The entire old media, not just Fox News, has been dragging what is percieved as the middle further and further to the Right. This is just to reaquaint you with what The Left actually looks like.
You should be compensated for your domestic labors and for your offspring. These activities directly benefit your employer and the state. The substantial benefit derived from these activities amounts to these entities differing costs to you. In a very real sense you are subsidising the operation of your employer and the government with the costs of remaining alive.
When you go grocery shopping, commute to and from work, keep a clean house, and produce offspring you confer a benefit on those entities. This streaches credulity in its current form so allow me to expand on these points. Clearly your employer should not be relieved every day that you made it in alive, they should not be expected to compensate you for the act of sticking your dirty shirts in the washing machine, or even to pay extra for the detergent. Even if I were saying this it would in effect limit your freedom in life as your employer would choose the least expensive mode of satisfying your basic survival needs even to the extent of a return to the company town of the 1920's where every aspect of your life was decided by your employer. As for transportation, if every employer participated in public transportation and allowed employees to buy group rate passes, freedom of choice need not be impinged. Also, if your employer was responsible of every aspect of your cost of living it would severely reduce wages. However, your wage would be an actual reflection of the market value of your labor instead of ransom to subsidise the cost of having employees.
I am making this radical point to emphasize that every employer has a moral duty to pay every employee a living wage. Further, I wish to emphasize that demands for universal health care, and universal post-highschool education are demands of the rational center, not the fringe element of the left. Freedom from fear about housing, food, hygene, health, and education needs are basic conserns of real people in America.
On the government front the profiting off of your living is more incidious. This is exemplified by the state's intrest in promoting marrage. I am not referring to any debate on homosexual marrage. The state actively promotes marrages for the purpose of creating a stable tax base. They do this in part by regulating marrage through licencing, but to a much greater degree in the creation and application of law. Ones marital status is a legal status and can have a substantive effect on the outcome of a court case, specifically because the state wishes to promote marrage as opposed to other consentual sexual relationships between adults. For example, children born out of wedlock are more likely to end up in the care of the state. While this is not going to be the most luxurious accomidation for the child, it can be illustrative about the costs the state is differing to married parents so that they bear the cost of raising a child until the child becomes a taxpayer.
At the very least, the state owes every child health care and education past the high-school level. Both of these things have a higher return on the investment paid into them. The return is a healthy adult with higher earning potential, and thus more taxable wages. This article makes a similar argument.
After hearing all this, would you believe I am a libertarian?
There you have it. This is the left. NPR and PBS and Democrats like John Edwards are the center. The Clintons, Joseph Liberman, the main stream media, and most of the Republicans are the right. The evangaliticals, Fox, the Neocons, and the rest of the Republicans are the far right. I could tell you about the far left but they are really crazy. PETA crazy.
You should be compensated for your domestic labors and for your offspring. These activities directly benefit your employer and the state. The substantial benefit derived from these activities amounts to these entities differing costs to you. In a very real sense you are subsidising the operation of your employer and the government with the costs of remaining alive.
When you go grocery shopping, commute to and from work, keep a clean house, and produce offspring you confer a benefit on those entities. This streaches credulity in its current form so allow me to expand on these points. Clearly your employer should not be relieved every day that you made it in alive, they should not be expected to compensate you for the act of sticking your dirty shirts in the washing machine, or even to pay extra for the detergent. Even if I were saying this it would in effect limit your freedom in life as your employer would choose the least expensive mode of satisfying your basic survival needs even to the extent of a return to the company town of the 1920's where every aspect of your life was decided by your employer. As for transportation, if every employer participated in public transportation and allowed employees to buy group rate passes, freedom of choice need not be impinged. Also, if your employer was responsible of every aspect of your cost of living it would severely reduce wages. However, your wage would be an actual reflection of the market value of your labor instead of ransom to subsidise the cost of having employees.
I am making this radical point to emphasize that every employer has a moral duty to pay every employee a living wage. Further, I wish to emphasize that demands for universal health care, and universal post-highschool education are demands of the rational center, not the fringe element of the left. Freedom from fear about housing, food, hygene, health, and education needs are basic conserns of real people in America.
On the government front the profiting off of your living is more incidious. This is exemplified by the state's intrest in promoting marrage. I am not referring to any debate on homosexual marrage. The state actively promotes marrages for the purpose of creating a stable tax base. They do this in part by regulating marrage through licencing, but to a much greater degree in the creation and application of law. Ones marital status is a legal status and can have a substantive effect on the outcome of a court case, specifically because the state wishes to promote marrage as opposed to other consentual sexual relationships between adults. For example, children born out of wedlock are more likely to end up in the care of the state. While this is not going to be the most luxurious accomidation for the child, it can be illustrative about the costs the state is differing to married parents so that they bear the cost of raising a child until the child becomes a taxpayer.
At the very least, the state owes every child health care and education past the high-school level. Both of these things have a higher return on the investment paid into them. The return is a healthy adult with higher earning potential, and thus more taxable wages. This article makes a similar argument.
After hearing all this, would you believe I am a libertarian?
There you have it. This is the left. NPR and PBS and Democrats like John Edwards are the center. The Clintons, Joseph Liberman, the main stream media, and most of the Republicans are the right. The evangaliticals, Fox, the Neocons, and the rest of the Republicans are the far right. I could tell you about the far left but they are really crazy. PETA crazy.
No comments:
Post a Comment