This article is very much a work in progress - it just contains points, but is not well-structured.
Drama
Over time, our government seems to have devolved into partisan antics - where two parties continually fight one another. In many ways, the drama triangle of victim, persecutor, and rescuer is what has become of our political process: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karpman_drama_triangle
Take note of some of these trends:
- Alt-Right rises to meet the SJWs (or vice versa depending on your view)
- Fascism arises to fight Communism
- Nationalism arises to fight Majoritianism
The aim of this article is to reconcile the political differences between the Left and Right in America, with particular emphasis on the area of taxation and so-called fair shares.
At this time, it seems that both the Left and the Right do share a common belief - that there is corruption in our governmental process, though it is a bit of a paradox.
The Left generally blames the Right, and business. The Right generally blames the Left, government and unions. Each person seems to to vote for the lesser of the two evils.
It is possible that both sides are not wrong, yet not right either. To investigate some potential ways forward, a few steps back from the presentation situation are necessary.
Founding Fathers
Our founding fathers had some interesting wording on this:
"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution." -- John Adams Letter to Jonathan Jackson (2 October 1780), "The Works of John Adams", vol 9, p. 511
“However \[political parties\] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion. -- attributed to George Washington
Yet, it appear that many of the founders got sucked into partisan antics. One of this author's favorite founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson, is perhaps indirectly responsible for the emergence of the concept of Judicial review, which ironically, he later predicted would become the present 5-4 decisions affecting 300 Million people!
While the founding fathers seemed to have put in protections in to the system to minimize partisan antics, at the same time, at one time, the conflict was a very good thing, because it at least contained the damage that the politicians and exploiters could do to erode the system. However, over time, it seems that this strength has now become a weakness, in that the conflict prevents any meaningful restoration to the principles upon which our government was founded. We have used the cracks in the system to allow for many civil rights and perhaps there are a few more left, but simultaneously, the system has lost integrity, yet - somehow still preserves many rights despite the corruption.
In fact, there are areas where both parties are virtually identical - only being two sides to the same coin, but then there are areas of vast difference. In my opinion, a big part of the problem is that the whole political spectrum has shifted far Left, that is, towards destruction of the basic principles upon which the Government was founded. As some have said, this raises the question of which party is most likely to drive the whole nation over the cliff, and I would add - are there any opportunities or intervals in the natural cycles of politics, for a 3rd or other parties?
Think on this for a second: The Republican party once carried the flag of the union in order to destroy the Rebel flag, but recently it has been associated with those who would display the Rebel flag! Have things become opposite of what they once were? The Democratic party used to be very much associated with the KKK. Perhaps it has attempted to take on its past role of enslaver, but this time it is playing the role of the rescuer from the big mean Republicans? Though I disagree with HOW and I believe they do pander to victims, there do so seem to be areas where the Democratic party has recently done some good, using the Cracks in the system, for example, expansion of Civil Rights for disenfranchised groups
Civics Education
Personally, I believe one big issue is that many Americans have no idea how their government actually works (or COULD work) and this goes for many politicians as well. We have so much potential. For example, recently, I saw an article where Mike Huckabee said that the Dredd Scott decision had never been overturned. I think he's not wrong, but "in practice" the government doesn't move based on that decision any more. Think about that for a bit and let it sink in.
Rights, Riots, and Race
Think about the reality that this nation's so-called organic laws are based on all men being created equal. That's the basis for everything, yet from the git-go there were many limitations put in based upon race. For example, in determining who could become a member of this country, one of the first acts in the Government: "limited naturalization to immigrants who were free white persons of good character. It thus excluded American Indians, indentured servants, slaves, free blacks, and Asians." (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790) Let that sink in.
Many years ago, the Democratic party was very much associated with the KKK and trying to keep black people down. Times have changed since the Democratic party was often associated with the KKK. The passing of the Civil Rights act seems to be what changed everything. Many if not most Republicans were on board in principle, but didn't seem to believe that such decisions needed to be made at the Federal level and has serious concerns about Federal usurpation of power. But, perhaps the times have now changed again, often Democrats can been seen encouraging people to play what is called the 'race card'. Recalling the Karpman drama triangle, is this perhaps a large scale version of the old game of victim, persecutor, and rescuer?
