Minimum wage fallacy, misguided hatred (and victim-blaming) – of free markets

Another back and forth with a person confused into supporting the politics of envy and redistribution.

Enjoy.

Republican’s are such hateful and stupid people. They have one mantra – “I got mine, so screw you”.

When the minimum wage is raised, it raises everyone. People have more money to spend which drives the economy and builds/expands business. If the masses don’t have money to spend, they can’t help expand the economy.

It isn’t just high school kids that make the minimum wage, many single moms and under educated workers are also struggling to make ends meet while the upper echelon enjoy the spoils of their work.

I make far more than the minimum wage (several times that, plus) – own a home, have a portfolio and have built security for myself, but I still vote democrat . There is a difference between right and wrong and hiring someone for a wage that doesn’t even allow them to sustain a life is just wrong. – But again for a Republican there is only one truth – “I got mine so screw you!”

My reply:

Republican’s are such hateful and stupid people. They have one mantra – “I got mine, so screw you”.

LOL. Yeah, and the Libertarians get the same BS caricature from the progressives. Anyone who does not like letting the government exchanging your liberty and wealth for their crackpot ideas that they want to chain us all to… We’re the problem. Not them, the authoritarian-progressives (a redundant phrase since the latter always requires the former) and their know it all, monopolized solution process.

Losers.

Let charity be voluntary and let the market solve problems rather than busy body know-it-alls who do more to compound the destruction of the what’s left of a functioning economy. They slowly strangle the golden goose. Thanks, but no thanks to you.

These guys understand it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…

<

Yeah, charity can be voluntary – are you going to ensure that no one gets left behind? That there is more than enough to provide? And market solutions – what a joke – conservatives hate looking at history because it invalidates their arguments. Do you think we fought for 40 hour work weeks because employers were giving worker too much time off? You think time and 1/2 for overtime was just some idea that we thought might work? When you let “the market” solve the problems you find that the market has personal greed as it’s primary driver and there are more problems cause than are trying to be corrected. I am for a free market, to a point, but there has to be a check on abuse and our history abundantly demonstrates that abuses will occur.
 

Yeah, charity can be voluntary – are you going to ensure that no one gets left behind?

Nobody can assure that, not even big government, with its overpaid union bureaucrats taking a fat chunk as middlemen.

And market solutions – what a joke – conservatives hate looking at history because it invalidates their arguments.

Progressives always conveniently forget that millions of people immigrated to the United States for the American Dream long before they inserted themselves into the scene by promising free lunches of “wealth now vs. a little bit later”, which was how it worked then. They fail to account for how so many pauper Europeans reached wealth beyond their dreams to varying degrees vs. the alternative.

Don’t tell me about ignoring history.

Do you think we fought for 40 hour work weeks because employers were giving worker too much time off? You think time and 1/2 for overtime was just some idea that we thought might work?

 

Do you think a 40-hour work week was even feasible in a country that did not already accumulate unheard of amounts of wealth without individual liberty, property-rights and a free market?

Already in the U.S., long before labor laws, the U.S. employee was gaining ground vs. anywhere else in the world in unprecedented fashion. This was driven mostly by competition and free market labor fluidity, where an employee with experience could migrate to a higher wage and/or better conditions offered by competitors. Surely corporatists hated this and began their efforts to monopolize power through a stronger centralized government in order to hamstring competition / guarantee profits. Unions answered this by creating labor-monopolies that benefited their own members as the expense of consumers and non-union workers, and killed competition from non-union labor that would provide better prices or service to consumers. They were anti-liberty, corporatist bedfellows.

They may have fast-forwarded a 40-hour work week and overtime rules, but not cost-free. Long term, both contributed to making U.S. labor less fluid and competitive.

On Hong Kong and Protestors – What Should the U.S. Do?

The U.S. could simply issue a statement:

“The U.S. believes a nations’ primary, if not sole responsibility, is protecting the individual liberty of its citizens. We do not condone actions by governments that violate their citizens’ liberty, nor do we support populist democracy movements whose goal is to seize power only to swap the government with a different set of violations of individual liberty.

We hope those involved in the current problems in Hong Kong consider their ultimate goals in terms of human rights: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We denounce any and all efforts by any party that are contrary to that sentiment.”

It would be a lie, though, because most all in the U.S. Government don’t believe this in any way whatsoever.

To David Horowtiz: Is Communism or Authoritarianism the Real Problem

I just read an article over at Breitbart discussing David Horowitz’s recent comments at a Heritage Foundation function where he, in no uncertain terms, labeled the entire Democrat Party a bunch of “communists”.

“My parents called themselves progressives,” Horowitz explained with regard to his communist parents. “The agenda was a Soviet America…the slogan of the communist party in those days was peace, jobs, democracy. Sound familiar?”

He continued:

“The communist party is the Democratic Party.”

Having watched Horowitz come out of the closet as a conservative in the early 1990s, I found Horowitz’s positioning and timing interesting.  The Heritage Foundation is influential among many conservatives who cling onto the GOP because they continue to believe that it somehow will throw them more than bones when it comes to liberty.  And, here we find many democrats and independents joining republicans in questioning the whole idea of Obamacare, with many critics of Obama using the “communism” and “socialism” to describe what Obama and D’s really want / intend.

I also found it to be a GOP-centric attempt at focusing Republicans on a legitimate foe, while avoiding the real issue at hand when it comes to communism.

Lets be clear: You or I really would not care one ounce about communism if communists just went off and bought some property on their own someplace in order to create a voluntary communist enclave that is populated by those who voluntarily choose to join and remain part of such a commune, while leaving the rest of us alone.

The problem is, most all communists want to foist their ideology on the rest of us without giving us a choice in the matter. THAT is the problem with communism, but for the few on the fringe who simply joined communes and were done with it: It is inherently authoritarian. (Authoritarian meaning “The State has the Authority to Do as It Pleases regardless of individual liberty / consent”, keeping in mind that democracy can be fully authoritarian at the expense of minorities.)

That said, I don’t care about communism per say, but I do care about the means people choose to implement it.

That in mind, we need to run ALL politicians through the lens of individual LIBERTY. There we quickly discover that Communism itself is not a danger, but rather AUTHORITARIAN communism (albeit a redundant phrase in practice, since 99.5% of communists wish to force their fellow humans into their ideology, even if it means nearly 100 million deaths, as we have previously witnessed in the 20th century).

In other words, we would have rooted-out / exposed Obama’s true problem — he’s an authoritarian at heart – and not gotten gummed up in the debate over if he’s a communist (socialist, etc) or not, a debate many still find themselves sucked into today.

That said, when we use the Lens of INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY, we can most assuredly discover that all progressives and most all democrats a quasi-authoritarian to full-blown authoritarian types, believing that, while some liberty should be protected,  Government should ultimately decide and may, when convenient, void whatever liberties it so chooses — ala, once again, Obamacare.    (Notice now how the whole “is Obamacare Socialist or not” debate similarly distracts from the real point: We’re all chained to it!)

However, we also discover the hypocrisy of many of those who shout loudly about the bogeyman of communism. While they have fingered a dangerous foe, they often promote a different, authoritarian-method-enforced philosophy or set of priorities which is similarly dismissive or dangerous to Individual liberty. In this we find most all progressives and a ton of liberty-lip-service GOPers.

What we will find, if we are honest and not hypocritical, is that most elections argue over various shades of authoritarian behaviors laundered through the ballot box,