Category: Anti-Capitalists

The Undeniable Truth

It’s impossible to argue with a straight face that there’s any real similarities between the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street, and yet that is the contention of some who allege that both are protest movements aimed at reform.  If that’s the extent of their similarity, those who claim this as the basis for a relationship between the two are stuck in superficial characteristic that permit one to claim that an orange and a basketball are nearly the same.  The Tea Party is predicated on the idea that the best government is that which governs least, while the Occupiers, to the degree you can discern any central agenda, are concerned only with tearing portions of the private sector down.

It doesn’t take a genius to see the dissimilarities far outweigh superficial observations, yet this is the argument you get from leftist shills.  Other superficial differences include that the majority of both groups is Caucasian, and male, but in demographic terms, this is the end of similarities.  The Tea Party folks are somewhat older, and somewhat more settled in life, and have already engaged in productive activities for most of their lives, while it seems Occupiers seem to be those who haven’t quite yet figured out what they want to be when they finish growing up.  If that seems a bit condescending, I will confess that  I’m caught, but only because that is my own observation.

The key distinction between the two groups stems from this:  The Tea Party has a generic ideological and philosophical basis that its numbers understand, whereas the Occupiers seem to have a scatter-shot approach to issues, and if you examine any of them in isolation from the others, there’s no guarantee that you’ll be able to learn anything about the beliefs of the group, except perhaps that they all think they deserve something, somehow provided by others. They want their student loans forgiven, or they want banks closed down, or they want capitalism brought to heel under the boot of statism.  They abhor globalization, but simultaneously say they’re in favor of free trade.  They say they want opportunities, but they have squandered many by their own admissions.

In short, while it’s quite easy to make out what the Tea Party wants, it’s no so easy to understand anything about the Occupiers’ demands, because theirs are a moving target, and they seem to modify them daily.  They have no electoral agenda, except perhaps that they generically favor Obama, but none of them can tell you why with any sort of conviction.  In all, I find it odd that anybody would take serious such a comparison, until you understand how thoroughly the Occupiers failed.  They were ginned up to be the left’s answer to the Tea Party, but as the record shows, their behavior in public and private spaces brought them no shortage of negative coverage.  It’s so bad that they don’t even bother pretending there is a degree of moral superiority as occurred at the outset, but instead seek to improve their position by the comparison, attaching themselves to Tea Party by way of false claims of similar purpose.

Of course, now that they’ve seen how badly they’ve been received by the American people, a number of Occupiers are now, belatedly joining in on the anti-Obama bandwagon.  As Yahoo reported, Obama has brought the two groups together, but only because increasingly, both are now opposing him.  Even in this, however, they’re not really together, as the demands of Occupiers seems to be for the President to move even further left.  Clearly, that’s not a message the Tea Party will endorse.  It’s simply not true to say that the two groups are similar, and even the Yahoo article goes on to admit that this is the case.  Still, it’s interesting to watch the purveyors of leftwing propaganda try to paint the Occupy Wall Street movement as a younger, grungier Tea Party, but until its members learn how to find jobs and pay their own bills, never mind bath, it’s going to remain a hard sell.


"Resist We Much"

We are under constant attack by Barack Obama’s administration.  He is rapidly converting the United States into a vulnerable, weak nation that cannot defend itself against external threats, but polices its own people with an iron fist.  Evidence of this thesis comes from all quarters, and conservatives are placing all their hopes in the coming presidential election.  The thinking is that if only we can get the right candidate, and if only we can nominate and elect that candidate, once in office, that person will change everything.  Ladies and gentlemen, if you believe it will be so simple, you’re sadly mistaken.  This isn’t going to be easy, and it’s not going to happen without pain, but if you want to defeat Barack Obama, you will need to learn one word, and make it stick for all times, irrespective of the cost.  You must learn to say “no.”

The Obama radicals intend to overturn 230 years of liberty.  They now inspect brown-bag lunches brought to school by small children, making sure the meal complies with the Department of Health and Human Services(or Michelle Obama.)  There is only one way to defeat such a thing, and parents in the country need to find some ‘intestinal fortitude’ and take ownership over the lives of their children, as should have been the case all along.  Say “No.” Don’t send your kids to these schools.  Organize sick-outs.  Organize whatever is needed.  All you need to do to stop this is to refuse to comply with it.  Refuse.

Obamacare can be defeated in exactly the same way.  Refuse.  Refuse to buy insurance.  Refuse to pay their fines.  Refuse. The only word you need is “no,” but saying it, and sticking to it is the harder part of the chore.  Everything the leftists do requires your participation and consent.  Don’t give it.  Don’t participate.  Then their only option is to round you all up, jail you, or kill you if you decline.  Let me ask you bluntly:  Do you favor life as a slave?  That is the only option remaining if you accept their assault on your life.  I’m not suggesting you do this all tomorrow, but you should begin to prepare to do it when the government finally, inevitably arrives at that line in the sand across which you will not step.

