1. On Living Wage (Fascism Of The Left)
Well, talk of socialism is in the air, so can the outcries for mandating corporations, on pain of financial consequences, to provide a "living wage" be far behind?
Well, talk of socialism is in the air, so can the outcries for mandating corporations, on pain of financial consequences, to provide a "living wage" be far behind?
2. Even when leftist liberals mean well, their approach to achieving a good end is quite often fascistic. Take, for insistence, their desire to mandate corporations to provide a "living wage," or else suffer penalties or discriminatory taxation.
3. Who determines what a "living wage" is and why should it be a corporate responsibility by law?
Unequal treatment to coerce private enterprises into implementing arbitrary ideological whims, no matter how well intended, of those in power is fascism.
Unequal treatment to coerce private enterprises into implementing arbitrary ideological whims, no matter how well intended, of those in power is fascism.
4. This is precisely the problem with bleeding-heart liberalism. Liberals don't do any hard lifting in the thinking department regarding the consequences of their good intentions. They wear their good intentions on their sleeves, and deem any disagreement as mean and wicked.
5. Overwhelming majority of Americans of every political persuasion would agree that it would be terrific if everyone earned a living wage, howsoever one defines it. But liberals want government to mandate it, seemingly not bothered about real life marketplace implications.
6. A government that can use the tax code to mandate a "living wage" (a highly malleable and ever-changing concept), can mandate anything that people in power think is socially desirable. One day it's an economic mandate, the next day it would be a behavioral one.
7. Private enterprise prospers only by producing goods and services which cost less to produce than what others are willing to pay for them. You cannot arbitrarily dictate labor costs any more than you can arbitrarily dictate prices and have a sustainable and thriving economy.
8. What is far more conducive to achieving a "living wage" for everyone is a robust and thriving economy, not some government mandate to create it out of thin air, no matter how ardent and heartfelt the desire.
9. It is my firm belief that there's no difference between the political parties in America on the ultimate goals for a peaceful and prosperous society. The differences are entirely about the most effective means to achieve the goals.
10. Liberals are always looking for shortcuts. Shortcuts are very easy to declare and feel virtuous about. In reality, a shortcut very often ends up being the longest distance between two points.
11. Conservatives for their part are sometimes too reluctant to acknowledge that liberals may have a point. Being ideologically averse to involving govt in people's economic issues, they sometimes try to avoid engaging on issues altogether, until it becomes untenable to stay out.
12. I have tentatively come to the view that, as a gross generalization, Democrats are good at identifying social problems, but horrible at solving them. Republicans are good at solving problems, but need to be dragged kicking and screaming into acknowledging their existence.
13. That's why, for the long haul and for the good of the country, we need two healthy parties. While it is at times excruciatingly painful to watch the shenanigans of one party or the other, the only thing worse than having two competitive parties is having one overpowering one.
14. END (for now)
