President Obama has transitioned from “the private sector is doing fine” to “there is no private sector.” That is the gist of the argument he made in a campaign speech in the critical swing state of Virginia on Friday.

Speaking of American entrepreneurs, Obama said, “Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

Obama explained his theory this way: “...look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, ‘Well, it must be because I was just so smart.’ There are a lot of smart people out there. ‘It must be because I worked harder than everybody else.’ Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

“If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.”

He mentioned teachers, firefighters and builders of roads as examples of those who are responsible for the success of America’s entrepreneurs. The economic illiteracy of the President’s thinking is staggering.

“The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together,” Obama said.

The point, though, is pointless. Of course successful businesses rely on roads and schools and firefighters. So do businesses that fail. But the existence of public infrastructure does not explain the difference between successful entreprenuers and failed ones. The difference is born from the very thing President Obama attempts to downplay almost to the point of denying it — the hard work, resourcefulness, creativity and ingenuity of those who persist until they succeed.

Under Obama’s formulation — “You didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen” — All private success is nonexistent. There is only the glory of the state, as expressed through collective action. The ditch digger and social worker share equally in the success of the small-business owner and the tycoon. Therefore, they deserve an equal, or at least much larger, share of the fruits of the entrepreneurs’ labor.

This is the thinking of a man who views businesses as entities to be milked for the good of the collective. This is the message he intends to try to sell in New Hampshire, where New Englanders often flee to start their own businesses because their home states tax and regulate too much. Good luck with that message, Mr. President.