Download … (not currently available)
One of our many, many problems is that the Left (Democrats, Progressives, Socialists, whatever you and I choose to call them) have appropriated the title “Liberal” for their political position. It’s a damned shame, because classically being a “liberal” would mean being in favor of that which is appropriate to a liberated human being – someone not a slave, whether to an external master or to the unrefined emotions of the undeveloped self.
I grew up generally hoping to be liberal in many ways, and became later a die-hard fan of liberal education, but the real thing – read widely, read everything, think about it carefully and discuss it with others to come to clarity and understanding. Try to overcome your own ignorance and sloth and habit. Liberate yourself from anything that controls you without your consent. It’s an unreachable ideal, but it’s the right goal.
I would not associate being a political Liberal (capital L to distinguish) with much, if any, of that.
My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right. Carl Schurz
The most glaring example of the cognitive dissonance on the left is the concept that human beings are inherently good, yet at the same time cannot be trusted with any kind of weapon, unless the magic fairy dust of government authority gets sprinkled upon them.” — Moshe Ben-David
“The cult of the left believes that it is engaged in a great apocalyptic battle with corporations and industrialists for the ownership of the unthinking masses. Its acolytes see themselves as the individuals who have been “liberated” to think for themselves. They make choices. You however are just a member of the unthinking masses. You are not really a person, but only respond to the agendas of your corporate overlords. If you eat too much, it’s because corporations make you eat. If you kill, it’s because corporations encourage you to buy guns. You are not an individual. You are a social problem.” — Sultan Knish
As things ramp up, as they will continue to do, I will ask everyone to put aside the abbreviated quote shown above, as it was unfortunately delivered in the 60s, and remember Carl Schurz’s actual entire quote, which would be this:
My country, right or wrong;
if right, to be kept right;
and if wrong, to be set right.
The former shuts down discussion and encourages mindlessness. The latter establishes commitment and opens the door to discussion. How shall we determine which things are right and which things are wrong without full discussion? If we intend to be a nation, rather than just a country, then that discussion must be full-throated, vigorous, repsectful and ongoing. No cheap slogan will accomplish that.
So – Shall we be a nation?
As you insist on higher wage for lower skilled workers, you contribute to eliminating their jobs. It’s a necessary implication of some simple observations presented in Economics 101. As the price of a thing increases, demand decreases. At some point there, automation becomes more economical, and the employer stops employing persons as labor and substitutes machinery. We’ve already seen that repeatedly.
Most advocates of increases in the Minimum Wage are actually talking about what should more properly be called The Theoretical Minimum Wage, or Preferred Minimum Wage. We should probably go along with them and let them set the Theoretical Minimum Wage wherever they please. They won’t affect the actual minimum wage, which never changes. It is zero. At that moment when you price the labor above what the owner can justify, automation replaces the worker and the worker’s wage becomes zero.
A better solution is to aim for a robust economy, so that you have significant growth again and labor demand increases. With a constant source, and increasing demand, wages go up automatically, as has happened throughout history. Unfortunately, you also have to be conscious of the source count. If you insist on letting folks into the country illegally, which many Minimum Wage increase advocates inexplicably do, you sabotage that wage pressure by increasing the supply of labor.
So, you have to be willing both to do economically sound things with your policies, and also control immigration. I am willing to bet that neither of those elements is acceptable to our most vocal supporters of Minimum Wage (actually Theoretical Minimum Wage) hikes. Am I wrong?
What I don’t understand is why we don’t address the top side of wages in these discussions. If we have a right to decide how much is too little, then don’t we have a right to decide how much is too much? Shouldn’t we be setting a Maximum Wage as well? Something on the order of $200,000 per year. No one could need more than $200,000 per year, surely. Actually, probably much less. They might want more, or be able to figure out how to spend more, but surely they don’t actually need more.
And it shouldn’t stop there. I don’t see how you avoid asking why some should be able to live better than others. If you ask that question, surely you come to say that since we’re all equal we should all live equally well, which would mean we don’t need a minimum wage and a maximum wage. We just need The Wage. Once we decided what is the proper wage for all of us, then shouldn’t we just set that as The Wage and eliminate the differences in the name of fairness?
Either the State has a right to decide what we make, or it doesn’t. Why should it only get to decide how little?
Put two chairs on the stage, at a table where they can have their notes and files, and let each one bring 3 staff to back them up on the fly. Let’s see a discussion, between the principals, and tell all of these moderators to take a flying leap.
NO MORE MODERATORS! If they’re not putting their thumb on the scale, they’re asking pointless questions, or asking the same question different ways in hopes of getting the answer they really wanted, or whatever. They add nothing of value. They often add distortion. Get rid of them.
Let the principals sit and have a meeting between themselves, and with a little bit of backup staff at hand, and just talk. Let’s see who can participate in a meeting and discussion like a grownup.
I happily recite the Pledge of Allegiance, and do so after a fashion every day when I look at the flag flying from our upper balcony. However, I am actually against having school children recite it, and perhaps even against allowing them to recite it in a formal setting until the age of majority. Having a child take a pledge before the child is capable of understanding what a pledge is, and to what he or she is pledging allegiance, seems inappropriate to me.
Let’s have the adults who feel the urge get together and recite it, and have the children see them do so as they grow up, and perhaps decide that they might want to do the same eventually.
This country is a terrific idea, and worth protecting and defending, and pushing through bad times and bad events to recover and keep the idea alive and pass it on. I’m not sure that it’s a worthy idea, to think that children should recite a pledge to it, before knowing what it means to pledge something, and particularly before they can possibly understand what a revolutionary feat the establishment of this country was and how richly it deserves to be kept whole and safe.
The question we should be asking, particularly now but truly quite often in any event, is, “Shall we be a nation?” What we do depends on our answer to that, every day.
Here’s part of the problem with the Liberal (political) view: Some cannot grasp the concept of getting rid of overreach and unnecessary bureaucrats while keeping essential services. The problem seems to be that they can’t distinguish between things that matter and things that don’t, or actually shouldn’t be done, so we just have to keep everything that anyone every thought of forever. That would explain a lot in our staggering and every-increasing debt.
Trump, like Sanders and Carson and Fiorina, draws people who are truly sick and tired of business as usual, which certainly includes me. I wish we could make political parties obsolete by reaching out electronically and directly to voters with very close to zero expenditure and no need to depend on big donors. That would give us no reason to accommodate same.
I can’t honestly claim to be optimistic about that, but it is the only way I am interested in proceeding.
Business, even big business, is a key element of a healthy economy, and we should be as business friendly as it is humanly possible to be, short of allowing cronyism, special privilege, influence based on money given to folks in government. We need government to make sure there are some reasonable rules and that they are followed by everyone, and beyond that we need to let entrepreneurs run their businesses and not punish them for success.
Here’s a very narrow example: Let’s not do government supplied or guaranteed loans on the front end, lending to folks who might be able to do a thing, such as Solyndra, who got the money and went out of business, profitably it seemed to me, if you were a principal. Let’s establish a goal and a prize: If you achieve XYZ, then you get K dollars. That way, they put their own money at risk, and probably only if there’s a reasonable chance of getting it done. And, if they do, bonanza! I can imagine that there are things it would be important enough for us to encourage business, but let’s do so by rewarding success, not doling out money for trying based on influence.
We’re supposed to be the revolutionaries. Let’s be revolutionary!