impersonating liberals: child's play

First things first.  I said I could do it, so I suppose I should prove it:

The minimum wage is necessary because without it employers would exploit workers, paying them only what they have to; not what the workers are actually worth.  Nobody can live on the minimum wage as it is -- if we don't pay workers more, then how could they ever afford to go to school and better themselves, or even go to a doctor if they got sick?  Without the minimum wage, some workers would only get $2, maybe $3 an hour -- then where would they be?  People have a right to a fair wage, and to be able to afford the most basic necessities and to live with a minimum of dignity. -- John Galt as a liberal

I could probably do that for a while, but it gets less convincing when you overdo it.  This is already a little too much, but I want to make it clear that I, like all of you, am thoroughly familiar with the entire argument.

The liberal pattern is to observe tragedy, conclude that it is unjust, and then demand a law prohibiting that particular injustice.  This pattern has two fundamental flaws.  First, of course, is the matter of justice.  When I consider a person who produces much value, I expect him to be highly compensated.  Accordingly, we should not be surprised to find that people with no skills are very poor.  Impoverished, even. 

We all understand that in order to be more highly compensated ourselves, the usual strategy is to acquire the skills to create more value.  It takes a certain level of skill and productivity to provide all the things we believe every American "deserves," so naturally people who don't produce at least that much are reasonably at risk of living below that standard.  And I'm sorry, but nothing that can be described as "a reasonable expectation" is really an injustice.

The second flaw with this liberal pattern is that it doesn't mesh with reality.  Liberal policies are not merely ineffective -- they are destructive.  I've covered this before, and I find it particularly Randian:  A law that doesn't fit reality forces people to choose between being punished by man's law and nature's law.  In the case of the minimum wage, some people must choose between working illegally, or not working at all because of supply and demand.  Man's law can ignore economics, but it cannot overrule it.  And if man's law does ignore realities like economics, it does so at man's expense -- reality never yields.

It is this ignorance that explains why conservatives can be liberals, while liberals cannot be conservatives.  The liberal only needs norms -- a sense of "the way things ought to be" -- in order to draw his conclusions.  This outcome is wrong.  This situation is unacceptable.  And it all flows from there.  All that's necessary is to blind yourself to reality, and you can demand laws against any such "injustice."

The conservative is more like the liberal than the liberal realizes.  He does not want people to live in poverty or disease.  Even when these outcomes are perfectly understandable -- perfectly just -- they are still tragedies.  What constrains the conservative is an understanding of reality: a whole reality that includes not only an accounting for why some people don't make enough money to live on, but also a very substantial objection to such crude remedies as the minimum wage.

It's no major feat for a conservative to ignore reality and just pretend that laws can be erected to stop any injustice.  Of course you can act like a liberal on demand.  But for libs, they cannot wield tools they do not recognize.  I'll let you in on a secret: liberals not only don't believe minimum wages cause unemployment -- they don't even believe that you believe it. (And when I say "libs" here, that includes John McCain.)  To the left, your economic mumbo-jumbo is not a reason -- it's just an excuse.  A theory that even you probably don't actually believe.  Likewise, when a liberal "acts" like a conservative he will sound like he's just giving excuses.

The reason you give these "excuses," as liberals see it, is because you simply enjoy the same outcomes that he views as injustices.  You take some pleasure in the very suffering that libs think they're trying to stop, and the lib will reliably project this when he tries to act like a conservative.  Remember, to the lib your reason is just an excuse, and conservatives are silently winking to each other because what they really want is suffering.  Thus, a lib acting like a conservative talks about lazy bums, stealing, and slogans like "greed is good."  Conservatives know perfectly well that poverty is a very sad thing, but the lib will never include that when he considers what makes them tick.

What this all boils down to is that you know everything a liberal knows -- and then some.  But he does not know everything you know, and in fact he is plainly in denial about much of it.  You can be like him, because his reasoning is a subset of yours.  But your reasoning is beyond his reach, and he can't feign it.  You cannot apply something you do not understand.

The best part is this: Once you understand something, once you acquire knowledge, you don't "lose" it.  That is to say, every day of being a liberal is a day that the light might come on, a day that a lib might suddenly be "mugged" as they call it, and realize that the conservatives were right all along.  When that light comes on, it doesn't go back out.

And don't think the libs don't know this -- why do you think economics is so poorly explained in government schools, anyway???  Believe me, some of them recognize knowledge as a threat to their cause.

That's the John Galt Line.

Comments

[Simon9]

I strongly agree with your observations. I've often tried to get inside the minds of liberals and try to understand why their perceptions are so skewed from the rest of ours and why they frequently abandon any pretense of logic when questions or observations get too close to the heart of their fallacies.

