Fairness or Hindrance? Part 2

As stated on Part 1, this is a blog that I was writing over several months and realized I needed to parse it out. 

The first post I was thinking about how confused we as Americans are over the concept of equality.  After reading about it and thinking about it over a few months, I came to the realization that the goal of the so-called "justice" warriors is not to make everyone equal, but to destroy the concept of Right & Wrong.  It is the only thing that makes sense to me, the push for acceptance of other's degrading acts at all costs can only lead to one conclusion - all morals are decided by the individual.

So - understanding that the concept of equality overall is rather moot, I began to consider specific types of equality and for this part it is Income Equality

What is Income Equality:

One of the most common points that is heard right now in our society is the desire for all to be equal in their income.  Often, this comes from adults that have yet to obtain a useful skill in life and are upset that they can't afford to vacation all year.

Let's face it, wouldn't it be fair if everyone had the time and resources to take long vacations, enroll in free school to pursue self betterment and ultimately do what made them feel good?  I mean, all these evil "corporations" and "banks" are holding the common man down with low wages and high interest rates, right?  People can't find enjoyment because of it!

Thanks to decades of educational programming, Americans actually speak like this - in case your curious if it sounds familiar, it does.  It's called Marxism.

Let's consider a few key points to this:

People are not equal in the work place.

Work requires skill, desire, and proficiency.  Consider the intern still in college compared to the tenured professional - should they earn the same?  If you say yes, I don't know how to reason with you.  

If you said no, consider this - does the company expect the same value from the intern and the tenured professional?  Clearly, the answer is no.  Therefore, the company pays each based on the value the company will receive.  This is the premise of free market workplaces - you control your wages based on your value add options.  

If you choose to not develop skills or refuse to adjust over time, you will be left behind.  Companies require active and engaged employees and so they reward that with higher pay and job security.

Equal does not mean the same thing to everyone in the same workplace

Consider now an 18 year old guy, just moved out on his own.  His expenses will probably be a car, housing, phone / utilities and an increasing amount of credit card debt due to fiscal irresponsibility. 

Now consider a man in his late thirties, married with teenage kids.  His expenses will include much of the above (just multiples of them) as well as higher insurances and meal costs.  

Now - if all are to be equal, tell me what a living wage is?  Truth is, you cannot unless you also dictate what is acceptable to do in life: how many phones, cars, TVs, subscriptions, etc.  All would have to be dictated by the government that also dictates you living wage.  Scary thought, huh?

The Law of Scarcity

First - note that it is a "Law", not a "Theory".  Essentially, this law states that resources are limited and wants are not, requiring us to prioritize the investments to achieve the most desired / needed resources at the expense of the others.  

In society, there is a limited amount of money and open seats on cruises - there are limits in food and clothing as well (reflected by price point, not everyone can have steak and lobster every night).  As a result, there is a monetary price added to each good or service and people exchange their money for what they value most.  

Now consider education - free public schooling has resulted in a generation that feels entitled to a degree regardless of performance.  With the expansion of government subsidization of college, the cost is going up but the students pass that debt on to society via tax or borrow money directly via banks.  

Either way, other people are paying for the student's goals - so who is taking the risk?  How much control do I have, as a person who stores my cash in a bank (credit union actually...), in how wise they invest my money into their education?  Not every degree will ensure re-payment of debt is possible.  So while it may seem mean to have a higher interest rate for an education, consider who is actually taking the risk (it's not the student).  It is the people that have entrusted the banks with their money.  

Student loan defaults have steadily increased from 2005, now in the realm of 27%.  That means that the 3/4 of students that do repay their loans, have to also pay for the kids that are not paying.  If they do not recover at least a majority of the initial cash invested, everyone would pull their money out of the banks, the banks would close and people would not have access to money to do things like school or start a business.  

Ever heard of Black Tuesday?  Banks made poor investments, the money was being lost and people ran to the bank and pulled their money out so they could have some still. 

This is a point lost on my generation - banks don't own money.  They are a central repository for many people's cash.  They use that cash to then invest into sound business cases that should return not only the initially invested monies, but also compensate for inflation and a profit to justify the risk.  

Banking systems are a great way to take the limited cash in an economy and allow it to be utilized by more people.  So long as it is expended wisely, then the inflation and interest rates will not raise dramatically.

Personal fulfillment is derived from value we add

The root of Marxism ideals is that leisure is the end goal of life.  The idea that you can pursue some flimsy dream and feel good about yourself is an outright lie.  You feel good about yourself as you excel and create value in your sphere of influence.

Your focus should be on where you influence is - not what you are doing.  Every job has its crap, mundane and boring requirements - this is fine if you are happy with the opportunities for growth that ahead of you.

I can't say it as well as Mike Rowe, so here is a great video he did for Prager University.

Another point - I hear people stating that businesses "enslave" us by determining what we earn (see above) and how much time we have off.  People want to travel the world and do useless expressions that no one else will pay for while having a non-stop vacation.