It’s time you begin to turn this around on the leftists.  Call them what they are:  Torturers and rapists and murderers.  All they have is naked force, and they’re not as frightened of using it as you are of refusing to comply.  When people of faith are told that they must fund contraception that violates their conscience, it’s time to admit that you have nothing but a shell to lose, but with Obamacare, even that will be theoretical.  Your wallet is not yours. Your home is not yours.  Your life is not yours.  One by one, bit by bit, the radical left is taking over.  They are preparing to sweep away all constitutional constraints upon their actions.  What are you doing to prepare?  How will you resist?  These are questions that you must confront.

Here’s the dirty secret none of them wish you to know, and it’s important to your frame of mind with respect to their attack on your values, your rights, and your lives.  What the left hides from you is that in order for them to have power, you must submit.  This is not the same submission to the laws you know and respect, that merely require you not do a wrong to others.  This is a submission to aggressive laws that demand performance of some sort by you.  This is the secret.  Their attacks on you via the law require you to act.  The laws you honor merely require that you not act in ways that cause harm to others.  You do not steal, nor do you defraud others, and you certainly don’t murder.  Their laws require you to take specific measures, to act on behalf of their policy agendas, either via your wallet, or via your compliance with their demands.

Therefore, this must be your standard in measuring which laws you must continue to obey, and which have only the power over you that you give them.  I am not advocating anarchy, but instead a careful examination of laws on the basis that they either do or do not comply with the context the framers of our constitution laid down as the basis for all our laws.  Again, I am asking you to think this through because the time will come when you will need to know, and you won’t necessarily have time to think it through later, or deliberate it much.  This is your time to prepare, but the preparations mustn’t be nearly those necessary to survive off the grid, but to survive resisting the tyranny that is now unfolding.

Just as in your personal life, where you must draw clear boundaries lest others run over you, in this sense you must also know what it is you will refuse to do when the law makes demands.  A number of Catholics and others of faith are now preparing to make such a stand.  They have decided on drawing a line, and I want to warn you that some will abandon the line they have drawn, but others will refuse to walk back the boundaries they have laid down.  This is the distinction, and it comes down to the principles you hold dear.

The left lives in fear of you discovering your own power.  The left lives in dread of waking up in a world where you have learned to say “no” and mean it.  That’s it.  That’s your power.  It is born of knowing what lines you will not cross no matter their threats and their coercion.  Once you know this, there is nothing they can do to you that you cannot resist.  I do not promise you painless resistance to tyranny, but I am telling you that it can be defeated.  Start small to learn how well it works.  Learn to make a fuss.  Learn to call attention to their aggression.  Learn to scream at the top of your lungs without shame “No means NO!”  Place them in their proper frame, as murders, as rapists, and as thieves.

Another "Mastermind"

Something is wrong with Mitt Romney, and it’s fundamental to his understanding of capitalism.  Here we have a man who governed what is arguably the most liberal state in the union, and he surely didn’t do so as a conservative, but now he’s demonstrating why liberal Republicans like him cannot win, and it comes down to the simplest of economics.  Thursday, Mitt Romney explained how he would index the minimum wage to automatically keep pace with inflation, proving that he has no Main street experience, but worse, that his alleged business sense is more about making deals than understanding economics.  Mitt Romney is no conservative, and by this pronouncement, we now know that neither is he a capitalist.

While it may appeal to some of the more ignorant in the electorate, and to the leftist intelligentsia, the simple truth is that a conservative who understands capitalism would be talking about eliminating the minimum wage laws.  Proving his expressions of Wednesday were statements of his true beliefs – that he is “not concerned about the very poor” – Romney advocates a system of wage controls that is economically inefficient, and immoral, but most importantly, in the context of his remarks Wednesday, actually disadvantages the poor, condemning them to perpetual poverty. Before you break out the torches and pitchforks to occupy my front porch in anger, let me explain to you the truth of the matter, and why it is that a minimum wage actually punishes the poor, but setting up a system to perpetually raise it guarantees increased unemployment and corresponding poverty.

In a free market unhampered by government mandates, wages are determined by negotiations between employers and employees.  That which sets the price is their mutual agreement to mutual advantage: Each believes he is getting the better of the deal.  In fact, in a free market, this is how all exchange is characterized, and it is the best determining factor available, because everybody walks away happy provided that the conditions on both sides of the deal are satisfied.  This requires no government involvement, and it requires no government coercion.  More, it is morally correct because it permits each party choice.

