Smarter Than Thou!

IN PRAISE OF WORTH-LESS-NESS

   IN case you care about these things, let me explain how I go about writing one (or two) of these installments.  I often carry around with me a notebook.  When I hear or read something of interest, that I judge can be a theme, I record it in the notebook.  Many times, because I am doing something else, I have the time to write only a few key words.  Not quite as many times I can not read what I wrote, and/or the key words are not enough to remind me what interested me in the first place.  This installment is not quite as bad, but it has some aspect of inadequacy. 

    The inspiring event was something to due with the current president.  And it had something to do with a bill that proposes to guarantee that women are to be paid in a “equal” way.  The president said something like “this is to ensure that women are paid what they are worth.”  This was the key phrase.  I hold that most of Americans, if we really reasoned on it, would NOT want to get paid what we are worth.  Most of us, if pressed and if honest, would admit that we are overpaid, because we under work.  However, let me ignore this high probability and proceed under another premise.  That is, most of you (but not I) favor the policy of people (including women) being paid what they are worth, simply as a matter of fairness and justice. 

    Let me explain why I do not favor fairness.  The concept of being worth something to an employer means the following.  Employee A produces income X.  For a moment try to ignore that it is, in most---if not all---cases, totally impossible to determine, correctly, how much revenue any individual employee manages to produce for a company.  Let me posit that Miss A, by her (non natal) labor brings X amount of dollars into the company.  Thus this is what she is worth, because, should she not work, the company will lose X amount of dollars. 

    Do you see what would happen if the boss did pay her $X?  There would be no room for profit, which is, by definition, revenue beyond expenses (including salaries).  There would be no chance of expansion because of the all the revenue paid in salaries.  No bank would loan such a company any money.  Any unexpected expenses would cause the company to go out of business.  To produce a profit, which means to stay in business, a company must pay its employees LESS than what they are worth.  Without such widespread “exploitation” the entire free economy would collapse. And then women would get equal pay with men, namley none at all.  

    I do not know if the president was aware of what he said.  I hold that he does want the economy to collapse.  He does want both men and women to be equally unemployed.  However, I doubt that he knew what his words meant.  As I wrote above, most Americans would agree with him as a matter of principle.  They would be wrong, as they are quite ignorant of basic economic principles.  Most Americans are, most of the time.   Do not be one of them. 

 

 

"THAT'S THE WAY I LIKE IT"

   THIS analysis, like a tripod, stands on three legs.  Please keep each support in mind as I offer them.  First leg:  most of us have endured the endless “why” questioning by a young child.  Maybe we did the questioning.  The child asks a question (e.g. why do birds fly?), and every answer induces another “why?” Usually the adult will give up, and say, “Because it is!  Now go away!”

    Second leg:  When I was young(er) I used to “play” with personal hand-held calculators.  This consisted of repeated use of the square root key.  I would enter some random number and then find its square root.  Then I would find this new number’s square root, and then I would repeat the process… but not endlessly.  Ultimately EVERY square root of a square root, etc, etc, would yield the number one.  Every number was really only a function of the first number.  There was an irreducible core to numbers, similar to a final answer. 

   Third leg:  Advisory: The following material contains an excessive show off warning.  Bob Grant was a very popular NYC radio talk show host.  I was once on his show when he was at his height.  He descried my guest appearance as the strangest show he ever had.  But that is another story, for another time.  He once said, “You can not outlaw crime.”  Of course, the ONLY thing that one can outlaw IS crime.  What he meant was… well, I am not sure.  He may have meant---as many like to say---that you can not legislate morality.  In fact ALL that can be legislated is morality.  My theme is why people advocate certain policies.  I want to get the very last answer to the why series of questions.  

   I fully understand that legislation and legislators often do NOT reflect the will of the population in general.  However, I shall proceed as if they do, in order to offer an analysis of a principle.  Laws reflect only one thing.  This is the population’s sense of what is right (or wrong).  For example, legal permission to drill for oil off the shore of a state means that the people of the state want the oil more than they are bothered by the risk of pollution.  That is, the public says, “This is right (i.e. moral) in our view.”  This fact s, I hope, self-evident.  

    But WHY do the people want the oil?  This begins an apparently endless series of “why” questions, as if asked by a four year old girl.  Why do the people want the oil?  Why do they want gasoline?  Why do they want to drive a car?  Why do they want to go to work (or to Disney World, or to Grandma’s)?  Why do they want money (or have fun, or visit Grandma)?  Why do they like what they buy with money?  Why?  Why?  Why?  Etc.  

   The ONLY way to end this, other than by putting the child into perpetual daycare, is to say the following:  “Because I (or they) do!  That’s why!”  This is similar in nature to the final sequence in the repeated use of the square root key.  One can not go beyond it.  It is both the beginning and ending point.     

   The bit of wisdom from this now obvious fact is this.  Ultimately EVERY position, no matter how principled it may seem to be, is really nothing more than “I want (it that way).”  Even if one argues that one advocates X because it is the Will of God, or will help poor people, this is readily reduced to (as KC and the Sunshine Band put it), “That’s the way I want it.”

    I present this to you so that you do not misunderstand why people are on different sides of issues.  Those who advocate homo marriages do so, not because they care about “civil rights” or “essential equality.”  They advocate it because they like it.  Period.  The same applies to the opponents.  There never is, nor can there be, anything more.  I hope that you have recognized the illusion and now embrace the truth.  I hope so because that’s the way I want it.  

