Conservative Compassion Part II: How Conservatives Hate Women

Conservatives are rarely in favor of legislating enhanced maternity leave and are fervently opposed to equal pay for equal work. And everyone knows that Conservatives are passionately against abortion. Why do they hate women so much?

They don’t.

A key element to start with here is the interpretation of equality. To a Liberal, equality generally has to do with Egalitarianism. When a Liberal sees income or wealth inequality, he sees a problem. On the other hand, Conservatives interpret equality as blind justice. When a Conservative sees an individual of a certain ethnicity get a job or scholarship offer because of his skin color despite being less qualified than another applicant, he sees a problem. Conservatives strive for equal rights and treatment under the law while Liberals strive for equal results and representation. This is a cause for disconnect and misunderstanding across the political and social spectrum.

Starting with equal pay for equal work and employee benefits such as maternity leave, Conservatives have several contentions, two of which being a scientific argument and a logical reason. From a scientific standpoint, the “fact” that women make less than men for equal amounts of work is false. When comparing the salaries of all men and all women, it is true that women make roughly 75-80 cents for every dollar men make. But this statistic neglects the quality and quantity of work, the amount of experience each worker has, and a host of other vital dynamics. The truth is that women work part time more often than men, men are more willing to travel for work, men take fewer sick days than women, men are far more likely to do dangerous work than women (and account for nearly all workplace deaths because of it), and, maybe most importantly, women temporarily leave the work force to give birth to children and raise a family far more regularly than men (infinitely more regularly when it comes to giving birth). When all of this is considered, there is hardly a wage gap between men and women at all, and women seem to be on the up-and-up when it comes to income and jobs in the grand scheme of things. To sum up in a sentence, Conservatives don’t care about equal pay for equal work because we already have it.

The logical thought process for being opposed to equal pay for equal work and mandated benefits goes a little something like this:

  • Employers and workers must privately and voluntary come to an agreement on compensation and working expectations and conditions. Compensation covers the salary and benefits the employer gives to the worker, and expectations and conditions involve productivity, hours, vacation time, responsibilities, and many other variables. Once agreed upon, the employer and employee enter a legally binding contract that both must mutually uphold.
  • This is a contract and exchange like any other. If you enter an agreement to pay five dollars for a pair of sandals, the merchant cannot be expected to give you the footwear without being properly compensated. If you skip out on work, your boss has the right to deduct your pay, fire you, or whatever else the agreed-upon contract permits him to do.
  • When individuals, regardless of pigmentation or kind of genitalia, agree to work for an employer, they are responsible for understanding the details and terms of the contract they are entering. If the contract is undesirable, workers are free to take their skills and potential labor elsewhere.
  • Just as bad products (like PT Cruisers) and services (like singing classes for tapirs) are squelched by the free market, bad contract offers are too. If an employer were to advertise employment vacancies for $1.50 an hour in today’s day and age, he would surely be unable to get enough help to run his business. He is forced by the free market to provide a reasonable wage or go out of business.
  • Focusing on women, if a female enters into a labor contract with an employer, she is responsible for finding out whether or not said employer provides benefits such as healthcare that includes birth control and maternity leave. If she finds that the employer does not offer sufficient benefits, she is free to find employment with a more suitable place of work.
  • This is not unique to women. Individuals who wish to travel to Europe once a year must inquire about vacation time before agreeing to exchange their labor for a salary. Students who want to work nights and weekends must also be aware of what will be expected of them before signing up for a job.
  • Should women choose to opt for a work-life balance more regularly than men, their options as individuals will be limited via their own volition, and the results will be noticeable on a grand scale. This occurs the same exact way when comparing individual men who prefer a work-life balance to individual women who are primarily focused on their careers.
  • An unintended side effect of enforcing policies like equal pay for equal work is potentially pricing women out of job opportunities and giving free rein to actual misogynists. If female labor is effectively more expensive than male labor, due to the real costs of providing maternity leave and equal pay regardless of productivity, employers, regardless of their feelings about the sexes, will be encouraged to hire men. Just as certain materials are undesirable because of their need for maintenance, women carrying the burden of mandated benefits become less desirable as well.
  • As for the misogynistic employer, women are left unable to force said employer to bear a cost for his prejudice. If an employer is required to blindly pay men and women equal wages, he will be even more inclined to hire men exclusively. Why hire someone you dislike when he or she is just as expensive as someone you prefer? Without equal pay for equal work laws, women can offer their services at a lower rate to instantly cause misogynistic employers to bear a cost for their bigotry. A competing employer who does not discriminate against women would have the opportunity to pay less for his labor, and free up money to outcompete the misogynist in other areas of business. Discrimination becomes expensive, and it is subsequently discouraged.

