, you can only logically say they owe something to those who gave them their money. However, the liberal mind actually looks the opposite way. They will say the business owes something to their employees. Wait a minute! There is only one kind of transaction here; a "customer" can give money to a "provider" in exchange for goods and/or services. Between business and customer, obviously the business is the "provider", and the customer is the "customer." Between business and employee, the employee is the "provider", and the business is the "customer." So how is the business in debt to both the customer and the employee at the same time? Lets say the "customer" owes the "provider", then the customer owes the business and the business owes the employee. If we decide the opposite, where the "provider" owes the "customer", then the employee owes the business, and the business owes the customer. There is no scenario where you can apply a consistent standard and end up with the business in debt to both customer and employee at the same time, but somehow popular thinking says they are.

Actually, there is another party completely removed from the transaction that the business is said to owe. In fact, Hilton's charities are not "giving back" to the customer or the employee. The business is said to owe the underprivileged or the "needy." The fact that they are in need is what defines them as the proper recipient for "giving back." Remember, the needy likely have absolutely nothing to the success or riches of the business.

So, how does the business always end up in debt to everyone else? The answer is actually simple. In fact, the standard is so simple you don't need the amount of reasoning you just exercised in reading to this point. A company's level of debt has only one factor: their income level. The more money they have, the more in debt to society they are. The less the have, the less in debt they are. The employee usually doesn't have large amounts of money, so they don't get targeted. There are exceptions to this. CEO's are frequently pointed out as selfish and villainous. As long as the CEO doesn't make too much money though, they won't be looked at. Customer's usually don't have too much money either, but if they do they will also get targeted.

The final analysis is one simple step away. The targets of the "giving back" mentality are those from which we have the most to gain. That's right! The motivation for the business to succeed is the same motivation for the "giving back" movement: money. Don't be fooled that these two approaches to attaining money are equal. As explained, the business seeks money through equal and voluntary exchange which is possible in the free market. The "entitled" seek money through guilt, the idea of "giving back", or by force through taxes.

The only proper use of the "giving back" mentality applies to those who are currently on the recieving end of the campaign. Those who receive charity can rightfully say they are "giving back" once they have succeed because of the good will of others to whom THEY are in debt!

In closing, charity is good and something we should all participate in when we can. HOWEVER, it needs to be recognized for what it is. It is a GIFT given freely by those who are kind and deserve public gratitude, not out of debt or obligation.