* |
When they start iterating their demands, that is when you
know they are being used as a front group. They are what we can safely call
“useful idiots.” I would still assume they are best ignored, but for the fact
that our current president trained operatives to engage in this type of public
disturbance as a career. (See particularly pp. 212-226 of Radical in Chief, by Stanley Kurtz, the section on “Hitting the
Banks.”) It seems to be a parallel universe when a sitting president
sympathizes with, and even identifies with, street protestors making demands
for the overthrow of our freedom and free market systems.
A couple of times this week, I mentioned “thou shalt not
covet” as one of the civilizing principles. Consider, then, whether the demands
of these protestors can qualify as civilizing or are likely to do the opposite.
- Demand 1: Restoration of the living wage…raise the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hour.
- Demand 2: Institute universal single payer healthcare and ban private insurers from the market.
- Demand 3: Guarantee a living wage regardless of employment.
- Demand 4: Free college tuition.
- Demand 5: Force an end to fossil fuel use and force use of alternative energy.
- Demand 6: Spend $1 Trillion on infrastructure now.
- Demand 7: Spend $1 Trillion on ecological restoration and also decommission all American nuclear power plants.
- Demand 8: Amend the US Constitution to create equal gender rights.
- Demand 9: Open borders—anyone can travel, live, and work anywhere.
- Demand 10: Bring American elections to international standards, with both impartial and party observers.
- Demand 11: All debts forgiven—across the planet.
- Demand 12: Outlaw all credit reporting agencies.
- Demand 13: Allow all workers to sign a ballot at any time during a union organizing campaign or at any time that represents their yeah or nay to having a union represent them in collective bargaining or to form a union.
They end with this prophecy:
These demands will create so many jobs
it will be completely impossible to fill them without an open borders policy.
…which is why the soviet term “useful idiots” applies, although the
useful part may be questionable.
Oddly, what I'd understood was the main demand, raising corporate tax rates, is missing from their list. But, taking them at their word, let's look at what they say they want in exchange for removing themselves from the streets.
First, minimum wage. The stated purpose of minimum wage is purportedly to
keep employers from unfairly exploiting the laborer. But in reality it prevents
the contract between willing employer and willing employee from taking place.
An employer must do without labor that doesn’t bring in enough business success
to pay for the worker. This means that efficiency and effectiveness are
absolute necessities. So beginning, entry-level, untrained workers cannot be
afforded. So they are not hired. Demanding a minimum wage freezes out willing
employees, increasing unemployment, especially among those at the beginning of
their work life. Teenagers, high school dropouts, non-college graduates are not
going to be making a living wage; they will be making no wage.
As for $20 an hour, since that includes almost every job in
fast food, every beginning clerical job, dental and medical assistants, day
care workers, non-commissioned retail workers, food-service workers, and a
myriad of other jobs people do to gain experience, or to carry them over while
they get more education, will be outlawed. Employers who can’t afford to pay
$20 an hour for work that doesn’t bring in that much to the business will be
unable to hire. And in many cases, those businesses will shrink way below
market demand, or will disappear entirely.
Next, socialized
health care. We know, from the boondoggle that is Obamacare, and from the
inefficiencies and even cruel deprivations of care in countries with socialized
medicine, that this is the absolute opposite direction we should be taking. Why
are college students clamoring for it—unless someone indoctrinated them and put
them up to it? Most college students would otherwise be content to risk lack of
coverage during their young and healthy years, assuming they will be able to
afford coverage later through employment.
About “guaranteed
wage,” I’m not sure what they mean. It is either that you get a certain
wage regardless of the type of work you do, or you get a certain wage
regardless of whether you work. But where does it come from? If an employer
doesn’t get the necessary work to bring in profit with which to pay wages, the
employer must replace the unproductive worker(s) or go out of business. If a
person isn’t even employed, the assumption, then, is that government will
confiscate money from workers to bequeath it unearned to nonworkers of the
government’s choosing. I’m thinking another word for this is slavery. These
unenlightened protestors, then, are demanding enslavement of productive
workers. Which would I rather have: a bunch of young people endlessly complaining
on the city streets, or giving in to enslavement? If it’s only those two
choices, I’m certainly not going to give in to slavery.
If all college
tuition is free, then you can assume the value of a college education will
be what you paid for it. (Somewhat like a high school diploma.) If there is no
cost, then who will pay to do the educating? Again, productive workers enslaved
by these young non-producers. There’s the other question of, who decides who
gets a better education, one that prepares one for productive work in society?
Merit and money do that now, but the protestors think that’s unfair somehow.
As for the demands for spending
while shutting down industries, these are leftist rants that exemplify the
lack of training in critical thinking that these student protestors are
receiving. If you eliminate the use of energy resources we now have, you
eliminate the means to produce new ideas. The country would be forced to a
standstill, not because there is no way to innovate, but because these tantrum
throwers want something that doesn’t yet exist to come out of thin air, rather
than out of market demand.
As for an equal
rights amendment, that didn’t fly several decades ago, for good reason. One
is that it was written in a way that disallowed noticing gender differences.
This would be harmful to women, who are different. If it cannot be noticed that
you get pregnant and have children, then you have a much harder time making a
living (or raising a family) in competition with people who cannot have
children or choose not to. So families, the basic unit of civilization, are
discriminated against, and women are particularly harmed. It just so happens
that elimination of family is a goal of the behind-the-scenes organizers of
these protests. In addition, it should be noted that laws currently in place
give advantages in all but the hardest physical labor settings to women and
minorities, so that the real object of discrimination is white males. So,
unless these protestors are white males, why are they making this demand?
As for free and fair
elections—I’m in favor of that. Laws are already on the books to allow
independent and party-affiliated observers. See my pieces on poll watching here
and here. The difficulty is getting enough volunteer observers to thwart the
underhanded practices of the backers of these protesters. So I’m not sure why
this demand is being made, but I am sure I don’t trust their motives.
Remove sovereignty
and eliminate all debt—I’m combining these, because they are equally
ignorant. If there are no borders, then there is no way to enforce laws, no
sovereign authority. All of the above demands would be null and void, because
there would be no one to force businesses to hire workers at a set wage, nor to
collect taxes to pay the trillions demanded for infrastructure and free health
care and free college tuition. Oh, and if you outlaw the ability to recoup
debts owed, then money no longer has meaning, and you’d be lucky to have some
kind of barter exchange. You certainly couldn’t gather capital to build a house
or start or expand a business.
Sign up for a union—that’s
already possible. What is rarely possible is to work in certain jobs without
signing up with the heavy-handed union. And while unions claim to be for
workers, they are certainly not for future workers. They want to maintain perks
for current workers, regardless of ability and merit, while blocking out any
currently unemployed workers or workers coming into the field. So, since this
demand removes freedom and opportunity from workers, why is it on this list?
Oh, yeah, because after the several days of purposeless shouting, the unions
got involved in supporting (co-opting?) the protests.
In the end, is there any chance that meeting these demands
would bring about greater freedom, economic prosperity, or better living
conditions? None.
But I don’t know whether the protesters should be completely
ignored. Similar groups as early as 1983 forced banks to lower lending
standards, which directly led to the housing bubble collapse of the past few
years. It was a slow but inevitable outcome. What we must not do is give in to
any demands now that interfere with our freedom and prosperity in the future.
___________________________________
* I don't know who to credit with this photo. I got it from a friend on Facebook, who got it from someone, last name Rose, location Austin. But I don't know if that is the creator or just someone who passed it along. Anyway, kudos to whoever made it.
No comments:
Post a Comment