Economic Justice

This is part 2 of DocBrain's philosophy.

Economic Justice

1. The free market is economic justice

2. Freedom leads to innovation which leads to progress which is the goal of civilization

3. Interference with the free market is the main source of poverty and gross inequalities

4. A growing economy means more jobs and more wealth. Anything that interferes with the growth of the economy will suppress both. The main interference is to take from the producers (labor, management, investors and inventors), and this is usually done by government.

5. If the free market seems unfair in the long term, it is because of interference in the workings of the market (usually regulations, occasionally unscrupulous behavior).

6. People have no unalienable right to what they do not earn themselves through their muscles, brains, or money.

7. The government's role in the free market is to maintain a check on the few who would take what is not rightfully theirs (theft, unfair treatment of labor, cheating the consumer or the investor, and pollution of the common environment).

Social Justice

This is my opinion of social justice, sort of like DocBrain's own "Playboy Philosophy".

1. The most qualified person deserves the position. Neither affirmative action nor nepotism nor the "good old boy" network places the best qualified person in the job.

2. Never take what is not rightfully yours. If you have not earned it by the strength of your muscles or the power of your brain or the action of your money, it is not yours no matter what you may think or what anyone may tell you. In your heart you know I am right.

3. Never use tears or guns to take from anyone else. However, if you are in need and someone is willing to offer you charity, you certainly may accept it with grace and attempt to both repay it and to pay it forward. Similarly, if the spirit moves you, it is not wrong to give to those in need, but better to give a hand up than a hand out.

4. The purpose of government is to protect you from those who would take from you. This includes not only the overt with guns, but also the cheaters and deceivers who steal labor from the worker, money from the customer, time and materials from the employer, and a healthy environment from all of us. You owe the government for providing this for you. Pay your debts or feel the guilt.

Social Justice Part 2

Whenever I see poverty and obscene wealth, I see a lack of freedom.

The laws of the land create poverty. They do it by omission and commission. If you want to rid the world of poverty, rid the world of laws that tie the poor to the government, that limit the hopes and dash the enthusiasm of the poor to better themselves. In a true democracy, the poor do not need the government to survive; but many of those in government need the votes of the poor to maintain their power, so they use the laws to keep the poor tied to their poverty. These same laws create the super-rich.

Less laws will lead to more wealth and a more fair distribution of wealth.

It is truly a paradox that the more the government tries to create equality, the more unequal the people become. Conversely, the more freedom given to people by the government, the more equal they become.

Social Justice Part 1

Campaign Finance Reform is like two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner.

I am appalled that liberals would actually buy into this! Liberals are all about social justice, but CFR is unjust. Lets consider it for a moment.

Power exists in money and in numbers. So, how can those without numbers and without money get a real voice, a real chance to impact the country? Do they have to suck up to one of the big boys in order to get a seat at the table? Is this social justice?

Isn't social justice the championing of those without a voice but with the right to be heard, to have their issues addressed in the name of fairness?

True social justice would have equal, fixed amounts of money (and money surrogates such as air time) to be spent for each candidate for each election, and that would be the same for every candidate in every race. It would not just favor the rich and numerous, but would give an equal voice to the passionate and downtrodden.

Failure to champion the less advantaged political parties is typical of the hypocrisy of the left.

Blue Crossco

I have come to the conclusion that health insurance is like Costco or Sam's Club. You pay for a membership and some products from some suppliers are discounted, each to a varying degree. There are some specials, some things are quite inexpensive. Some products are not available. If you beg, perhaps they can get special order something for you, but that would be quite the exception.

It is not like they really care. It is not like it is about health. It is about products and services that can be bought at a discount with some of the savings being passed on to you and the rest being pocketed as profits.

The difference between health insurance and Costco/Sam's is that the membership fees are much higher and the copays are much lower for what is in the store. However, what is not in the store is just about as expensive as if you did not belong.

Costco and Sam's compete against full retail and limited discounters (such as Walmart and Best Buy). Blue Crossco and UPMCco just compete against each other, so there is no strong market forces in play.

Competition

How great would it be if there was no competition? Just one. Everyone involved in one thing and everyone cooperating with everyone else!

We could have just one health care payor! One health care system.

Only one problem. If there were no competition in anything, what would the world look like?

All new things, services and ideas go through a stage of invention, early adoption, and much later, crossing to the mainstream.

The world would be conservative, authoritarian, and religious. It would not be liberal. New ideas would be slow to be adopted.

I want my health care to evolve rapidly.

Who is a winner?

I have three definitions for winners.

1. Those who achieve specific external, material goals.
2. Those who achieve inner happiness.
3. For the person who lives in the now, it is pleasure in the present.

For the most part, those who seek the first two winning approaches consider the future and act in a way that maximizes a future of winning. Those in the third group either don't consider the future as important or deny the effect of the present on the future.

As long as people accept their future, this is not a problem for them or for society.

Society, as a whole, seems to have some problems with allowing people to accept the consequences of their choices. Those who succeed in achieving their external, materialistic goals are often vilified. Their Achille's heels are probed. Their success must be punished; the losers must get their fair share. Those who achieve internal happiness are often derided for their calm. Furious legislators try to find ways to reduce their happiness, to spread it out by law or decreee. For those who live in the present, seeking pleasure without responsibility, without long term consequences, without regard to future probability, American society is attempting to give these people a pass. This attempt to attain short term pleasure in pleasing those who only seek short term pleasure may turn out to be the fatal error of our representative republic.

The best future is built on sacrifices in the present. Happiness cannot be gained through material equality. And pleasure is meant as a temporary respite, not as lifestyle choice.

The true winners find happiness in existence; pleasure in the daily sacrifices for the future; and personal satisfaction living among others who share this world view. Winners help others to become winners, but only those who desire to win.

The reward for losers should be the ability to find winners to emulate; the opportunity to pick themselves up and try again.

Unfortunately, some people can only be winners in the third sense, lacking any concept of the future. These people live in the lowest level of winning. As long as they are willing to accept their lot in life, not to desire to take from the upper two groups, their lives are fine by me.

Some can never be winners in any sense. Does this make their lives even less significant? To a society, a civilization that strives for growth, perfection, progress and individual pleasure the answer is yes.

If you wonder why I place those who seek material good in the highest group, it is because these are the least selfish among us. They use their abilities to better the world, to create material improvements, knowing that when they leave the world they can take none of it with them. Those who seek internal happiness please themselves. Those who seek momentary pleasure, do not even please themselves in the long term and become burdens when they demand attention to their needs when pleasure passes them by. And those who are all around losers, they are the parasites, the freeloaders who desire nothing but to take; the black holes where resources are poured and nothing comes out.