MEAT, SODA AND SUICIDE (OH MY)

   IT is a widely known fact that the Mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg, has advocated governmental approaches to induce people to eat in a more healthy way.  One of his more recent desires was to arrange for it to be more difficult, legally, to sell (and thus to buy, and thus to consume) large(r) containers of sugar based soda.  As I understand it, and this comes from Mass Media (and so it is not necessarily true), he managed to get some kind of public health regulations passed.   As of this writing, the legality of these regulations has been overturned by a court decision. 

    His effort has served as the source of a number of jokes by comics in general and by the late night talk show hosts in particular.   Some political commentators---even serious ones---have seen this effort as a serious symbol of the growth of the “Nanny State.”  This is a welfare state where government policies protect citizens not only from foreign enemies but also from themselves.  Such a loss of freedom is seen as not only a danger in itself but also as a prediction of future losses of freedom.  This is the basis of my analysis. 

    I admit that may some of this may be a repeat.  I believe, but am not certain, that I have written on a similar subject before.  I trust that this particular analysis is not so similar as to be a repetition.  After all, you (the reader) should always receive a fair product for your fair payment.   I always give people their money’s worth. 

    The issue of protecting the citizen is one that is, of necessity, built upon a slippery slope.  Once ANY responsibility is claimed or established, there is no logical way to avoid additions and expansions.  It can not be stopped or reversed.  For example, “we” (that social/hypothetical collection who are represented by the government) do try to stop people from committing suicide.  The guy who wants to jump off a bridge engenders action by police and government counselors.  He is protected from himself, officially. 

    At this same time, perhaps ironically, there is a forced reduction of some federal funds.  One federal (Nanny State) action is meat inspection.  The feds provide this, thanks to that Rugged Individualist, Teddy Roosevelt.  The reason is this.  No one should buy “bad” meat that might harm him. So federal meat inspectors get between buyer and seller.  I do not know of any politician who wants this service (i.e. interference) eliminated.  “We” all agree that this should be done.  Well, maybe I do not, but the rest agree. 

   And how is eating bad meat different from consuming too much sugar?  Both substances are harmful.  Sugar could easily be as harmful, but maybe not as fast acting, as bad meat or a jump from the bridge?  How do “we” want us protected from some actions and poisons, and yet not from others?  The only reasonable answer is:  we do, and can, not.  We can not have both freedom and protection, even though we seem to demand both. As philosophers like to state:  He who says A must say B.  

    Of course, asking the government to do what it can not do is what Americans have done since the very beginning (when we included slavery along with pursing happiness as foundations for the society).  It is pretty much what makes “us” Americans.  

PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT THE AUTHOR OF THIS BLOG WILL BE ON VACATION UNTIL MID MARCH. THE BLOG WILL NOT BE UPDATED UNTIL THAT TIME. THANK YOU AND GOD BLESS.

MUST CATHOLICISM BE OUTLAWED?

     ALTHOUGH I did not bother to watch the last vice-presidential debate between Paul Ryan and Joe Biden, I know what happened on one issue.  The issue is abortion and what happens is always the following.  The more liberal candidate declares that he is “personally opposed to abortion, but….” Often this guy is a Catholic, or at least claims to be one.  He then adds that it is not ethical, moral, popular, etc, etc, for him to imposed his own personal religious beliefs upon others who do not accept them.  This goes against basic American principles.  I hope to God that you can see the lunacy behind this position.  If not then do not worry, as I shall explain. 

     First, EVERY law or regulation is nothing more or less than the will and value system of one person (namely, whoever voted for it, usually a legislator) that will be IMPOSED upon others, even if they do not like it.  Every law is a restriction of freedom on someone (maybe a abortionist, maybe a theater operator, maybe a cab driver, maybe a gun owner).  Government is little more than the endless restriction of citizens.  All governments are therefore oppressive, by nature and necessity. 

    Second, to deny the permissibility of making a moral decision in voting is to deny a legal freedom.  People are allowed to vote for any reason whatsoever.  Yes, some forms of speech are illegal.  However, voting for, or against, any bill, ever, is not one of them.  Every year hundreds of legislators vote to restrict abortion.  Yet the official but pro-abortion Catholic states in essence the following.  “I am not allowed to follow my conscience.   I would like to because it is what God wants, but somehow this is a forbidden action.   I am no longer free to follow my conscience as it is against some American principle.”  Really?  Which one?

     Third, there are many Catholics (like Paul Ryan) who do follow their faith in voting matters.  As an aside, many of these pro-abortion officials DO “act on their faith” when they vote funds for the poor, or at least this is what they say.   So Paul does X (his conscience) while Joe is forced to do anti-X, but at other times votes X.  Interesting, is it not?  Then Joe is also forced, if he is to be morally consistent, to try to pass a law outlawing anyone voting against abortion in any way.  Recall that Joe is really, really, really against abortion, personally, but can not be allowed to vote this way.  This is exactly the same as being a child molester.  Joe would say, “I personally want to abuse children, but I must not be allowed by law to do so.”  He is also saying, “I really want them not to be killed, but I must not be allowed to prevent their deaths.” 

    Fourth, Joe is saying the following.  “I am a member of a religion but I can not practice it.  In fact, no one should be allowed to do so.  In fact, it should be illegal.  But I am still a faithful member.”  Huh?  To be consistent Joe should---that is be forced to---advocate the outlawing of the entire religion.  Joes should be working to ban Catholicism. But Joe is mentally, and morally, defective, as all know who have heard him speak. 

   Despite the fact that this grotesque distortion of reality is obvious, it is never brought up.  Now you can, if and when you encounter it.