Monthly Archives: December 2015

Minimum Wage: Sanders Vs. Trump

Trump and Sanders recently battled over the minimum wage.

Trump argued the minimum wage is overhigh. Sanders of course wants a higher minimum wage. And both want a higher market wage.

However post-Ron Unz revolution, I’d hoped by now everyone on the Right would also be calling for a higher minimum wage, not only a higher market wage.

As a rule, to accomplish a right-wing goal, frequently the opposite of what is perceived as the right-wing means is needed to accomplish that goal. And frequently the culprit behind this confusion is neo-liberalism. The minimum wage issue is no different.

In an ideal utopia, conservatives are in agreement with neo-liberals: There would be no minimum wage. However, we do not live in utopia.

The minimum-wage-as-right-wing argument is somewhat cutting-edge and new. VDARE and Steve Sailer got behind it early on, but the concept is still sweeping the right-wing, still waking people up.

The minimum wage argument is in part that unskilled workers flood into the US to undercut American workers, drive down wages. If we set a high minimum wage, then there’d be reduced incentive to lower the market wage via immigration, because the minimum wage would create a lower boundary. The minimum wage would create unemployment, but that could encourage Americans to actually defend their interests, demand for example that e-verify be enforced so that employers mayn’t hire illegals. It could be made legal to pay teenagers less to encourage their employment. Unemployed Americans might also stand with unions and demand that something, anything, be made again in the US. India worries about the Indian trade deficit due to gold imports; why don’t Americans speak up about their own massive trade deficit? As Paul Craig Roberts warned (paraphrasing), “A first world society requires first world jobs.”

Note: Both Ron Unz and Donald Trump tend to want high quality immigrants (mostly Asians) who will make much more than minimum wage, undercutting American workers but also relieving labour bottlenecks in the economy. So, they are not taking the numbersUSA position of plainly reducing overall immigration numbers as low as possible.

Advertisements

George Will, a Phony Conservative, Attempts to Gatekeep Conservatism

George will has his panties in a wad over Donald Trump and attempts to protect the integrity of conservatism as he sees it in this rant. Who does George Will think he is fooling acting as the defender of conservatism? Sam Francis had this pretender’s number 30 years ago. (Sorry for the odd spacing, but the original sources was in columns so that’s how it pasted.)

Although Will is sometimes called a
“neo-conservative,” he is not one. Neoconservatives
typically derive more or
less conservative policy positions from essentially
liberal premises. Will in fact does
the opposite: he derives from more or less
unexceptionable premises of classical
conservatism policy positions that are
often congruent with the current liberal
agenda. It is because he accepts, and
wants to be accepted by, the “achievements”
of modem liberalism that he ignores
or sneers at the serious conservative
thinkers and leaders of our time who
have sought to break liberal idols and that
he voices no criticism of the powers that
support liberalism. It is therefore not surprising
that his commentary is welcomed
in and rewarded by liberal power centers.
They have little to fear from him and his
ideas and much to gain if his version of
“conservatism” should gain currency. He
enjoys every prospect of a bright future in
their company. ~ Sam Francis, Modern Age, Spring 1986

Rough Ideas on How to Cut Healthcare Costs

Nationalized health care is all the rage nowadays, seems to have become all but a certainty.

However, I’d like to propose how costs might be cut to make healthcare more affordable in the free market.

Firstly, the US needs more doctors, which would lower their pay. Since the US is today very centralised, I suggest the US federal government build medical schools and subsidise tuition. In other areas, the federal government should largely get out of education, but that’s another topic.

Secondly, doctors suffer under malpractice insurance. While doctors should be liable for malpractice, most juries struggle to understand medical cases. So, a solution might be to fill malpractice trials with juries of medical doctors and professors. If necessary, these doctors could be from another area, to prevent bias.

Thirdly, drug companies. Americans are currently charged more than the rest of the world for drugs. Perhaps this is unfair. Bernie Sanders has been preaching on this, and I believe he’s the Ron Paul of the Democrats, worth listening to even if ultimately disagreeing.