I suspect a harmonization of what appears to be right on both sides would be something borrowed from Booker T. Washington, many black people DO seem to have a harder time by virtue of being black and many Republicans are in staunch opposition to this reality- often indicating that there is basically little or no more racism. Yet, are not many grandmothers still alive who endured some of the harsh treatments given to the likes of Rosa Parks?
At the time of the passage of the Civil Rights act (I wasn't alive then so I'm sure I'll get some correction), my understanding is that the Republicans were generally supportive of the PRINCIPLES for the Civil Right Act, but were opposed to HOW it was implemented, in that it interfered with state sovereignty - creating a whole host of new problems, and were unsuccessful at marketing that to the people. Why? Perhaps the people have forgotten how the system works. Perhaps they are tired of waiting on it to work. For example, one of the concerns the Republicans voiced was that if it is your place of business, you could retain the right to tell anyone entering for whatever reason to go take a hike because you don't like them. It may not make you a nice person, but it would be a right. Let the free market and social networking deal with you!
The Democrats have accomplished much in recent years, but it seems the method by which it has accomplished these objectives is in violation of the balance of powers spelled out in the Constitution. Yet the purpose of the Constitution is none other than to do what? To secure man's natural rights. Has it done so? It took 100 years or more to ease racial tensions?!
Both major political parties have their blinders on with respect to certain issues. More often than not it seems to me that the two parties project their own weaknesses on each other - constantly blaming the other side rather than trying to find the kernel of truth behind their seeming opposition.
For example, it has been my experience that many Republicans act like Blacks don't have certain disadvantages compared to Whites. I used to think the same way, but my thinking evolved after being exposed to a few things from one of my token black friends.
For example, it was explained to me that:
- black women have to straighten their hair and put chemicals in their hair to get hired
- having a "black-sounding" name can be a dampener to getting hired
- black folks are taught not to travel in groups in stores, because if something gets stolen, they'll get the blame.
I can't imagine having to do any of these in order to get a job. I guess I'm blessed. But, is this an excuse for not succeeding? We have Dr. Ben Carson who came from a poor family, raised by his mother, etc. and made it out to become successful. Booker T. Washington admitted that it was more difficult being black, but that it wasn't an excuse either, and in some respects a blessing due to the hardship.
Further, the black population is getting decimated by the war on drugs also. While I can't prove it, I suspect that the higher murder rates in the inner cities, are in many cases, turf battles over turf for selling drugs. Want a closer look? There is a Vice episode which documents how the violence spread in Chicago. It basically looks like a system that got started and is difficult to break out of due to the nature of the system.
If I attempt to collapse this down into an example issue where it seems like two sides to the same coin: the dems want gun control and the repubs want drug control. IMO, both policies lead towards increased violence. How?
By banning something it automatically creates a black market, which results in increased pricing, which results in profitability, which results in certain segments of the population being attracted to selling whatever has been banned. Remember what happened in Chicago during Prohibition?
Fair Wages
It seems to me that Democrats likes to talk about minimum wage. Before minimum wage is investigated, one must first understand where wage limitations came from. Some time before the minimum wage there was a king who made it law for there to be a maximum wage, apparently he was tired of getting robbed by "high-priced contractors". I did some checking and apparently it was originally (in our country) a device to KEEP the poor black man from competing on Federal pork barrel spending type projects. One of the politicians apparently got tired of his pork barrel spending projects designed to bring money to give jobs to his constituents in his home district, were being under cut by black workers who charged lower wages.
Check here for some of the history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage and follow the trail. If you dig deep enough, you will find that the minimum wage started as an attempt to keep black people away from federal contracts.
But, let's go one step further. Let's discuss the issue of unearned income.
