Legalize Discrimination

If you're new here, this is a weekly column consisting of letters written to my grandchildren (who exist) and my great-grandchildren (who aren't here yet) -- the Stickies -- to haunt them after they become grups and/or I'm dead.

[Bloggaramians: Blogarama renders the links in my columns useless. Please click on View Original to solve the problem and access lotsa columns.]

Irregularly Appearing Imaginary Guest Stars

Marie-Louise -- My beautiful muse (right shoulder) and back scratcher 

Iggy -- Designated Sticky 

Dana -- Designated gentlereader (left shoulder)

"How I wish we lived in a time when laws were not necessary to safeguard us from discrimination." -Barbra Streisand


Dear (eventual) Grandstickies & Great-Grandstickies, 

What follows is an expanded version of something I wrote for a failed feature featured for a minute on my website called Random Randomnesses. 

I'll betcha a bottle-a-pop that even if you're reading this 50 years or more from the time it was written -- assuming, as always, that our Republic hasn't devolved into a collection of warlord-led nation states continuously at war with each other -- that we will still be arguing about (and be litigating) who is discriminating against whom.

Life on Earth is not necessarily fair; you may have noticed. 

It's the nature of H. sapiens to feel slighted, and if possible to seek justice, when they perceive they've been treated unfairly by a fellow member of the species. Without recourse to justice, via formal rules or the universally acknowledged common law of callowyutes, the playground's not fun and the kids stay home.


Discrimination is institutionalized injustice, that's why it causes the needle of a justometer (accent on tom: jus-TOM-eh-ter) to spike and loudly proclaim whatever any given model equipped with a speaker loudly proclaims. It's not an in the moment injustice, as in a bully confiscating a victim's lunch money. It's injustice before the fact, based on the fact, the victim is ______________.

Please note, I've extended the blank space considerably longer than my standard seven character spaces so as to accommodate the many victim groups of our enlightened new millennium and the new ones coming online seemingly every day. 

There are myriad reasons H. sapiens choose to pre-inflict injustice on a given victim, or class of victims, often without necessarily having had any actual contact with the target. 

This is called prejudice. There's a lot of it about. You may have noticed.        


Now, personally, my policy is to not discriminate against anyone for any reason.

My default setting assumes that anyone I meet potentially sucks sweaty socks until proven otherwise. It has nothing to do with discrimination, it's a common sense personal defense policy. When I drive I assume that all the other drivers are trying to kill me. The fact that it's unlikely to be an intentional act doesn't change anything.

Also, I don't hate anyone before I meet them. To do so is stupid, and illogical. Furthermore, once I do meet them I'm prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt. In the course of events, if I decide to try and keep them at a manageable distance I'm even prepared to employ an antiquated technique that has fallen out of favor called good manners to keep the peace.


So, why on Earth would I suggest legalizing discrimination?

No, I am neither a left or right wingnut. I'm not a member of the -alt left, or -alt right, or even sure what those particular newly minted labels mean. Like many labels in this overheated, polarized era I find myself in the midst of, definition often depends on who's applying the label.

As beauty is in the eye of the beholder, the legitimacy of one's politics/morals/lifestyle/etc. are often found in the (judgemental) psyche of the beholder.

And no, I do not have a death wish or a masochistic impulse to be publicly shamed, shunned or trolled.

BIG BUT

The Gummit and the gummits spend a lot of time, and money enforcing an ever-expanding agglomeration of Rules&Regs protecting an ever-expanding multitude of victims, real and imagined. So what if we let the free market in dizzinformation take care of it, for free?

Name any business (profit or non-profit), gummit agency, or individual you can think of, in the USA as well as many other locales, that could survive unscathed in the dizzinformation age if it/they became known for discrimination, against anyone.

For example, why spend tax money on having The Gummit, or your local gummit, drag some 16+ hours a day working miscreants who run a mom and pop firm into court because they _______ just because you're _______. Vote with your wallet and withhold your business

Tell everyone you know, especially your fellow _______ what these bigfeets and hoopleheads are up to. Tell 'em to vote with their wallet. Two words, social media.

Open up a rival business and work 17+ hours a day and put the bastards out of business. (Please note, this tactic is unlikely to work on The Gummit or the gummits. However, striving to minimize your dependence on any level of gummit services is always a good idea.)

If you like, get some signs and some friends and march up and down in front of the place. You can destroy a business even if only a tiny minority of the public agrees with you by making it as uncomfortable and awkward as possible for people to cross your picket line.