I give credit to the great economist Milton Friedman and his various works for turning me on to much of this reasoning.

Conservatives follow this line of thinking because of their interpretation of equality. Women are not special; they are individuals with their own inimitable merits just like men. To deny a woman the opportunity to succeed and fail in the same way a man does is discriminatory and sexist, and threatening for Conservative fathers of daughters.

Liberals would generally disagree because they believe we should be made equal, not treated equally. They view women as inferior to men, and wish to artificially legislate equity independent of merit. Conservatives judge individuals based on the content of their character, while Liberals judge them based on the content of their underwear.

The anti-abortion argument is not so complex. While many Liberals attribute the pro-life position to belligerent religiosity (and that is certainly the case at times), there is sensible rationale to consider here as well. Conservatives acknowledge the imperfection and fallibility of man as a cornerstone to their beliefs and principles. Men are corruptible, biased, and imperfect, and, therefore, should not be permitted to control the lives of other men. This kind of thinking may be why so many Conservatives are religious: man cannot tell me what is right or wrong, but a supreme and eternal creator can.

Conservatives do not believe man is so clever as to be able to determine when a fertilized egg should be considered a life or whether or not that or any other innocent human life has value. A Conservative cannot be in favor of legalized abortion in a general sense because man has no right to draw fatal conclusions about such complicated, mortal matters. This applies to doctors, mothers, politicians, and the rest of us. We have a right to life that no human can take away.

While Liberals may not be able to fathom it, science makes a solid argument against abortion as well. DNA is the foundation of life, and it is what separates individual organisms from one another. A new strand of human DNA is created almost instantaneously at the moment of conception, so whether fetus, embryo, or zygote, all are unique human lives. Based on the right to life principle that is inherent in humans, no one is divine enough to be allowed to terminate a pregnancy.

Whether you agree or disagree with the Conservative mindset on these issues, it is again wrong to call Conservatives hateful or bigoted for their beliefs. Difference in opinion is what makes the human experience so bountiful, while the slandering of controversial perspectives is one of many challenges to the existence of the thinking man in society. Somebody must be relatively wrong, and someone must be relatively right. But, in politics, to be wrong is not to be evil, and to be right is not to be good.

In part III, I will explain how Conservatives hate science.

Conservative Compassion Part II: How Conservatives Hate Women

Conservative Compassion Part I: Intro/How Conservatives Hate the Poor

Conservatives are racists. They are social Darwinists who hate the poor and love money. They wage wars on women, and couldn’t care less about disadvantaged people. They are xenophobic and homophobic, anti-science and education, and overall ignorant, bigoted, and evil.

The saddest thing in the world is that a large portion of the American people and even foreigners would agree with that opening paragraph. To be honest, up until a few years ago, I was under the impression that a lot of that was true too.

The absolute source of these fallacies and misconceptions is hard to determine (though I have my theories [ahem… academia, the media, and Hollywood..ahem]), but I would say that it manifests as the lack of discussion and interaction by Liberals with Conservatives on a grand scale at all. If Liberals were to speak calmly and open-mindedly with Conservatives from time to time, there is no way reasonable Democrats or Liberals would be able to sensibly come to the conclusion that Conservatives are generally bad or maniacal people.

In this series, I will try to explain why many Conservative policies and theories are just as compassionate and caring as any from the left, and why they are often falsely perceived to be bigoted or from a place of hatred.

A theme that will be prevalent throughout this entry is the false dichotomy posed by the left which essentially claims that either the federal government can solve the problem, or that no one can, which is ridiculous.

How Conservatives Hate the Poor

Conservatives are typically opposed to welfare programs and raising (or even having) the federal minimum wage. So they obviously hate the poor, right?