Unearned Income
Is it possible to make wages for labor, fair? The comedian, Chris Rock, recently pointed out that, in a way, an inheritance is unearned by the children receiving it. Perhaps he's not entirely wrong. In contradistinction, one could argue that, as a professional comedian, perhaps Chris Rock doesn't have to work as hard physically as those that dig ditches. But, did he truly labor as hard as the ditch digger for the compensation he has received? In the way, our economy is setup, we have abstracted the buying and selling of what is produced from the land. But then there are further abstractions upon trade from products made from the land, which allows for professions such as being a professional comedian and getting paid more to tell jokes than dig ditches. Is it possible to make wages for labor truly fair? I'm not sure that it is possible as everyone would think differently about what is their 'fair' share. The alternative is to make services and products available for sale and people will pay what they actually think they are worth. The accountability is to the market. The crops, oil, whale blubber, and similar are all a result of the land + labor. This creates trade, the market. The by product of all this trade seems to be diversity and a wide range of occupations and interests that can be supported by the system. Unfortunately, and perhaps owing to fraudsters and people's gullibility, certain markets do not pay as well - the proverbial starving artist.
Guaranteed Income
Lately in political circles, Democrats have begun to toy with the idea of a guaranteed income for everyone. Maybe that sounds good, on the surface, but at what cost and what is the source? Is the source from our ... birth right? Or is it from an abstraction of people's labor? Further, is such a policy, sustainable since it would presumably remove accountability to one's labor? Some would argue that we have roughly 200M people in this country and that it would be cheaper to simply pay all these people a nice living wage - say $20,000 a year rather than buy a nice Stealth Bomber. One problem is that the money is derived from people's labor and improvements to the land, not necessarily their fair share of the land itself. In other words, to do so would be stealing. Further, it also negates all the jobs that were created in support of building that Stealth Bomber.
But, perhaps the surface level argument of the Democrats may be lacking structure, but behind it is a kernel of truth. The Democrats often point out the disparity between the haves and have nots. That's the surface level complaint. But, perhaps what they are really referring to is the corruption in the system itself - the boat anchors placed around people's legs to keep them from rising in the system - the income tax, for example! Is it possible that the numerous 'assistance' programs have spawned entire generations of people that can no longer effectively take care of themselves?
Innovation
Necessity is said to be the mother of invention. Let's consider the example of a shower head. There was an ad on Facebook for a $375 shower head which touted its ability to "save water". One commenter wrote in response:
"... Water is $0.0015 per gallon where I live. If it saves me 14 gallons per shower, then I save $0.02 per shower. At $375 per shower head, it would take about 18,000 showers to pay for it, or about 50 years. Which is how old I am. THAT IS WHY THERE HAVE BEEN NO SHOWER HEAD INNOVATIONS IN THE LAST 100 YEARS YOU KNUCKLEHEADS!! Nobody is dumb enough to do it. ..."
The comments by these 'knuckleheads' indicate the basics of an intuitive understanding of economics, which then carries into the wage discussion. Why should I hire expensive white or black guys to do the job, when I can run down to Home Depot and pick up several perhaps Mexican, or certainly not Canadian citizens, for much cheaper? The idea behind the minimum wage then is drive out those guys who would force competition on wages. Sounds good, in principle, but like the water in our shower, needs for labor at will find a way through whatever openings are available. The guys certainly aren't going to work for free though, are they? They will work for whatever it takes to allow them to live. So what exactly is a living wage? Perhaps what is meant is a comfortable lifestyle wage? I don't know.
Esoterics
And I apologize to the atheists, and those that believe everything is just chance, but another question is why has this world allowed for certain conditions to exist in the first place? Perhaps this world, in part, acts as a mechanism for learning. Let's take this concept further. As Chris Rock pointed out, in the discussion of racism, the Native Americans are basically left out, they are simply forgotten about, for the most part. There are even special laws on the books for dealing with them still! It is 2017! We're supposed to have flying cars and yet the Native Americans are still basically treated as nonexistent. Why is that? Is there some purpose in it? Further, why do different economic policies exist within different countries? Why do different countries exist? Why do men ... disagree, and is there a way for us to disagree ... peacefully?
Fixes
Returning from the clouds, perhaps if we were to return to the concepts of federalism as understood at the time of our Constitution's forming, we might find that there are some potential solutions here - ways to disagree without being disagreeable. States with unfavorable policies - coupled with the people's right of exit could be used to encourage States to have policies favorable towards the mindsets that inhabit them, otherwise, the citizens and their money might flee to another state.