Friday, October 9, 2009

Job Losses: Dishonest Diagnosis, Deadly Prescriptions - February 3, 2009

It is devastating when a breadwinner loses his job, or when there are no jobs for jobseekers. Yet, politicians, judges, the media, and voters unremittingly bash job-creators, i.e. businessmen.

The most prolific job-eradicator is the government. The destruction of jobs and their creators is due to serfdom made possible by unreason, envy, power-lust, and the criminalization of the value enshrined in the Declaration of Independence: the freedom of action in the pursuit of individual self-interests.

For more than a century, businessmen have been slaves. Power-lusters, looters, and moochers have rendered them fair game to every vilification, extortion, and rights-infringement by dishonestly portraying them as callous evil crooks.

Job-creators are widely denounced as exploiters of consumers, employees, investors, competitors, and the public. It is dishonestly blanked out that businessmen with no political pull cannot impose their products or services on anyone. Only the government has the power to coerce.

Job-creators are widely denounced as materialistic and greedy. It is irrationally evaded that they must earn profits in order to survive, that big profits mean more jobs. In a government where extortion has been legalized, big profits also mean more money in the coffers of the kings: i.e. congressmen, senators, and the president, as well as the royalty: i.e. recipients of coercive-favor or coercive-welfare.

The only savior of jobs and their creators is freedom. Unleash the job creators!

But power-lusters, looters, and moochers will not relinquish their coercive power over businessmen. Although many job-creators have gone out of business or have been jailed and banned from creating more jobs, e.g. Mr. Mike Milken - the creator of 62 million jobs, the job-eradicators irrationally believe there will always be job-creators to bash.

If you cherish jobs and freedom:

o Champion reason
o Advocate capitalism: the complete separation of state and economics
o Free businessmen
o Value people who do not want the unearned
o Do not confuse capitalists with political entrepreneurs. Capitalists do not want the government to coerce anyone in their behalf. Political entrepreneurs loot through corrupt politicians.

Support for serfdom leading to job-eradication is hugely bipartisan. Democrats are for socialism and the Republican Party is not for capitalism.

Republicans staunchly support tyrannizing job-creators with regulations like antitrust and insider trading. The Republican Party is not for freedom: it is not pro-choice, the cornerstone of liberty. It dishonestly describes itself as pro-life. Inasmuch as the Republican Party blanks out the life of the pregnant human being, since it champions destroying the life of an actual human being, most of the time: a young girl, and because it advocates force – it advocates forcing a female human being to go through a lifetime paying for a mistake - the Republican Party is certainly not pro-life. It is paving the way towards the worst scourge of mankind: theocracy.

A corrupt government has favors to sell. Unwilling to relinquish this goldmine, it cannot grasp that what rights-respecting producers and consumers do is none of the government’s business, that the rights-respecting market must be absolutely free for the economy to survive. Freedom categorically ends lobbying and favor-seeking because it ends the politicians’ power to offer extorted property and their own souls for sale in the name of the poor and the middle class and in the interest of the public. Serfdom is not in the interest of rights-respecting people.

Serfdom, e.g. businessmen-bashing, neutron-bombs jobs. The honest prescription to the loss of millions of jobs is freedom.

Unleash capitalism. Free the job creators!”


Lane said...

Not a Republican myself--I am a monarchist--but your decrying of the Republicans' pro-life position is shameful and intellectually dishonest, especially since you imply that an unborn child is not a life, and you describe the baby as a "mistake."
There are no mistakes. Children are a blessing, not a mistake.

Chris said...

A monarchist? You are not for freedom, but tyranny? In a true monarchy you probably would not have the right to free speech and post such a comment no matter how right you think your view is.

In any case, the article is correct. It is intellectually honest. Robbing anyone of a choice of anything is anti freedom no matter what the issue. An example would be a mother and baby dying instead of a legal abortion if the pregnancy is fatal for one or both. In a world without the right to do so, you'd have 2 deaths instead of 1. You'd be robbing the mother of her very basic right to save her own life.

Ilyn Ross said...

When the Unborn Human Being Acquires Rights --

One's personal stand on abortion or on anything is no one's business. But when one proposes to impose on others, one's arguments must be based solely on reason and reality.

There are no rights other than Individual Rights. The power of any government, state or federal, comes from the people, which cannot delegate a right they do not possess. In freedom, the only right delegated is the right to self defense (except in case of an emergency), so that citizens deal with each other only by reason and persuasion, never by force. Abortion is a matter of rights, not subject to resolution by each state.

Arguments against abortion that are not based on science, i.e. reality, are theocratic and/or tyrannical. Only an actual living rational being has rights. One cannot reason with animals, so they do not have rights though they have life and brains. By nature, man is fallible, so a woman may get pregnant though she and her partner might not yet be ready to be parents. The question that must be resolved based on science is when the unborn human being acquires rights, and thus becomes equal to the mother when it comes to rights.

I use the criterion for the cessation of human life, brain activity, as the criterion for the onset of becoming an actual living rational being. Only a being with a rational tool can be considered human, thus the zygote or embryo, though has the potential to become human, is not yet an actual human.

A fetus has a central nervous system and brain activity. Thus, it is an actual living rational being. Hence, it has rights.