Wrong.

Conservatives hate entitlement. Conservatives hate laziness. Conservatives hate getting something for nothing. Conservatives hate wasted opportunities. Conservatives hate government meddling. And Conservatives hate when the Constitution is violated.

Conservatives care about the poor more than anyone, and that’s not to say Liberals do not. The fact of the matter is that Conservatives believe that their ideas will help the poor (along with America itself) far more efficiently than Liberal policies in the long run, and they have excellent reasons to think so.

Their point is that while welfare programs may keep the poor well-fed, they do not help the poor become less poor, and that while the minimum wage may help some people already working for minimum wage, it will ultimately hurt the poor and limit their opportunities to move up the economic ladder.

For welfare, the line of reasoning goes something like this:

  • Joe was born poor. Joe’s parents are not skilled or educated. Joe is at a disadvantage.
  • Because if you want to get something done, you should do it yourself, Joe is the best person to help Joe.
  • While giving Joe free stuff may help him survive, it is not likely to help him achieve his full potential. If we provide welfare for Joe, he will learn to depend on other people giving him free stuff without earning it.
  • Joe will become entitled and complacent if he becomes accustomed to welfare, and in turn will never embark on a journey to improve his life. As a result, he will never be independent, free, or wealthy.
  • If we coach Joe up by figuratively teaching him how to fish instead of giving him fish, Joe will learn to acquire fish on his own.
  • This will give Joe a reason to live, a way to improve his life, a way to enhance his freedom, something to make him happy and busy, and, subsequently, make him a productive member of society.
  • If we treat all poor people this way, more of them will develop better attitudes and work ethics, and create better opportunities for future generations.
  • This will make everyone freer and happier while improving our standard of living collectively.

This thought process is seldom understood, let alone listened to, by many on the left. Liberals believe that is their duty to maternally help the poor directly (though “directly” is questionable as it is not necessarily proponents of welfare who bear the costs of it), and not to take a tough love approach to encourage them to help themselves. Liberals often think who are we to tell Joe what to do with his life? He is a special little snowflake, and we must pity him, not embolden him. Anyone who objects to empowering the government to enforce more and more welfare is clearly anti-poor and uncaring. The poor need resources, not paternalistic advice.

As far as the opposition to minimum wage laws go, Conservatives follow this train of thought:

  • If Joe is born poor, has no experience or education, and has no skills, his labor is not as valuable as the labor of someone born into a more privileged position who has experience, skills, and other advantages (such as a car, nicer clothing, or superior language skills).
  • The only way for Joe to compete with more privileged individuals is to offer his labor at a lower cost.
  • Presented with the option of an unskilled laborer for a relatively low cost or a skilled worker at a premium, an employer may give Joe an opportunity to work, earn money, and develop his skills, and effectively better himself. The employer may even favor the unskilled laborer because he can be shaped and molded to do exactly what the job entails. The more advantaged laborer may have preferences or habits that run contrary to what the employer would like.
  • With a minimum wage, it becomes illegal for Joe to offer his services at a competitive rate. If the minimum wage is $15 an hour, and that seems costly to an employer, he cannot risk hiring an unskilled worker who will not do the required work. The employer is forced to choose the skilled worker who is likely more privileged than Joe to begin with out of sheer economic necessity of keeping his business alive.
  • The skilled worker who was born into a decent situation keeps his economic opportunities, and Joe is burdened with a high cost and low value to potential employers, and the law prevents him from combating it.
  • Joe’s opportunities become limited, and he is more likely to remain unemployed, unskilled, and poor.
  • This is not to mention that there is nothing in the Constitution that suggests the federal government has the right to set wage standards (or create social welfare programs).

This is another thought process that few Liberals entertain. They seem to believe that there will be no effects from raising the minimum wage other than increasing everyone’s salaries.

Since job creators must be prudent and practical with their investments, there is no way this will be true. If plastic is too expensive, a businessperson will switch to aluminum. When labor becomes too expensive, they will switch to automated systems and fewer employees, and will likely lose the means of assisting potential employees who need a helping hand.

It’s fine to agree with the Liberal point of view. We all have the right to our own opinions. But to smear Conservatives as callous towards the poor is either dishonest, ignorant, or just morally wrong.

In part II, I will talk about how Conservatives hate women.

Conservative Compassion Part I: Intro/How Conservatives Hate the Poor

Some Very Important Questions About Bernie Sanders’ Campaign Contributions

As much as I’d like to say it ain’t so, there is no doubt that our next president may be a Socialist named Bernie Sanders. It bewilders me and turns my stomach in knots, but, unlike Bernie Sanders and his minions, I must acknowledge reality and face the facts; it could actually happen.

Two details about Sanders’ campaign are making me think. The first is that the career political with a BA in political science (and that is all) has raised an insane amount of money through small donations. In the third quarter of campaign season, nearly three quarters of the 74-year old’s 700,000 campaign contributions were valued at $200 or less. That is the most of any candidate, and no one else is even close. Overall, Sanders has raised more total money than every candidate aside from his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton. Like Barack Obama before them, this election cycle’s Democrats are rolling in the dough.

The other detail making me ponder is that Sanders, like Donald Trump, the other anti-Constitutional, authoritarian candidate, has been particularly vocal about campaign finance reform. Bernie Sanders believes that it is wrong for people to spend their money without the government’s permission or oversight, and wants to ban certain individuals from donating certain amounts of money. In bitter spite of the First Amendment and the Freedoms that come with being an American, Sanders and Trump are seeking to rig the election game in favor of wealth-distribution-crazy politicians who can incur hefty quantities of small donations through welfare bribes and mega-billionaires who can self-finance their strides towards the Oval Office respectively.

So, what’s the big question?

If Bernie Sanders is being funded predominantly by small donors, and if Bernie Sanders is also vying to de-democratize the election process to favor people who want other people’s wealth, is it fair to assume that much of the money Bernie Sanders has accumulated is already-redistributed welfare? Are the people making these donations flaking on their college loan payments to support a president who implies he will eliminate the debt they have voluntarily brought upon themselves?

These are not accusations, but questions. I have no idea how much debt the average Bernie Sanders supporter has. And I have no idea if his donors are welfare recipients.

Regardless, the shamelessness and irresponsibility it would take to throw money that isn’t even yours at a politician is deplorable. A system that allows welfare recipients to participate in the political process this way is broken, and one that may legislate further in this direction is inexcusably corrupt. I hope I’m barking about nothing. But if I’m not, this is a moral catastrophe.

Personally, I am losing faith, but I hope that the American people will wake up and take a stand against radical, totalitarian demagogues like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump before it’s too late. Life is hard, and the world is unforgiving. But that does not mean we should surrender our freedom or our decency to egotists and their false promises. Life and Liberty are ours, and we can do better than this. We have to man up and remember what our country is all about. It’s not about religious freedom or economic freedom; it’s about both!

Some Very Important Questions About Bernie Sanders’ Campaign Contributions

Trump is a Leftist

The principles of Conservatism have changed my life for the better over the course of the past few years. Though, for the sake of equality and freedom, I am more of a Libertarian in practice and politics, in actuality, my ideals have become almost purely Conservative.

Up until a mere three or four years ago, I had allowed the media, academia, and Hollywood to shield me from ways of thinking that made me uncomfortable. I did not know how to think critically or skeptically, and I was ignorant of concepts such as values, morals, and principles. Fortunately, I have recovered and am extremely excited to vouch for Conservative, Constitutional, and Traditional American values from now until I no longer have the energy to do so.

The 2016 election was supposed to be my redemption. With an all-star cast of eloquently-spoken GOP presidential candidates from Ted Cruz to Rand Paul to Mike Huckabee to Ben Carson and others, true, compassionate, and thoughtful Conservatism was bound to make its case in the public sphere. I was prepared to help in bringing it to the masses.

And along came Donald Trump. Though he has sparked several necessary conversations and debates, Trump is a moral retard with no idea of how Conservatism works. He never uses the words Liberty, Freedom, or Constitution, and is far more concerned with himself than making America great again. To my dismay, Trump has dominated the polls from the get-go and is showing no signs of slowing down. The 2016 election has not been the redemption I had hoped for, but has instead served as my atonement for casting successive votes for Barack Obama.