You might argue that the employer always wins, since he controls the purse strings.  I contend that this is not so, and cannot be, so long as men are free to choose.  If an employer makes unreasonable offers in payment for labor, he will be refused, and refused again, and this acts as the market’s signal to him.  If he does not respond, the labor will go undone, and he will lose the profit he might have made.  Since he is doubtless working for a customer, the impetus will be to complete the job to satisfy the deal he’s made with somebody else, and eventually, he will raise the wage he’s offering to get sufficient labor to fulfill his customer’s demand.

You might say “but he will only raise it enough to get a warm body,” and this could happen, but if it does, it may cost him more in the long run, because the labor will be poorly done, and perhaps have need to be re-done, or it might not be completed on time, or some variation on this general theme.  This too will act as a signal that higher wages are needed, and the under-performing employee will be dismissed and a higher wage paid to his replacement.  Notice that in this whole process, nobody has been coerced.  This is the moral superiority of the free market.

What Mitt Romney and the statist, anti-capitalist phalanx demands is a short-circuiting of this natural process.  What he contends more than anything is that you should not have the right to negotiate your own contracts in labor at a price you are willing to pay, or a wage you are willing to accept.  Imagine Newt Gingrich’s example of the kids who are paid a trivial wage for trivial chores at a school rather than to a full-time janitor at a much-inflated union wage.  That sort of thing mustn’t be ignored, because the janitor who is likely over-paid by the education bureaucracy in many jurisdictions probably produces less actual labor than the aggregate labor of the squad of wage-seeking children would accomplish in the same period.

Once upon a time, in a universe far away, as a young teenager, I got my father to co-sign with me on a contract.  It was my first crack at entrepreneurship, and it was with the local home-owners’ association to mow grass around the facilities made available to the residents by annual subscription fee.  Basketball courts, tennis courts, a baseball diamond, and a swimming pool, along with a fishing pond were all surrounded by acres of grass.  The bids were solicited on a per-cutting basis, with the President of the association to monitor and decide the frequency of the cuttings.  I came in at a bid that was a gold-mine to me, but far below any competitors.

Doing the math on how many hours it took me to complete a cutting, it was clear I was beneath the minimum wage even in that day.  Had they been forced to pay the minimum wage on an hourly basis, I would not have been able to compete, but because it was a per-job basis, I was able to bid what I thought was the minimum I could accept for my time.  I won the bidding, and that year I cut grass as my legs and arms and back muscles grew stronger under the beating sun. Mitt Romney wouldn’t understand this by any measure, but applying the minimum wage to that situation would have driven me out, because if you have to pay a minimum wage, who’s going to hire a fourteen year old rather than an adult?  One of the few virtues I had to offer apart from my eagerness had been that my low price allowed them to take a risk that at a higher price they could not have taken.

Under a minimum wage, the employee isn’t permitted to accept a lower wage so that the employer will take a risk on an inexperience though perhaps eager worker. This is the flip-side of the argument Frederic Bastiat would have called “that which is not seen.”  I don’t believe it is any government’s right to prescribe the upper limit of what I may earn, or the lower limit of what I will accept in payment for my labor.  That’s none of government’s business, and they ought to get out of it.

It has been shown repeatedly that a minimum wage increases unemployment by the process of making it too expensive for employers to try out new employees with little or no experience, or to take them on in a capacity to effectively serve as apprentices or trainees, but this is the leg up millions of Americans had used to obtain skills, prove workplace diligence and reliability, and otherwise promote themselves in an act of economic self-efficacy that fueled the growth of our nation.

These facts are well-known to economists, and well-known to all students of capitalism, and yet somewhere along the way, Mitt Romney has managed never to learn them, and I will tell you that it springs from the same place as his desire to “reform and strengthen the safety net:” A sense of collectivized charity rather than the honest desire to promote dignity of people in lifting themselves out of poverty.  The Club for Growth has taken on Romney’s suggested auto-indexing of the minimum wage on much the same basis.

The idea that Romney claims to be a capitalist has now been proven false. A capitalist would know that the minimum wage does more damage than good, and that the longterm result is inflationary pressure combined with increased unemployment among the young and the disadvantaged. Frankly, Romney should be ashamed of this pandering, but he needn’t fear because so many people suffer in economic ignorance that his tyrannical, big government idea will be seen as “compassionate” as it sentences more people to perpetual reliance upon the safety net he’s much too willing to strengthen.  Romney isn’t a capitalist, or a conservative, and he’s actually no better than Obama, and in some ways worse, because while I expect this sort of thing from a man who is not so ashamed to be tagged as a socialist, it is unforgivable from a man who claims he is not.

%d bloggers like this: