By Mike Tront – Support Mike on Patreon

There is a good side and bad side to everything.  Even the most positive advancements in humanity result in short terms losses for some.  These short term losses are inevitably used as foot holds for government to rear it’s ugly head and permanently establish itself in our lives.

Some libertarians are even drawn in by these losses and use them to justify government action!

Specifically, I’m talking about job losses from automation, immigration, and free trade.

alien

Historically, these three advancements have been the best predictors of wealth for a society.  We all know the societies throughout history that have been the freest, with the most trade, the most free movement of people, and the most industrialization have the most wealth and the highest standard of living for everybody.

However, the ugly side of automation, immigration, and free trade is short term job losses for some people.  It’s no secret that machines can do things better and cheaper than humans.  Immigrants can take over low skilled jobs and do it for less wages, and free trade can bring in more competition, thus forcing current companies out of business.

This is great for consumers of course!  We get better quality goods and services at lower prices.  This allows us to keep more of our money and spend or invest in other industries that we wouldn’t have otherwise been able to.  This leads to more jobs in those industries, a bigger economy, and more wealth and prosperity for everyone.

But what about the poor guy who lost his job in the meantime?  The guy who now has to find a whole new skill set or live on the street?  How can the amazing free market handle this “failure” Mr Libertarian Guy???

Right now, the government has massive bureaucracies that deal with unemployment insurance, disability insurance, job skills training, subsidized college for those laid off, and of course many forms of welfare.  These programs are forced on us whether we need them or want them, they cost billions, and they do little else but perpetuate and reward unemployment, rather than solve it.

So how would the free market solve this?  First of all, rather then be forced to pay into unemployment insurance through our employers, we would have a choice.  You could go through any number of private companies competing for your business.  This competition would keep costs down and quality up, and most importantly it would keep your options open.  Are you secure in your skills and job?  You may just want bare minimum or even no unemployment insurance.  Are you in a volatile industry?  You may want better insurance.  Depending on how much you want to pay, your insurance could kick in after 1 year of employment, 2 years, or right away.  You could choose if you want it to cover you for a month, 6 months, a year, or whatever.

The best part is that insurance companies don’t want to pay you this money forever, so it’s in their best interest to do everything they can to get you back to work! Just like car insurance companies incentivize teens to take driving classes, and health insurance companies incentivize people to live healthier and take better care of themselves (I’m wearing a fitness tracker right now so I can get lower rates), unemployment insurers would give you classes on how to find work, specific job training help, etc.  Simply, it would save them money to help you!  Greedy insurance companies trying to get me to be a better driver, live healthier, and find a good job just so they can save a buck!  The nerve!

For the government, bureaucracies have the opposite incentive.  The more people they have on their welfare rolls, the bigger the budget they get, the more secure THEIR jobs are.  Private insurance would lose money if their private welfare rolls swell up.  That puts their job at risk.

Who do you want in your corner if you lose your job?  The bureaucrat that stands to gain from you being out of work, or the private insurer that stands to gain from getting you back to work?

 

mike

Please subscribe for free!  I hate spam and will never sell, trade, or give your email address to anyone.  We’ll send you the latest blog posts as well as content and humor that you can’t get from the site, including This Week in Hypocrisy

By Mike Tront – Support Mike on Patreon

On the left, it’s a standard rallying cry that women make less money than men for the same job, and we need government to fix it!

If you’re on the right, or you’re a libertarian, you’ve undoubtedly read study after study showing that there is virtually no wage gap for woman and men in the same job with the same qualifications.

Now this could be another article boasting statistics, charts, and research showing that the gap is virtually nonexistent, and is direct result of parenting choices, or that the pay gap has more to do with men entering higher paying fields than woman.  Here, I’m taking a different approach. I’m going to put two liberal narratives together and see if they fit.

Narrative One:

Business owners are greedy, rapacious, villains that only care about money and the bottom line.

Narrative Two:

Business owners are sexist, and will make great strides to make sure that men make more money than women and that women don’t move up the ladder.

If you’re on the left, I’m sure you feel that there are a few good business owners out there, but by and large these two narratives will describe most businesses.  If you don’t believe this, then why do we need so many regulations, laws, and minimum wages for businesses?  And of course we know there is a huge wage gap, right?!

Well, let’s put these two narratives together:

First, business owners only care about the bottom line.  We can’t argue much with that.  The whole reason people take the enormous risk of starting their own business is to make more money than they were making working for someone else.  Why else do it?  Most businesses fail, costing the owner years of lost wages and a mountain of debt.  Not to mention business owners are open to law suits from customers, employees, other businesses, and the government.  Business owners work way more hours than they did working for someone else, and with much more stress.

With all this risk, stress, and razor thin margins a business owner has to deal with, are we to believe that owners are so sexist that they are willing to risk losing their business just because they can’t stand to see a woman earning as much as a man?

wagegap

The fact is, if there was a true wage gap, and if businesses could get the same production out of a woman as a man for 3/4 of the pay, no man would ever get a job!

Put yourself in a business owner’s shoes, two people of equal skill and education are willing to work for you and one will accept $20 an hour and the other will accept $15 an hour, who are you going to hire every time?

If you’re greedy and only care about money, you’re going to hire the person willing to work for $15 an hour.  The above cartoon couldn’t have said it better.

In fact, there are many wealthy, liberal business owners in America.  Why do they even hire men?  Why wouldn’t they just hire woman and pay them 90% of what men in the industry make?  They’d get just as much production, but have tremendously more profits.  They would put all of the sexist businesses out of business.  They’d be able to provide customers the same services and they’d be able to do it at a lower price, women would be making more money, and sexists businesses would be losing money.

These terrible, sexist business owners would have two options at this point.  Either lower the salaries of what they pay men, or bring up the salaries of what they pay woman. Or some combination of both.

wagegap2

So which is it liberals, do business owners just care about making profits?  Or are they so sexist that they’re willing to lose profits just to keep woman down?  It can’t be both.

mike

Please subscribe for free!  I hate spam and will never sell, trade, or give your email address to anyone.  We’ll send you the latest blog posts as well as content and humor that you can’t get from the site, including This Week in Hypocrisy

By Mike Tront – Support Mike on Patreon

Nothing kills me more than seeing libertarians fight each other.  On many issues we have some nuanced opinions and differences, but one issue often causes hatred, fighting, and animosity. That is voting.

grumpycat

Murray “Mr Libertarian” Rothbard said: “I see no other conceivable strategy for the achievement of liberty than political action. Religious or philosophical conversion of each man and woman is simply not going to work; that strategy ignores the problem of power, the fact that millions of people have a vested interest in statism and are not likely to give it up”

With that being said, I’ve never voted or been registered to vote for a day in my life.  It’s not that I think voting is necessarily violence or that it’s wrong, I just can’t bring myself to do it.  The whole process of registering to vote, standing in line at some government owned building, and casting a preference for a ruler just feels dirty to me!

Every election cycle, libertarians bash the State and bash each other. Is it libertarian to vote?  Should we all just stay home on election day?  Even if libertarians do get elected, can they really change anything?

The answer to all of this is yes, yes, and yes.

Voting isn’t violence, and if anything it’s an act of self-defense.  If I’m in prison for some non-violent “offense,” and the prison guards ask for my vote on what channel to put the TV on, of course my first choice would be to let me out of prison I shouldn’t even be here!  Leave me alone!  But since that’s not happening, whether I participate in the vote or not, I’m not aggressing on the tax payers who are paying for the TV and prison.  So when libertarians vote to watch “Stossel,” while everyone else is voting for Pro Wrestling, they are not violating any principals.

Staying home on election day is cool too.  In fact, not voting is a vote.  Non-voters like myself are saying that we know the game is rigged and we’re just going to go about our lives.  Non-voters are dangerous for governments.  The people in power know they ultimately derive their power and privilege from the masses.  If enough of the masses simply drop out or refuse to participate, that power will evaporate.  Many countries have mandatory voting for this very reason!  And every year in the U.S., the possibility is brought up.

Can we make a difference if we’re elected?  Just ask Ron Paul.  He may not have made any legislative victories for Liberty, but he’s done much better.  He’s brought more press and people to our movement than anyone.  The biggest irony of the haters of voting is that many of them wouldn’t have discovered libertarianism if it wasn’t for Dr. Paul!

There are many factions and ism’s in the Liberty movement.  But that’s good, so long as we know we’re on the same team. Joe Torre once said that “Baseball is a team sport played by individuals for themselves.” This is exactly how I feel about the Liberty movement. We’re all individuals, but to win we have to support each other. Each player plays a different position and has a unique set of skills and talents they bring to the team.  If our ideas are going to win, we need people working from all angles.

mike

If you like what I’m doing, please support me on Patreon

Please subscribe for free!  I hate spam and will never sell, trade, or give your email address to anyone.  We’ll send you the latest blog posts as well as content and humor that you can’t get from the site, including This Week in Hypocrisy

By Mike Tront – Support Mike on Patreon

For those of us who believe government that governs less, governs best; welfare seems to be a huge bugaboo. Talk to any conservative or libertarian about reducing spending; and some sneer about welfare is sure to come out of their mouth.

Unfortunately, this disdain for welfare is usually directed at the poorer class. However, entitlements for the poorest Americans are only a fraction of welfare given out, since social security, medicare, farm/business subsidies, and of course corporate welfare are more often given to the middle and upper class.  With this in mind, the last thing a small government advocate should worry about is food stamps.  Especially if they’re trying to win over hearts and minds.

welfare

Which brings me to this little gem from NPR on how the National Parks have a minority problem. The irony of NPR calling out the National Parks for being too white is funny, considering 87% of NPR’s terrestrial listening audience is white.  But that article is for another day.

So what’s the point?  According to the above NPR article: “Collectively, minorities made up just over 20 percent of the visitors to national parks, despite the fact that they made up nearly 40 percent of the U.S. population.”

There’s plenty of reasons given for this, one is the lack of public transportation to the parks, another is the lack of signs in Spanish, and of course another reason is the cost. There’s even a section of the article on how the National Park staff is just too darn white!  All of these are valid concerns I’ll admit, but these shouldn’t be the concerns of the public, they should be the concerns of the future owners of the park.

The fact is, it is not fair for people who don’t use the parks, minority or otherwise, to pay for the parks.  This is one of the fundamental flaws of government.  Government forces people pay for things they otherwise wouldn’t pay for and often times don’t even enjoy!

“But without government, we wouldn’t have these beautiful National Parks!!!” you might say.  That is total B.S., we would have National Parks, but it would be no different than any other amusement park.  Why doesn’t the government fund Disney World or Cedar Point?  Because the people that actually go there fund it.  Not only does Disney World NOT cost taxpayers billions of dollars a year, and force minorities and to pay taxes to support them for whites to enjoy, but Disney World PAYS millions in taxes per year!

So if you’re a conservative or libertarian that hates big government, the solution is easy, sell off the National Parks and let businesses run them.  That will reduce spending by billions every year, and bring in billions from the sale.

If you’re a liberal or libertarian that hates oppressing minorities and hates welfare for the middle-class and wealthy, then the solution is easy, sell off the National Parks.  Stop forcing the millions of people, whether minorities, or poor, or just hate the outdoors, who don’t use them to pay for them.

mike

If you like what I’m doing, please support me on Patreon

Please subscribe for free!  I hate spam and will never sell, trade, or give your email address to anyone.  We’ll send you the latest blog posts as well as content and humor that you can’t get from the site, including This Week in Hypocrisy

By Mike Tront – Support Mike on Patreon

I still have a few memories of the history lessons from my public schooling.  Most of them are of the narrative that government is wonderful as long as it’s a democracy.  And FDR was the greatest thing since sliced bread.  And without government, gruesome monopolies would roam the land.

But I also remember learning that the freedom of speech is the most important right to a free society.  It is the 1st Amendment for a reason.  And the old quote, “I don’t agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”  This was the early 90’s. I wonder if this is quote is being taught today!

At that time, it looked like the religious right was the big threat to speech.  This was a time of hatred for dirty lyrics in music.  By 1990, no less than 21 states introduced bills to restrict the selling of music to minors if it had “explicit lyrics.”  Right around that time, from 1990 to 2004 to be exact, Howard Stern racked up an amazing $2.5 million in fines from the FCC for being indecent.  The bulk of those fines were from 1991-1993.

free-speech

Yes, around this time the term “politically correct” was being invented on college campuses, but it was largely ignored and mocked across the country. Bill Maher had a popular show called “Politically Incorrect.” The movie “PCU” came out in 1994, mocking PC culture on campuses.  PC seemed to run out of steam as quickly as it had popped up.

pcu

Today it’s back full force.  This time it may not go away. Maybe social media is to blame.  In the 90’s, you had to be a on a major college campus to be in the PC crowd.  Now, anyone with a smart phone and a hatred of anyone holding a different opinion than you can be a warrior.

To be fair, social justice warriors are right in wanting to end racism, sexism, bigotry, homophobia, transphobia, and any other terrible phobia or ism that does not belong in a free society. But unfortunately, they are adopting the exact tactics of bigots to end bigotry.  They operate on hate and force, not education and love.

Instead of embracing freedom of speech, they want to ban it.  Some even want to repeal the 1st Amendment entirely!  Just as insane, some in the PC crowd are actually embracing segregation!  Thus limiting any discussion on why certain people might hold racist or sexist views.  In his groundbreaking book Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought, Jonathan Rauch, who is a long time proponent of free speech and same-sex marriage equality, argues that only free and open debate will move society in a positive direction.

Whether you’re libertarian, conservative, or liberal, the only way to a society free of hatred and bigotry is through free and open discussion.  Shouting down a group that thinks different than you only emboldens that group, whether they are right or wrong.  Worse, it deepens their conviction, thus eliminating any doubt in their mind that they might be wrong in their thought.

mike

If you like what I’m doing, please support me on Patreon

Please subscribe for free!  I hate spam and will never sell, trade, or give your email address to anyone.  We’ll send you the latest blog posts as well as content and humor that you can’t get from the site, including This Week in Hypocrisy