Short on friends and/or fellow travelers? Contact your local chapter of the IUPPPP & PVTTOT. (The International Union of Professional Perpetually Protesting Protestors & Perpetual Victims of This, That, and the Other Thing.)

Alert the press. Remember, the news is never old in a 24-hour news cycle if you have the fortitude and creativity to keep the pot stirred. In this day and age, how long will 99.9% of these maroons survive? As to the .1% who do, it's only a matter of time. You can always double back lack later during lulls in your outrage.

Let's repeal a bunch of laws and Rules&Regs, can a bunch of bureaucrats, and see what happens. We can always pass new laws later. Poppa loves you.

Have an OK day.


[P.S. Gentlereaders, for 25¢ a week, no, seriously, for 25¢ a week you can become a Patron of this weekly column and help to prevent an old crank from running the streets at night in search of cheap thrills and ill-gotten gains.

If there are some readers out there that think my shtuff is worth a buck or three a month, color me honored, and grateful. Regardless, if you like it, could you please share it? There are buttons at the end of every column.]


©2017 Mark Mehlmauer   (The Flyoverland Crank)

If you're reading this on my website (where there are tons of older columns, a glossary, and other goodies) and if you wish to react (way cooler than liking) -- please scroll down.

Wild-Eyed Libertarian (Part Four)

In which His Crankiness finally attempts to explain exactly what he means by bleeding heart. Warning: It's a long one, you might need a beverage. It's all about my bleeding heart, the "other shtuff" I mentioned last week will have to wait till next week.

If you're new here, this is a weekly column consisting of letters written to my grandchildren (who exist) and my great-grandchildren (who aren't here yet), the Stickies, to haunt them after they become grups and/or I'm dead.

[Bloggaramians: Blogarama renders the links in my columns useless. Please click on View original to solve the problem/access lotsa columns.]

Irregularly Appearing Imaginary Guest Stars

Marie-Louise -- My beautiful muse (right shoulder) and back scratcher 

Iggy -- My designated Sticky 

Dana -- My designated gentlereader (left shoulder)

"There are two primary choices in life: to accept conditions as they exist, or accept responsibility for changing them." -Denis Waitley

Dear (eventual) Grandstickies & Great-Grandstickies,

The Citizens of the Republic (well, mostly) are a...

[Dana: Ah geez, there he goes again. Uncharacteristically, the gang has appeared early on in the proceedings. I suspect they're as anxious to wrap up this series of columns as I am. Dana and Marie-Louise are at their assigned shoulders. Iggy's stretched out on my bed, earbuds in place and softly singing, off key.]

Sorry, I just think it sounds cool. Also, I'm subtly making a point. The Founding Dudes set up a republic so we wouldn't be subject to the tyranny of the majority (mobocracy). Facebook, Twitter, and the like are a perfect illustration of why...

[Cough, cough. That was Marie-Louise. Dana laughs.]

Point taken. Grandstickies/Great-Grandstickies, I hope that by the time your generation is in charge, the left v. right war over how to build and operate a social safety net is over, or at least a workable truce is in place. Assuming, of course, we haven't devolved into a continent of warlord-led nation states by then. If not (or, for my gentlereaders, in the meantime...)

Warning: Sweeping Generalizations Ahead

Americans (well, mostly) are a generous, fair-minded lot.

However, Lefties tend to favor a social welfare state, to one degree or another.

Righties, to one degree or another, would prefer that the gummits role be minimal, that the private sector (as was mostly the case pre-FDR) provide the social safety net. Which, once upon a time, it did.

Except for when it often didn't, which I have a problem with, even though I tend to identify with the Righties.

And, lest we forget, there are no shortage of (seemingly endless) arguments within the clubhouses of both teams.

[Dana (who leans to the left) and Marie-Louise (who leans to the right), start arguing. Yikes! I'm a triggerer.]

Finally, we're at the mercy of the professional Pols of the Depublican and Republicrat parties and whoever it is (all I know is it's not you or me) that keeps putting the same people back in power.

The Depublicans, having secured control (for a minute...) of Congress and the Presidency "fixed" our screwy health care system via 2,300 pages of legislation and spent $200,000,000 bucks of our money on a PR campaign to sell it -- to us.

The Republicrats, having secured control (for a minute...) of Congress and the Presidency last fall, and having had 7.5 years to prepare, attempted to fix the fix, and (for the moment at least) failed, --but now are going to fix our screwy tax code.