***

A comment I often see and hear from Bernie Sanders’ apostles is “if you don’t know what Socialism is, you can’t talk about it”. This comment is unintentionally hypocritical, as most Socialists do not understand Socialism themselves. To understand Socialism, you must consult morality and reason, not science and fantasy. Science is concerned with facts, not sound morals. And fantasy is concerned with hope, not reality.

Socialism is but one way of defining what I will call Leftism. And Leftism is responsible for Communism, Fascism, and Nazism, along with Socialism. The body count Leftism is responsible for over the past century is staggering. The common distinction made between Socialism and Fascism is that Socialism impedes upon economic freedom but grants social freedom while Fascism does the opposite. This is ridiculous. First of all, every Socialist and Fascist society in history has had greatly-limited social and economic freedom. I could go on and on, but I’ll just name a handful of examples. There was no freedom of speech in Nazi Germany and there was no freedom of religion in Mao’s China or Stalin’s Soviet Union. The Nazis socialized the healthcare and auto industries, among many others, and Mao and Stalin had central control over the production of almost everything. As far as more moderate examples go, there are speech codes in many slightly-Socialist European nations which do not exist in our free country, and the burka has been banned in wannabe-Socialist France. The existence of the welfare state across Western Europe goes without saying.

Secondly, there is no difference between Social and Economic freedom. Capitalism, or anti-Leftism, is the philosophy that states that man must be allowed to own private property and engage in voluntary exchange. While the unthinking man interprets ownership as simply being allowed to possess money and physical objects without being obligated to share, ownership stretches far deeper than currency and material goods. Without private property rights, what makes your body your body? What makes your thoughts your thoughts? What makes your beliefs your beliefs? And what makes your decisions your decisions? Bodily autonomy and freedom of speech are as dependent upon private ownership as the right to own your lawnmower. Voluntary exchange is what allows us to give our hearts to those we love, to trade our time for the experiences we cherish, and to donate our money as we see fit. The right to your beliefs is intertwined with the right to your stuff.

Donald Trump, by suggesting he would blatantly violate the Constitution by banning Muslims from entering America, is seeking to join a long line of discrimination and anti-Liberty by Leftist American presidents. During WWII, Progressive Franklin Delano Roosevelt forced Japanese-Americans into internment camps without due process. Before FDR, eugenicist Woodrow Wilson presided over one of the most deliberately segregated White Houses of the past century. Wilson was a strong believer in a kind of scientific dogma that suggests white men are superior to blacks, and government-enforced racial segregation was the way forward. Even old Jimmy Carter dipped his toes in the waters of violating human rights by rounding up Iranians during the hostage crisis in 1979-80.

Were the acts by these men helpful or hurtful to society? There is much subjectivity in “helpful” and “hurtful”, and that is beside the point. Leftists like Trump are consistently the ones who seek to overstep their bounds and impose their personal beliefs, values, and methods of security on the rest of us. When anyone with the title of Conservative or Republican does the same, he is acting as a Leftist as well, and absolutely not in the spirit of Capitalism and Freedom.

While it’s nice to think that the only people susceptible to Leftism are participation-trophy-receiving, spoiled brats from our Marxist Liberal Arts colleges, angry, old, uneducated white men can fall victim to freedom-hating, society-organizing Leftism too. Whether your ideals are more in line with Hitler or Lenin is irrelevant. If you are not joining the fight for blind justice, maximum Liberty, and freedom of thought, you are a Leftist and an enemy of the Greatest Country and Value System the World has Ever Known.

Trump is on the Left. And it’s about time for him to be left behind.

UPDATE: It turns out that the president does have the authority to ban immigration based on religious beliefs. Our Constitutional rights do not apply to non-Americans. It would be Fascist to claim they do.

Trump is a Leftist

‘Liberal’ and Some Other Words We Use Too Liberally

Language is important. If we stray too far from using language properly, we will lose our ability to communicate effectively. The Politically Correct movement, which thankfully seems to be gasping for its last breath of over-sensitized air, has taught us this over the course of the past few years.

There are several words used in the sphere of politics today that disrespect the English language and cause us to refer to concepts  and actions inaccurately. I think it’s about time we call these words out, and start to change the way we speak.

Though I’m certainly far from the first person to make this point, the following are a few of the words I recommend we cease from using fallaciously.