I believe they are primarily romantics. Which is to say that their thinking on many issues is highly emotional and rather simplistic, which in no way contradicts your observations.

However, I wonder if the light, once turned on, can NOT be turned off. Remember that Hillary Rodham was an Ayn Rand fan in college and her father was a speechwriter for Barry Goldwater. And yet, look at her now....

Simon

[logosolos]

In Hillary's case a different light was turned on and blinded her to anything else. That is the light of power and control over others.

[Finance Manager]

Great article and site.

Impersonating a lib is truly a great exercise.

To defeat Mao, be like Sun Tsu, and know your enemy.

A conservative is at root: sober, first-hand, doer, straight talker.

A lib is at his core: intoxicated, daydreaming, second hand, evaluator, rationalizing and moralizing.

In conversation look to pull him up at his root, not only pluck at leaves and twigs. His musing seeks to reconcile and rationalize his second-hand living off of things planted and built by first-handers.

Be wary that he often has a convincing bluff and game, and that you are not as immune to being lulled or deceived by his false amiability as you suppose.

[QuietReckoning]

You obviously don't understand true liberal thought.

It's not because you're an idiot, you've just been speaking to idiots.

First off, you mention something that no liberal cares about: "what the workers are actually worth."

You consider the market the primary lens for examining the question of wages. You consider the market to be the crystal ball which determines value.

Liberals see the market as a useful tool for the sale of goods, but a tool with transitory values that can be manipulated by policies.

As far as what the worker is "Worth" according to the market, liberals don't care.

Skills, personal value, self improvement and the like are all well and good, but the issue of just compensation is secondary to the issue of just original acquisition.

Centuries before The Wealth of Nations established the capitalist system, breaking down the inefficiencies of the far more exploitative mercantilist system, the Diggers and Levelers staged a communistic revolution on the common land at St George's hill. They declared, and rightly, that those who had power had taken the land by theft and murder, and therefor didn't deserve to profit from it.

This is still the primary problem with capitalism.

You make the assumption that the factory owner, the venture capitalist, or the robber baron used just means to acquire the wealth that they now have.

The liberal assumption is that many who have wealth stepped on the backs of others to acquire it.

This is very Randist. The masses exist to be ground under the heel of the Superman. They are parasites, leeches, and deserve nothing but the superman's contempt.

Idiot Liberals read Nietzsche and Rand and are disgusted by the desire to exploit others. They then assume that the exploitative nature of rand and Nietzsche pervades every level of capitalism. They assume that just acquisition is impossible. These are the ones you're reacting against.

Intelligent liberals believe that just acquisition is possible, but not without relying on others.

One cannot build a massive, profitable corporation by being dumped in the desert, alone, with no aid. At some point, the superman must rely on the aid of others. He owes his language to centuries of literature. He owes his liberty to the soldiers who died for it. He owes his wealth to the society that built the roads which allowed his trade to go forward.

Everything he has, he has because society created a world in which he could acquire great wealth.

He shouldn't bitch when society asks him to be of service to his fellow man, especially when he has all that he has, because of the fellow men who were his workers, his customers, and the laborers that built the infrastructure which made his wealth possible.

Minimum wage exists not because liberals care about what something is worth, it exists because before there was minimum wage, capitalists took advantage of their work force at every available opportunity.

People were paid in company scrip, not money, and were forced to buy their goods from the company store at inflated prices. Congress eventually regulated treatment of workers, but only after rivers of blood were spilled.

Liberals believe that companies will do everything in their power to maximize their profit.

That's their job: to be as profitable as possible.

The purpose of the minimum wage and countless other laws is to make sure that the harms which occurred in the past don't repeat themselves.

[John Galt]

You obviously don't understand true liberal thought.

LOL. Few liberals do, either. But I'm certain I understand reality better than liberals do -- the reality of what liberalism delivers, not the utopia it promises.

It's not because you're an idiot, you've just been speaking to idiots.

...and you believe you're different from the other idiots? Surely you realize that all the other idiots think that, too, don't you?

First off, you mention something that no liberal cares about: "what the workers are actually worth."
As far as what the worker is "Worth" according to the market, liberals don't care.

All that matters is that employers care. They're the ones who decide not to hire workers whose productivity does not justify a high statutory wage. To an employer, such an applicant is a liability, not an asset, and will not be hired. Or will work fewer hours. Or will go longer between jobs. Or will go longer before getting hired, etc. They're all different sides of the same coin: unemployment. The foolish liberal believes a higher minimum wage is a guarantee that workers will be paid more. In fact, it is a law against hiring people who do not meet a profitable level of productivity.

Liberals see the market as a useful tool for the sale of goods, but a tool with transitory values that can be manipulated by policies.