End Sweeping Generalizations Zone

This is yet another reason America needs a reluctant, benevolent, mostly hands-off monarch (as long as it's me and/or my chosen successor) to occasionally step out from behind the curtain and split the baby. Fear not, I offer broad-strokes only. My Royal Privy Council of Perspicacious Polymaths will design the new system and sweat the details.

Righties: While I'm sympathetic to your cause and familiar with your arguments, we must be realistic. The welfare state isn't going to just go away and we need to forge a compromise and move on. Americans, in some form or fashion, take care of their fellow Americans.

Lefties: While I'm sympathetic to your cause and familiar with your arguments (in fact, as a callowyute, embraced them) we must be realistic. Not to worry, the welfare state isn't going away, but we need to forge a rational compromise and move on. Americans, in some form or fashion, take care of their fellow Americans.

Case in point -- there's been a law in place since 1986 that mandates that any hospital that receives funds from The Gummit (most of them) must provide emergency care to any poor soul that shows up. They are not compensated for this and no one that I'm aware of is calling for the law's repeal, including me.


[Gentlereaders of all political persuasions, consider this. The Dizzinformation age is upon us. It's literally impossible to not be aware of the destitute regardless of whether their destitution is the result of bad luck, bad choices, or something in between.

It's also literally impossible for a grup to not be aware that no matter how financially secure and physically healthy you may be at the moment, fate may be tightening up some fishing line stretched across the top of a steep flight of stairs that stands between you and your cozy living room with the Lay-Z-Boy and your new TV with the drive-in sized screen. 

Not your problem? Survival of the fittest? That's fine, it's a relatively free country, except... Those you wash your hands of don't have to stop at Pitchforks, Clubs, & Torches Are Us before dropping in to say hi to you and the family. They can come at you electronically without getting off their rent-to-own furniture (well, as long as they're up to date on the payments...).]


My inner libertarian, and the fact I live (well, I try...) in the real world, makes me doubt that The Gummits and the gummits current system is capable of providing an effective, efficient social safety net (genuine "social security").

What we have now are huge, hulking, expensive, impersonal programs run by unelected, mostly unaccountable bureaucrats that encourage dependency and punish ambition, (if you don't know what the Welfare Cliff is you really need to click on the link, I'll be here when you get back.)

BIG BUT

Singapore, as I've written elsewhere (but, being 39, I can't remember where) has a health care system that gets results we can only dream about while spending far less money. It's part of a comprehensive cradle to grave social safety net. You can access some of the wonky details here.

Not into wonky details? Not up for a walkabout in the tall weeds? Allow your friendly neighborhood crank to summarize.

The title of the article about the wonky details mentioned above is, "Social Policy In Singapore A Crucible of Individual Responsibility" (my emphasis).

Three highly relevant quotes if you please.

"...many capitalist democracies in Europe and Scandinavia spend over 35% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on these programmes. Even the US, often assailed as a laggard in social spending and solidarity, spends 32%."

And, "...the government of Singapore spends only 16.7% of its GDP on all its social programmes...".

Finally, "Solidarity is the principle that the people of a nation, often operating through their government, accept some responsibility for helping fellow citizens (and even non-citizens) avoid destitution and enjoy some of the fruits of modern economies."

Full disclosure, the article dates to 2011 and programs ain't spelled wrong, at least from the author's perspective. You really should read it, it's not that wonky, but I know, I know, you're busy and you're tired.


Bottom line it for us Cranky...

Well, instead of you and/or your employer paying into programs (think Social Security and the like) legally mandated by The Gummit and the gummits...

and/or you and/or your employer paying into voluntary programs (think 401(k) and the like)...

You and your employer both pay into a legally mandated program that provides pensions, health care, and housing.

[That's socialism! Dana snorts. Were you high when you wrote part three? You said that... Marie-Louise Gibsmacks him and they both storm out of my consciousness, arguing as they go. Iggy doesn't even look up.]

No, it's not. Within certain limits, a given citizen decides how the money is spent. Your pension collects interest, and unlike Social Security, there's actually money in the bank, not IOUs placed there by the professional Pols who spend it faster than it comes in.

You choose how to spend your health care money. It's a (highly, carefully, and intelligently) regulated system, but, consumer choice and competition, just like in the real world (that the current American healthcare system only tangentially participates in...) drives prices down.

C'mon, read the article, watch the video -- you'll thank me. Oh, by the way, 79% of Singaporeans own their own apartment (itty-bitty Singapore doesn't have that many houses).