Liberal

I am a Liberal, and I am right to say so. But if you say those first four words from time to time, you are likely mistaken.

There are several definitions for the word Liberal. Many make no sense. The three that are logical go something like “not bound in an objective manner; open to interpretation”, “broad and unfocused”, and “supportive of individual freedom”. The first refers to eating fish and eggs while calling yourself a vegetarian or reading the Second Amendment as some sort of a permit for hunting. The second describes my undergraduate program in the arts and sciences. And the last refers to what “Liberals” fervently oppose.

When talking about political theories, we can discard the initial definition as it is an adjective meant to modify an action (i.e.-liberal interpretation), and not a belief a person holds or a person himself. We can also do away with the second definition as it specifically refers to a method of acquiring an education (and an often expensive and impractical one at that). The third definition proves that “Liberals” are not Liberal.

Classical Liberalism (or simply Liberalism) is the belief that individual men should be free. There are no qualifiers such as socially or economically, and there are no conditions such as unless you are a white male or depending on how much money you have. If you are a Liberal, you must support man’s right to govern himself (or perhaps his family). A Liberal abstains from imposing his personal beliefs and morals unto others. This is why no Liberal can support drug prohibition, institutionalized marriage, impediments to religious beliefs and practices, limitations on free speech (particularly offensive speech), restrictions on prostitution, nor a host of others. In an economic sense, a Liberal cannot support minimum wage laws, government-run education, Socialized industry (like healthcare), inheritance taxes, nor affirmative action programs.

Why, then, do we allow today’s “Liberals” to describe themselves using this term?

I propose that, from now on, Libertarians and the like should reclaim the word Liberal for themselves. There is no freedom without the right to own private property and exchange it voluntarily, so “Liberals” are not Liberal at all.

Once Libertarians have reclaimed their rightful title, we can begin to call “Liberals” what they truly are: Leftist Authoritarians.

I shouldn’t be too insistent with this one because I’d have to change the name of my blog.

Progressive

I’m living a Progressive lifestyle. I am working hard, furthering my education, planning ahead, setting goals for myself, and trying to enhance my personal development in as many ways as possible. It’s not easy, and it’s not always fun, but I am making progress. I understand that I can’t earn everything I want at once, and that I can’t earn anything without making a concerted effort. This is perfectly in line with the basic definition of Progressive which goes “happening or developing gradually or in stages; proceeding step by step”. There are no free lunches in this world, but I can strive closer to the picnic baskets I yearn for a little bit each day.

To call a “Progressive” Progressive is to defecate on the English language. Think of the ransom demanded by “Progressive” presidential candidate Bernie Sanders:

  • Debt-free education
  • Single-payer healthcare
  • Equal pay for equal work
  • $15 minimum wage
  • Reversal of Climate Change
  • Higher taxes to redistribute wealth

These policies are not Progressive. These policies correspond with the 21st Century, high-speed-wifi-ist, Netflix-ist desire for instant gratification.

Instead of progressively improving their lot in life in order to make sure their children start better off than they did, as essentially all of our ancestors have done throughout our species’ history, the “Progressives” want other people’s money, other people’s services, restrictions on practices they disagree with, and a carefree life the moment their messiah is sworn into office without putting any skin in the game themselves. Keep in mind that nearly half of Americans pay nothing in income taxes.

These intentions fly in the face of the contemporary state of humanity in which crime is progressively declining, wealth is progressively improving, poverty is progressively vanishing, diseases are progressively being cured, hunger is progressively being satisfied, and technology is progressively becoming more advanced.

We need to reclaim the word Progressive as a modifier to describe goal-orientated, non-YOLO individuals who want to improve their lives, the lives of their families, and the lives of the people around them through hard work and sound decision making over time. As for a new word to describe “Progressives”? How about Immediatarians?

Free

To be Free is to be unforced. To be Free is to be permitted to make choices, both good and bad. To be Free is to be allowed to suffer the consequences of your actions. To be Free is to believe what you wish to believe, and to say what you wish to say.

