Both ends of the political spectrum say they work for "the people". Both ends of the political spectrum however really serve another master. They serve glory and gold, and advancement is their aim and goal. Whether corporations or councils, both sides seek a concentration of riches in the hands of the few at the expense of the many. Most Americans lie somewhere in the middle. No matter which end you pick, if you are a normal person, you will lose.
Whenever one party captures a branch of government, they seem to lose their minds. Republicans overreact and pass policies that entrench large corporations as a reactionary measure to any efforts passed by the Democrats to hold them back. Both sides claim to be interested in prosperity of 'the people' and neither one of them actually defines what either 'small businesses' or the middle class are, respectively.
Both corporations and unions themselves emphasize money at the expense of the employees. Look at the financial statements of the AFL-CIO, the NEA, or the UAW, and you'll see they take in just as much in some cases as UPS, Intel, or GM. There is no longer much difference between big business and big unions- they both agitate, they both lobby, and they both leverage the people as a means to their ends. I have worked, ironically enough, for a unionized company and a company that did not. I was largely treated the same by both entities. At a personal level, the rank and file workers were the same, treated me the same, and were people who were real to me. At the corporate level, I was just a cog, and they learned too late that replacing me came at great cost.
It's not the union members or the workers at corporations. It's the union officials and the disaffected and disconnected managers. I really like the CEO undercover show (I've only seen it twice); in the White Castle episode, one of the owners went out on the floor with his people and it opened his eyes. He didn't know any better. I really liked the union steward who supervised my section. His superiors weren't interested in helping me because I was not unionized. Whether you go to the left or the right, you eventually end up with concentration of goods in the hands of a few, although their identities vary. The grass isn't greener on the other side; the problems remain, and only the faces change.
Frederick Bastiat wrote in his book "The Law" about legalized and legislated plunder. As power changes hands, everyone takes their turn at plundering their diametric opposites. In order to break the cycle, people must refuse to participate. In lieu of asking where 'our share' of the pork is, we should refuse to take any. I have to give Governor Gibbons (R-NV) credit; he refused to take stimulus money until the President forced him to.
What Republicans should endorse is Entrepreneurship. I have started (and failed at) a business. There were lots of hurdles and papers, and the $1000 in fees I paid to get started (before I bought any products, built a website, or did any marketing) constituted a large chunk of my gross household income at the time. When a large corporation forms a subsidiary, the fees they pay represent a few seconds of time. For me, it represents perhaps a week of work. The barriers the Republicans allow to remain discourage small business. The barriers the Democrats allow discourage business in general. In the end, normal folks at sidewalk level are the bulwark and beneficiaries of business and enterprise. Both sides wage war against us in our name. Are we insane?
If the government really was interested in helping the economy, they would encourage new business and new business transactions. Government jobs don't exist until a private sector job produces something for which it can be taxed. Without private jobs, there is not enough tax revenue generated to pay the wages, benefits, and retirement of nationalized industry. We need people to dream, invest, create, and then cycle the money they have earned. We don't need "capitalism". What serves us best is entrepreneurship. We don't need jobs. What serves us best is if the government lets us create our own.
Whenever one party captures a branch of government, they seem to lose their minds. Republicans overreact and pass policies that entrench large corporations as a reactionary measure to any efforts passed by the Democrats to hold them back. Both sides claim to be interested in prosperity of 'the people' and neither one of them actually defines what either 'small businesses' or the middle class are, respectively.
Both corporations and unions themselves emphasize money at the expense of the employees. Look at the financial statements of the AFL-CIO, the NEA, or the UAW, and you'll see they take in just as much in some cases as UPS, Intel, or GM. There is no longer much difference between big business and big unions- they both agitate, they both lobby, and they both leverage the people as a means to their ends. I have worked, ironically enough, for a unionized company and a company that did not. I was largely treated the same by both entities. At a personal level, the rank and file workers were the same, treated me the same, and were people who were real to me. At the corporate level, I was just a cog, and they learned too late that replacing me came at great cost.
It's not the union members or the workers at corporations. It's the union officials and the disaffected and disconnected managers. I really like the CEO undercover show (I've only seen it twice); in the White Castle episode, one of the owners went out on the floor with his people and it opened his eyes. He didn't know any better. I really liked the union steward who supervised my section. His superiors weren't interested in helping me because I was not unionized. Whether you go to the left or the right, you eventually end up with concentration of goods in the hands of a few, although their identities vary. The grass isn't greener on the other side; the problems remain, and only the faces change.
Frederick Bastiat wrote in his book "The Law" about legalized and legislated plunder. As power changes hands, everyone takes their turn at plundering their diametric opposites. In order to break the cycle, people must refuse to participate. In lieu of asking where 'our share' of the pork is, we should refuse to take any. I have to give Governor Gibbons (R-NV) credit; he refused to take stimulus money until the President forced him to.
What Republicans should endorse is Entrepreneurship. I have started (and failed at) a business. There were lots of hurdles and papers, and the $1000 in fees I paid to get started (before I bought any products, built a website, or did any marketing) constituted a large chunk of my gross household income at the time. When a large corporation forms a subsidiary, the fees they pay represent a few seconds of time. For me, it represents perhaps a week of work. The barriers the Republicans allow to remain discourage small business. The barriers the Democrats allow discourage business in general. In the end, normal folks at sidewalk level are the bulwark and beneficiaries of business and enterprise. Both sides wage war against us in our name. Are we insane?
If the government really was interested in helping the economy, they would encourage new business and new business transactions. Government jobs don't exist until a private sector job produces something for which it can be taxed. Without private jobs, there is not enough tax revenue generated to pay the wages, benefits, and retirement of nationalized industry. We need people to dream, invest, create, and then cycle the money they have earned. We don't need "capitalism". What serves us best is entrepreneurship. We don't need jobs. What serves us best is if the government lets us create our own.
No comments:
Post a Comment