First of all, this denies the principles of work God has given us.  This will result in a lack of joy as there will be no success.  There will be nothing overcome by the individual as all that is needed in life (in theory at least) will be provided by others.

Second, if everyone is pursuing these idiotic pipe-dreams of continual vacation and self pursuits, who is providing food, electricity, & sewage maintenance?  Who will be running society?  And here is the lie - all the unpleasant aspects of every job are a result of necessity.  You cannot just will unpleasantness from life.

State ownership will not stop at economics

The other major issue that is missed with this selfish desire to have the "government" provide for basic needs & wants is twofold:

First, the "government" is actually the people of the country.  In other words, Marxism enslaves everyone to each other.

Second, the government cannot stop at economics to accomplish this.  As mentioned above, they will have to make decisions about how big of a house you rate, how many vehicles & of what type, and it would not be hard for them to dictate how big of a family you can have.

They would also determine what is right & wrong - preventing the ability to have religious freedom or expression of oneself (irony alert!  The system with the sales pitch of "feel free to express yourself in personal pursuits as your needs are covered!" will have to prevent self expression to ensure equality).  The state will have to control every aspect of life for Marxism to work.

Fairness or Hindrance? Part 1

This is a post I started about 3 months ago, it has been growing and I realized I just needed to split it up.  It will be a series on my views regarding the cultural Marxism we are adopting in America.  

I have never had patience for whiners that go on and on about what is or is not fair.  They are so-called "warriors" seeking justice - yet the only thing they deny is justice.  Life, when simplified, is nothing more than a binary set of algorithms driven by cause & effect.  Skip a meal, stomach complains and you don't feel as energized.

Yes, people are born into unequal environments - for instance, a poor black kid in America is born into a society that will provide him with free food, housing, medical costs and a phone whereas a poor black kid born in Africa may die before walking due to exposure or malnourishment.

I don't have the answers to ensure everyone truly starts on an equal plane - I don't think it is possible in this life.  This does require a concept of humility and gratitude for what we all have as there is always someone with less (such as the dead kid in Africa that never even spoke or walked).  I know - how insensitive of me, but the hard reality of truth is that anyone that is living well enough to complain, has more than the child that dies in a war-torn, famine struck, impoverished country while yet an infant.  Or the aborted one that never even breathed on its own.

It is important to highlight this as it shows how imbalanced our view in America is on the concept of "fairness".  Few Americans (at least the ones born here) can appreciate what it truly means to exist in fear and poverty or suffering.  We are so far from understanding suffering, that we manufacture issues while ignoring the blatant violation of rights by still having slaves in America.  Real pain and suffering happens in the US - real hatred and bigotry exist, but we spend our time on hype rather than subsistence.

What is America's view on Equality?

This is the heart of the confusion - no one can agree on what is right or what is wrong - or even if there is a right and wrong.  Why?  Simple, for Social Justice Warriors (SJWs), equality is about the abolishment of religion and morality by refusing anyone the ability to declare something as Right or Wrong.  This also makes it impossible to achieve success as there will always be some bizarre cause to rally behind as there will be no boundaries.

Out of curiosity, I searched "equality in America" in Bing and this is what I got:

There isn't really a trend in this group - they each highlight equality for a specific group of people, but ignore the others.  Again, no foundation, no common set of what is right or wrong - only silo'd demands irrelevant of all others.

They do have one trend, however, they all fear and hate the "religious right".  

Here is an interesting view that results from this ambiguous approach to life where a feminist group is trying to determine if pornography is helpful or harmful to the movement of equality for women:

"There was a generation gap in the debate, with some older second wavers asking why it is that men get off on abusing women, and some third and fourth wavers saying that, actually, they quite enjoy a bit of consensual degradation, thank you very much. I’d argue that when you start questioning and shaming another person’s adult, consensual sexual preferences, you’ve lost the fight. To borrow a useful phrase from Amy Poehler: “good for you, not for me”. You enjoy being pumped in multiple orifices while being bent over flatpack furniture and filmed? Good for you, not for me. But good for women? That’s another question, one that requires a much more nuanced approach. Only once we accept that can we work out what we are going to do about it."

How terrifying that insidious and deviant behavior is actually considered as acceptable because of someone's disturbed fetish?  Doing so ignores the profound impact on self esteem, image and long term happiness.  Furthermore, this view of equality and acceptance is not about what you are able to contribute in life, instead it is how you can expend your time in the pursuit of pleasure.

But again - that is only terrifying if you believe in right and wrong.  As she states - you lose the argument once you question someone's "adult" decisions.  With that in mind, why is it bad to be conservative?  Or religious?  Clearly - for reasons are self evident, right?

This is a key tenant of the so-called progressives, however.  Anything that presents the idea of absolute truth is a threat to the state and therefore must either be highly censored or abolished.  These people pushing for equality are not marching towards a common goal, they are marching away from one - the fact that there is Right and Wrong.  It doesn't matter which way they pull away, they achieve their desire so long as the central theme of Truth is abandoned.