Fourthly, Obamacare is inefficient and insecure. Medical records are to be digitised, transferred online, a security risk; and unnecessary regulations have been added to hospitals and doctors. Small practices have frequently joined hospitals to afford the new costs, reducing this segment of small business.

I agree with many on the so-called political Left that Wall Street is looting America, but I believe it would be better to thusly lower medical costs than to socialise healthcare. What America needs is higher wages and more jobs, not socialised healthcare.

China Implements Social Credit System

From Zerohedge:

“The owners of China’s largest social networks have partnered with the government to create something akin to the U.S. credit score — but, instead of measuring how regularly you pay your bills, it measures how obediently you follow the party line.”

This is to become compulsory in 2020. Scary stuff. And it’s easy to see how America’s “War on Terror” could take a similar turn, eventually leading to abuse of political dissidents, for example those speaking against corruption.

While this “statism” is frightening, I always find it ironic how Libertarians portray individualism as the antithesis.

If seeking truly anti-statist societies, one would venture to the divided Middle East or to Africa, places where man continues to be organised by tribe and faith.

A roadmap to “statism” would look like the following: tribalism –> individualism –> socialism. The individualism phase serves to break down group bonds, allowing for individuals to then be absorbed by the state.

Most of us would not view tribal chaos as utopian, but resistance to statism would seem to involve a degree of return to a more-tribal or more peasant-like existence, perhaps something like the Catholic ideal of subsidiarity. And were the state to collapse, society would naturally return to a tribal existence in the absence of the security provided by a state.

Since Marx is still the bogeyman of the Libertarians, I call attention to Marx’s “Theory of History“, which I can just pull up from wikipedia (though I have the relevant book if demanded of me).

Marx argues that capitalism is the predecessor to socialism. Capitalism breaks man down into a proletariat mass that owns little capital, depends on wages. And it is dominated by a small capitalist elite. Modern society looks somewhat different, but the point is that capitalism is seen by Marx/Engels as a natural predecessor of socialism. And it is this breaking down of traditions (creative destruction) and the wealth gap that creates the environment ripe for socialist revolution.

So, if truly wanting to oppose socialism, it would seem desireable to encourage a larger middle class, wider distribution of capital, perhaps a larger domestic (things made domestically as opposed to purchased) economy as well. (Note: a large middle class is not the same as opposing hierarchy. A hierarchy of wealth is not the only form of hierarchy possible in a society.)

And yet, we see so many on the Right defending wealth gaps, promoting individualism, declaring even that “greed is good”, working for the environment most fertile for the very socialist revolution they claim to oppose.

And individuals and nuclear families cannot hope to both work and master finance (investments), politics, culture (for raising their children), and charities. As individuals, we’re inevitably reliant upon either individual strangers or the state. A society broken into individuals is a society of patsies just begging to be manipulated and exploited. If we aren’t captured by an Orwellian nightmare, we’ll suffer some other doom. And no superior IQ, no Nietzschean will, no Social Darwinism should be relied upon to naturally make some individuals superior to others. In modern society, groups triumph, which is largely why Jews are so dominant and why individualistic whites are so weak.

Thus, what are needed to resist “statism” are group ties and a questioning of classical liberalism, the opposite of what most Libertarians call for.

With Defenders of Freedom like this, who needs “Statists”? To cure our societal ailment, we should go to the root of the problem: classical liberalism and the Enlightenment.

Thoughts on the GOP #OmnibusBill Surrender

As anyone who knows me knows, I have no love loss for the Republican Party Establishment, but even I just assumed that a majority of House Republicans would vote against the omnibus spending bill, due to the outcry of the base, and it would pass because of the votes of a majority of the Dems. It passed 316 – 113 overall and 150 – 95 among the Republican caucus. Good grief! Even I underestimated the perfidy of the modern GOP. And you can’t just blame this on the GOP “Establishment.” 150 of your House members is the rank-and-file. Every Republican yea voter should be primaried.