The folly of idiots who know not what they do. Liberals regulate the distribution of pieces of government paper, but their policies actually result in fewer goods on which to spend it. Invariably they create less wealth in their attempts to provide for people who supposedly do not have enough.

You make the assumption that the factory owner, the venture capitalist, or the robber baron used just means to acquire the wealth that they now have.

The liberal assumption is that many who have wealth stepped on the backs of others to acquire it.

If the liberal solution only corrected an actual injustice of "wealthy people stepping on the backs of others," then I would support it. In reality, liberalism eagerly punishes people who legitimately earned their wealth, as well. Liberal policy in fact assumes that everybody who has more than somebody else must have stolen it.

This is very Randist. The masses exist to be ground under the heel of the Superman. They are parasites, leeches, and deserve nothing but the superman's contempt.

No, that's not Rand. Her contempt is reserved for those who seek to acquire the property of others.

Intelligent liberals believe that just acquisition is possible, but not without relying on others.

Ooh, I love elitism -- liberals who think they're smarter than all the other liberals.

One cannot build a massive, profitable corporation by being dumped in the desert, alone, with no aid. At some point, the superman must rely on the aid of others.

And he pays for those services as they are delivered. And after he has paid each individual for his labor, no debt remains.

He owes his language to centuries of literature.

LMAO. You're the one who wants to read Rand without paying. You believe the taxpayer should buy it for you??? That's "the aid of others" for which someone pays taxes?

He owes his liberty to the soldiers who died for it.

And he willingly pays more than enough taxes to cover defense which liberal politicians will not fund.

He owes his wealth to the society that built the roads which allowed his trade to go forward.

Yet even after he pays a tax on his fuel to pay for it, still liberals always find that he "owes" a little more. The truth is that liberals will find a way to claim that someone "owes" every penny he can afford. It has nothing to do with what a person actually costs society, it's what society can get from him. Needs and abilities, and all that rot.

Everything he has, he has because society created a world in which he could acquire great wealth.

And everyone who actually played a role in creating it was compensated in the very next paycheck they received. Every penny since has been Marxist bullshit.

He shouldn't bitch when society asks him to be of service to his fellow man, especially when he has all that he has, because of the fellow men who were his workers (PAID), his customers (SERVED), and the laborers that built the infrastructure (PAID) which made his wealth (WEALTH IS WHAT'S LEFT OVER ONLY AFTER EVERYONE ELSE HAS BEEN PAID IN FULL) possible.

Minimum wage exists not because liberals care about what something is worth, it exists because before there was minimum wage, capitalists took advantage of their work force at every available opportunity.

Minimum wage exists because liberals are in denial of basic economics.

People were paid in company scrip, not money, and were forced to buy their goods from the company store at inflated prices.

There is a legitimate economic argument for minimum wages in the case of monopsony -- where a local labor market has many workers, but only one employer. However, it's a strawman to extend what works for a monopsony to other labor markets where it does not.

Liberals believe that companies will do everything in their power to maximize their profit.

Conservatives believe that means paying more for better workers -- not paying more to everyone.

The purpose of the minimum wage and countless other laws is to make sure that the harms which occurred in the past don't repeat themselves.

Liberals always have nice-sounding purposes. That doesn't mean the fallacies have any merit.

[ra server]

Just curious. Have you ever worked a minimum wage job, John? If not, what was your first job?

[John Galt]

Yes, I worked for minimum wage at an ice cream parlor, and then again in a print shop in the months after I finished high school.

As an unskilled laborer, my personal productivity was not sufficient to cover my cost of living. In other words, I consumed resources faster than I was capable of producing, and therefore I required the assistance of others to live. In my case, I continued to live with my parents, but I could also have moved in with a roommate.

In my ignorance, I might have welcomed a higher minimum wage. However, it's entirely likely that I'd have also lost my job -- or had my hours cut, or needed longer to find a job, etc. -- if the wage had been raised above my capacity to produce.

Consider QuietReckoning's elaborate justification for the minimum wage. It's very thoughtful. However, it completely overlooks the real-world business decision that individual employers (who are not running charities) have to make when they purchase labor. He has a reason why we should offer the minimum wage, but I see no provision in his thinking for what economists tell us will happen whenever government sets a price floor on anything.

[grizzlygruden@yahoo.com]

I read what Finance manager wrote and something came to mind, "I believe they are primarily romantics. Which is to say that their thinking on many issues is highly emotional and rather simplistic. " When you refer to how society and the market was built you do so portraying the wealthy as criminal, or at least as someone who should be scrutinized. It has been my experience that liberals distrust anyone of wealth, always assuming that they got their fortune by some unsavory manner. The fact is, most people work hard for what they have. Maybe you should sit back and look at how capitalism really works: Lazy individuals rarely succeed, and if they do they were carried by a someone who was a hard worker.