"fight poverty and homelessness, crime and discrimination, and make our nation more fair and more free."It is my view that you cannot make the nation more fair AND more free. Maybe in certain circumstances, but when you understand the liberal's definition of "fair" you'll see how it's impossible to do both.
For liberals, "fair" means equal outcome. That's why labor unions and Democrats are such kindred spirits. Labor contracts guarantee equal outcomes for all union members, regardless of their individual efforts or outside market forces. Democrats think that's "fair".
But is it really fair? Let's say you're a dedicated auto work who bolts bumpers on Buicks. You get to work early every day, give the company your complete attention during your shift, strive to do good work, and never take a sick day unless you're really sick.
Meanwhile, the guy working next to you is a lazy schlub who does the minimum necessary to keep his job, barely gets there on time every day, makes sure he takes all his sick days whether he needs them or not, and his very presence ensures that everyone else's load is just a bit heavier.
Thanks to union contract, he makes as much as you. When you get a raise, so does he. If your benefits go up, so does his. The only thing that might give you more money is seniority. How fair is that to you?
Under a union agreement any effort you make above the minimum necessary to keep your job is wasted because no additional benefit can come from it that isn't in the contract for everybody.
Our nation's social policies are littered with programs that were designed to increase "fairness", but at the same time deprived someone else of freedom. Affirmative Action is a classic example. To make it "fair" for minorities, opportunities had to be denied the majority. There's nothing "fair" about that.
And let's remember that Obama's own stated goal is to return America's wealth to it's "rightful owners". That's his idea of "fairness" - taking money from a group that is not a political favorite and giving to others who are.
Conservatives, on the other hand, have a different definition of "fair". Fair means equal opportunity. Conservatives want to clear obstacles out of your way so you can take your initiative, training, skills, and desire and make whatever you can out of them. Your salary is not determined by a group of union negotiators, but by your own ability to make a deal on terms with which you agree. If the guy next to you is a lazy schlub, your salary will not be dependent on him.
With freedom can come some unfairness, no doubt. A boss who plays favorites or changes the rules of the game can be very unfair. But when you're free, you can go somewhere else.
Conservatives, on the other hand, have a different definition of "fair". Fair means equal opportunity. Conservatives want to clear obstacles out of your way so you can take your initiative, training, skills, and desire and make whatever you can out of them. Your salary is not determined by a group of union negotiators, but by your own ability to make a deal on terms with which you agree. If the guy next to you is a lazy schlub, your salary will not be dependent on him.
With freedom can come some unfairness, no doubt. A boss who plays favorites or changes the rules of the game can be very unfair. But when you're free, you can go somewhere else.
Unions made a lot of sense in the days when corporate masters were terribly inhuman and misused their workers. However, that day is past. Labor contracts are doing more harm than good these days. They were a major factor in the collapse of GM and Chrysler, and will continue to plague those companies in the future since so little compromise was made when Obama handed the companies to the unions. Now, the unions will be fighting themselves.
While an America where everything is "more fair" and "more free" may be a liberal ideal, it's not something that can be realistically achieved.
Posts
1 comment:
He is not the slightest bit interested in fairness, if he were he'd step down himself as being someone with no resume, no qualifications for office, no clue what he's doing, but who nonetheless lives it up now on the taxpayer's dime.
As for the gullible wimps (obviously not kids, but the parents, teachers, others listening in) upon whose conscience he tries to play: I always apply the sign rule.
You know how at a road construction project there are always some fellows holding signs. "Slow." "Stop."
These are very important jobs, obviously, since without the signage maybe people collide and that's not good. But if you spent 4 years doing pre-med, another 4 in med school, plus X number years as a resident, or following a specialization -- neurosurgery, maybe -- you probably don't want to make the same amount of money in salary as the sign guy.
This is common sense. The sign guy didn't want to spend his youth in medical school, either. The sign guy understands this calculus. Liberals don't "understand" for a different reason: they attempt to persuade you to OUTSOURCE your virtue.
Give Uncle Sam you're earnings in the form of taxes, and Good ol' Uncle will dispense them with all the diligence of Saint Francis. You will feel so grand, the Prez will claim all the credit of morality on your behalf -- wear your halo, so to speak -- and he'll manage to keep a little aside for himself and the other FAT CATS so that his wife, our First Lady Michelle Obama can live it large in Paris as needed.
Is that not virtue? Sounds "fair" to him.
Post a Comment