"A good compromise is when both parties are dissatisfied." -Larry David. King Crank's Compromise is bound to do just that. And although he wasn't talking about political parties...

The Depublicans won't like it. They're the party of select special interests (read factions) and the self-selected elites of the Infotainment Industrial Complex. Their various factions, one of which consists of the employees of the gummits and The Gummit, all want to maintain or enlarge their slice of the pie.

Our self-selected elites think we're too stupid to be trusted with managing our own money. This is the gang that gave us, and still support, Obamacare.

The Republicrats won't like it. They're the party of um, well, that depends on who exactly you're talking about and whether or not they have an election pending, or if they're certain people that seem to be perpetually pursuing the presidency. Do you realize the next election is less than four years away? 7.5 years and the party (allegedly) of small gummit and free markets doesn't have a healthcare policy they can agree on. Please.

Thus, reluctantly, the future King of America will take care of it, all without firing a single tweet. Poppa loves you.

Have an OK day.


[P.S. Gentlereaders, for 25¢ a week, no, seriously, for 25¢ a week you can become a Patron of this weekly column and help to prevent an old crank from running the streets at night in search of cheap thrills and ill-gotten gains.

If there are some readers out there that think my shtuff is worth a buck or three a month, color me honored, and grateful. Regardless, if you like it, could you please share it? There are buttons at the end of every column.]


©2017 Mark Mehlmauer   (The Flyoverland Crank)

If you're reading this on my website (where there are tons of older columns, a glossary, and other goodies) and if you wish to react (way cooler than liking) -- please scroll down.

Wild-Eyed Libertarian (Part Three)

If you're new here, this is a weekly column consisting of letters written to my grand/great-grandchildren to haunt them after they become grups or I'm dead.

[Bloggaramians: Blogarama renders the links in my columns useless. Please click on View original to solve the problem/access lotsa columns.]

Irregularly Appearing Imaginary Guest Stars 

Marie-Louise.....My beautiful muse (right shoulder) and back scratcher 
Iggy....................Designated Sticky
Dana..................Designated gentlereader (left shoulder)

"If you put the government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there'd be a shortage of sand." -Milton Friedman


Dear (eventual) Grandstickies & Great-Grandstickies,

OK class, let's review.

In part one I declared myself to be a wild-eyed libertarian with a bleeding heart and conservative impulses. I explored what I mean by libertarian.

"... I want the playground to have minimum rules and maximum fun. I want just enough rules to give everyone an equal shot at some swing time and neutralize the bullies." -me

I promised to explain (justify?) my bleeding heart and conservative impulses in part two.

In part two I only explored my conservative impulses; my bleeding heart was left out in the cold. I explained that this was due to my writing style, edited stream of consciousness.

To wit, while I prefer to travel with the current and try to stay in the middle of the river for the sake of safety and efficiency, shtuff happens. Also, I often don't know where I'm going till I get there (pretty much the story of my life...).

This was/is all true. But it's also true that I had/am having a helluva time nailing down the bleeding heart part.


Because...

As I mentioned in part one, I discovered that left-wing libertarianism is a thing. It's such a thing that Wikipedia has separate and distinct articles for both it and its right-wing brother sister cousin ex-spouse?

I wasn't exactly shocked. As I mentioned in part one, I'm aware that libertarians are all over the political map. But I have to confess I've never gone walkabout in the tall weeds even though I voted for the Libertarian Party candidate in the last election. Your dilettante about town (that would be me) was unaware that left-wing libertarians versus right-wing libertarians is a thing.

For the record, I think of myself as a center-right libertarian sort, but I strongly support the No Labels movement. I'm a big fan of compromise for the sake of maintaining a peaceful playground (compromise, don't demonize) where all the kids can have fun.


Now, I was aware that support for a gummit run social safety net is generally considered to be a center-left/liberal/progressive fundamental, which isn't/wasn't a big deal to me and my bleeding heart.

But when I read the Wikipedia entry for left-libertarianism, in short order, I tripped over the words socialist, anarchist, and communist. Yikes! There are far lefties that call themselves libertarians? Huh? Why didn't I know that? 

In my defense, my fascination with current events dates back to grade school, and if anything has gotten stronger over the years. However, a fascination with politics has faded in direct proportion to my ever expanding political cynicism.