While opponents of Freedom may retort by claiming that Freedom gives us the right to kill and steal from each other, it would be hypocritical to claim Freedom for yourself while failing to acknowledge the Freedom of others. Impeding upon the Freedoms of other individuals results in the forfeiture of the impeders’ Freedom in the eyes of society. This is why we have prisons.

To many, “Free” means “given or available without charge”. While this is certainly one proper dictionary-definition of Free, it is not what our founders were talking about when they ratified our Constitution, and it is not what William Wallace cried out at the end of Braveheart.

“Free” healthcare, “Free” education, “Free” housing, “Free” food, and “Free” paychecks are not only antithetical to the spirit of America and civilized society itself, they don’t even follow the dictionary definition of Free. Who pays for the “Free” education? Do the teachers in a Socialist society teach for “Free”? Who bears the cost of “Free” housing and food? Does no one give or lose something to provide “Free” welfare or “Free” medical care?

Just because the recipient of a good or a service trades nothing to acquire it does not mean it is Free. Someone has to build and maintain facilities, someone has to architect and engineer those structures, someone has to transport the necessary materials to the building site, someone has to harvest the resources needed to produce the materials, and someone has to have enough money to pay all of those people.

“Free” stuff is not only a lie, it is the obliteration of Freedom itself, and the initiation of dependency. Those among us who want everything for “Free” do not want anything to be Free. They want Slave Labor.

“Equality”

The dictionary definition of Equality is simple: “the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, and opportunities”. While Americans took far too long to realize that slavery and Jim Crow Laws are incompatible with Equality, our country was founded on the principle that all men are created Equally. What this means is that no matter who you are, where you were born, or what you currently possess, the laws of the United States Constitution and our self-evident, God-given rights apply and exist in the same way. The peasant goes to jail for murder, and so does the aristocrat.

Some have redefined Equality to mean something terribly different and disgracefully immoral. Now, many believe that hurting one to assist another is an exercise in establishing “Equality”. “Equality”, in their eyes, is not fair treatment under the law or equal rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Instead, “Equality” is an arbitrarily or democratically determined state of society in which different people are willfully and forcefully held to different standards and subject to preferential treatment.

“Equality” to some is demoralizingly forcing an ill-prepared student to attend and flunk out of an Ivy League School because of his skin color. “Equality” is to pay workers the same amount of money for different amounts and quality of work. “Equality” is to prohibit the words of some because they hurt the feelings of others, but not the other way around. “Equality” is to insist upon obeying the demands of the majority when they suit the arbiter’s ideals, but to ignore the majority when they don’t.

Those who feel that this interpretation of Equality is accurate do not want Equality at all. They want Marxism.

“Diversity”

Diversity is the dream of the free man. The free man wants to choose his religion, his words, his reading material, and how to spend his money, and wants as many options to choose from as possible. The free man is tolerant of Diverse views that differ from his own, and demands the right to view the world in his way and to condemn the views he disagrees with. The free man respects the rights of others to speak their minds in Diverse ways, and will defend his right to say his piece to the end of his life. The free man will read the Diverse books and magazines that strike his fancy, and will never demand the literature that offends him be banned. The free man does not wish to be told what or when to buy, and is at his happiest when a Diverse array of products and services, such as healthcare packagesschool curricula, and spray deodorant, are available for him to choose from.

When a free man thinks of Diversity, he thinks of the simple definition of “a range of different things”. Diversity is not something the free man thinks of when he thinks of people’s physical characteristics. In fact, the free man avoids focusing on his fellow man’s pigmentation, or genitalia for that matter, at all.

Sadly, the meaning of Diversity has been usurped just as the previously mentioned terms have been, too. Today, many call “Diversity” a wide range of skin colors, sexual desires, reproductive organs, and other irrelevant, personal discrepancies. When appropriators of “Diversity” see a photograph with similar looking people, they see a cause for reaction when there should be nothing for them to see at all.

Diverse opinions are no longer Diverse to many today. Thoughts and ideas that they assume will hurt the feelings of the groups of people they view as inferior are not welcome in college classrooms or in many mediums of entertainment and the press. The free marketplace of ideas has been replaced with the coerced representation of individuals based on everything but, to the disappointment of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., their character.

“Diversity” is not Diversity. It’s Fetishist Objectification.

‘Liberal’ and Some Other Words We Use Too Liberally