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.

 

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.

 

You have been indoctrinated into a false understanding of free markets, confusing them with corporatism / parasitic capitalism that hijacks big government for its own benefit. That is not the free market.

Moreover, why you would think “personal greed” is somehow a sin of free markets, but not of monopolized power inherent to regulated ones, governments, bureaucracy, etc. is the height of naivety.

 

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.

 

Actors in a free market certainly desire profits, but in a free market – where government cannot be hijacked by the politically connected and powerful – because it does not exist in a way to be hijacked as it ALWAYS WILL BE (which our founders tried to warn us of, but too many idi0ts failed to learn from history…) – the only way actors can earn profits is by meeting the demands of consumers.

In other words, consumers don’t buy things they don’t want / that don’t improve their lives / standard of living in a free market. They pick and choose among various competing providers who must best satisfy consumers’ wants / neeeds / preferences at varying cost / quality tradeoffs.

Surely you’ll find bad apples in the bunch, but 1) consumers will learn and avoid them; and 2) in the case of outright fraud or worse, the (only) appropriate role of government is to protect the consumer from those who violate the consumers liberty. (At the heart of liberty is your right to consent or not. The difference between theft and charity is consent. The difference between rape and making love is consent… .Murder/suicide… etc.) Hence, a business engaging in fraud – lying to consumers, promising quality but delivery crap, etc. are to be rooted out by government.

Surely people who become entrepreneurs are motivated by improving their own lives, like anyone else. In a truly free market, the only way they earn profits is by making their consumers better off. The ones best at solving such problems of making people better off at a large scale deserve the profits they get.

All that said, today WE DO NOT HAVE A FREE MARKET, and we’ve not had anything close since the late 1800s, and increasingly less and less so as the 20th century evolved.

We have crony corporatism, parasitic capitalism, neo-oligopoly / neo-fascism, trade cartels, banking cartels, etc., and heavy duty redistributive socialism all at work conspiring against the free market, and yet all of them are blaming the free market for the problems they create.

Stop blaming the victim for the crime.  Respect consent.