I firmly believe that my fellow Citizens of the Republic should strive to stay informed and vote if they honestly believe they've got a clue. I also firmly believe that in politics, and everything else (but particularly politics), the best you can do is hope for, and strive for, the best -- but always be prepared for the worst.

When I was an idealistic callowyute, my hippie with a job period, I had a vague, ill-considered notion that socialism and hippie sensibilities would save the world. I didn't actually know all that much about socialism, but it sounded good.

Alright, I admit it, I didn't have a clue. At least I didn't vote. It was widely understood at the time, at least in certain circles, that "the man" was in control of everything so there was no point to it. This is embarrassing, let's move on.

Now that I've reached the ripe old age of 39, I  believe I do have a clue. As I mentioned above I want the playground to have minimum rules and maximum fun. You may disagree but the Founding Dudes are on my team. And I have been paying attention for the better part of, um, 39 years.

In my semi-humble opinion, socialism and communism, not necessarily in theory but always in practice, generate big, sticky, bureauonated, liberty-limiting gummits where everyone is equally miserable -- except for the boss(es) who embody the lesson of Orwell's, Animal Farm. "All the animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

[Alright, I'll bite, what's any of this got to do with you trying to define your bleedin' bleeding heart? Dana is awake. Marie-Louise got here first and is scratching my back, she loves Animal Farm. 

Iggy materializes, the gang's all here.  Hey, Iggy! Hey, Poppa, like, what's Animal Farm?]

And don't even get me started on anarchists and anarchism. Sure, there are thoughtful, gentle, well-spoken anarchists in the world. However, I can't help but notice that there seems to be no shortage of doomed to be forever broken hearted romantics and idealists who haven't/can't/won't become grups.

Also, there's the issue of the sociopathic/psychopathic cohort. For example, the masked, black hoodie-wearing types that destroy and/or loot businesses, large or small, and toss paving stones at the cops that try to stop them. (Google the following: riots at anti-globalism protests.)


And there's another problem.

Although it might get me banned from certain libertarian clubhouses, I am all for a rationally designed social safety net run by the gummits and The Gummit.

However, I want a system that's set up to accurately measure (real, not politically motivated) results that is run by a flexible bureaucracy required to put the customers (us) first.

Surely the nation that put a man on the moon can do better than the complex, expensive (and growing like a weed), often ineffective system we now have. Did we lose the war on poverty and the war on drugs?

I'm also acutely aware of, though admittedly barely familiar with, something called public choice theory (PCT). Wikipedia sez "... the use of economic tools to deal with traditional problems of political science."

I know enough to know it maintains that politicians and gummit employees behave no differently than the rest of us do at work. Some are driven/dedicated/etc, many are weasels, most fall somewhere in between.

"...governments are not run by omniscient benevolent despots, but by individuals. Individuals acting in the political arena are the same individuals who act within markets. They are just as self-interested and  prone to ignorance as any other population." -Students For Liberty

Sounds right to me, commonsensical in fact. The guy who came up with PCT called it "politics without romance."

The Economist: "James Buchanan, a Nobel Prize-winning economist and the architect of 'public choice theory'...eschewed the professions embrace of complex models and maths in favor of serious reflection on political philosophy...". Rock on! Dr. Buchanan.

So, in light of the above, and parts one and two, just what do I mean when I describe myself as a wild-eyed libertarian with a bleeding heart? I want a compromise, a social safety net that combines the best aspects of the private and public sector. See...

Ah geez, I've already broken the word limit...

Stickies (and gentlereaders), looks like there's gonna' be a part four. Two years and there's never been a part four before. Sorry, it's me, not you. I didn't plan it this way.

I don't plan. I just write, see what happens, clean it up or throw it away. Not as I would, but as I can. (Hey! I just invented a tagline?/motto?/_______?)

I pinky swear that not only will the next part be the last part I'll define my bleeding heart early on. I need to talk about some other shtuff. Poppa loves you.

Have an OK day.


[P.S. Gentlereaders, for 25¢ a week, no, seriously, for 25¢ a week you can become a Patron of this weekly column and help to prevent an old crank from running the streets at night in search of cheap thrills and ill-gotten gains.

If there are some readers out there that think my shtuff is worth a buck or three a month, color me honored, and grateful. Regardless, if you like it, could you please share it? There are buttons at the end of every column.]


©2017 Mark Mehlmauer   (The Flyoverland Crank)

If you're reading this on my website (where there are tons of older columns, a glossary, and other goodies) and if you wish to react (way cooler than liking) -- please scroll down.