At a high-risk retail location such as the one I have been working at these past three years there comes a time when you are asked to be both a security guard for the products you sell and fence for the thieves that steal them.
All-day long you are on the lookout for those that might be trying to shoplift. It's usually pretty obvious and the company expects us to thwart these no-goodnicks by simply offering them amazing customer service which is actually just direct, unwavering observation, assistance, and silent harassment. While you are attempting to thwart injustice you get called away to help a real customer and without constant observation, the thief strikes and soon, you watch them walk out and half the time they set off the buzzers at the front of the store. It's too late and they've struck again and everyone looks at each other as if we've lost another one. We have failed in our half-assed attempts to thwart the criminal from stealing the master's property.
Secretly, but not that secretly, the masters don't really expect you stop most of the attempts. They expect the store to reach a certain amount of predictable loss (shrink) and it's more important to sell something and make money than to worry about petty theft. Even not-so-petty theft is acceptable as long as it isn't perpetrated by the employees.
It gets so that when a man walks out with $400 worth of electronics or an entire $1000 laptop it's just the cost of doing business. The police may or may not be notified. I just hope they never pull a gun and go for the cash. Sometimes there is a ton of cash. But they know that it's a major crime to rob someone and they also know that shoplifting is such a minor offense that most folks won't try to stop them. And if you try to stop them with force you can get fired so you just have to watch them walk out with someone else's property. You think that it's your job to stop them and to protect your own job security and to protect the companies interest and if you care about the store you work in, the other people that you work with and adhere to general community ethics then you feel like it is the same as stealing from you. It could easily be you anyway.
Then, just after watching one leave another one enters. This one you haven't seen before but they certainly look the part. They look shady as fuck and walk straight to the return line and hand the cashier a bunch of random shit that was obviously stolen. Sometimes they come up with some excuse like their grandma bought the products a few weeks ago and now she just doesn't need $250 worth of Epson ink that just happens to be sitting on the shelf nearby unprotected. Your grandma spent over $200 dollars on ink she didn't need? Or the one with ten random day-planners that no one has ever purchased in those numbers before and happens to be the most expensive options when they don't look like they've spent more than $10 on their clothing, backpack, oversized coat, and two huge handbags.
There is a rule that managers can refuse a return but managers aren't the ones at the registers most of the time. The ones at the register are typically younger, less experienced and barely trained. They don't understand the policy and since they are intimidated by both customers and managers they can't make complicated decisions about which policies to hold more strictly and which ones to break completely. They don't know how to professionally refuse the obviously douchey person trying to get money from nothing and some management teams might say to just do the return and some might say to use their best judgment.
The return policy also requires a receipt for a return except that telling someone that legitimately bought $100 purse just a day earlier that you won't give them a refund because they don't have a receipt is near suicide as they will either tell a higher-up that you were rude or they will just continue to argue with you until you just give up or they will say your racist or sexist or some other crazy shit. Dealing with an angry customer is no fun and to be avoided at all costs, for the most part. Having enough experience to understand when a customer crosses the line and demanding that they leave or you'll call the cops takes time to develop and the brand new cashier will just take the abuse most of the time until a manager steps in.
Ultimately the policies should be straightforward. They should be easy for the customer and for the cashier. It shouldn't be a guessing game or a complicated algorithm of whether or not the customer deserves a break this time either because they are super nice or obnoxiously demanding. Managers should be able to make decisions about who is not a real customer and security should either be a priority or not. It feels like a priority but it really isn't.
The contradiction occurs when someone thinks that the company wants to enforce laws. Companies, especially the largest companies, would rather the government never gets involved. Only when the problem becomes too costly do they resort to the police. This is due to two factors, as I see it. One is that companies and governments don't always mix well. Government's tax companies and inflict regulations that can make it difficult to do what the company wants and challenge what might make them more money.
The second reason is that people know that the government and especially the street cops are not going to stop petty crime. They probably won't even show up. They don't have time and the cost is not worth it. It is technically a crime but so is loitering, littering and public indecency. The "man" doesn't have the men to enforce all the laws. Companies have security systems but those are not usually reactive and some companies have a security guard and if it is really important they will have more guards and real guns but balancing the cost a human guard and the liability involved is complicated. It isn't usually worth the fight when it comes to petty theft.
When you work in an area that has extreme poverty and crime is rampant, especially petty crimes you see the stark difference between those vagrants and the majority of folks that are decent enough not to steal from you or show up too drunk and don't do hard drugs in the bathroom. These are the people to give great customer service and should be the real focus of the team but it is very distracting to have to judge all that come into the store in an effort to work as a deterrent to the baddies.
It is demoralizing and confusing to be expected to be both the security guard and the fence. To watch people walk out with product just to have them or someone that looks like them bring it back and put it on the counter and lie to you makes you feel the opposite of empowered. They say that they bought the product but you know they didn't and you were always taught that lying and stealing are bad and that heroes stop criminals and the right thing to do is to expose liars. Well, too bad. Just ask them for their ID and don't cause a ruckus and the corporate masters will deal with it in their way. Just go back to selling and signing people up for harassment emails and giving people undeserved discounts because they say the word "coupon" in some configuration that passes as a sentence and trying to explain how shit works to people who don't give a shit about how it works, they just want it to work.
Working with the general public can be a frustrating mess and most people do not understand the hardships that the lowly floor staff deal with on a daily basis. The main goal of a business is to make a profit and in that pursuit, they need to maintain a positive reputation. This means erring on the side of the customer and not doing things that lead to negative press or legal action. This means that associates take on the complicated task of representing a companies interest even if the ones who make the rules never know who those associates are.
There are two types of power that groups attain. The first comes from the power of physical dominance. This power is where "might makes right" and is the source of the government's power. Then there is the power that comes from wealth. This is the power that comes from trade. Capitalism has created financial powers that rival that of nations and while both are corruptable only one source of power is rooted in volunteerism. Because the government's power comes from the threat and enacting of force it's power is predicated on violence and subjugation. What can we do to fight the corruption that a system based on violence and subjugation creates?
Can we protest? Can we revolt? Can we withdraw support?
Then, we look at the corruption that arises from the capitalists such as fraud, subjugation, and manipulation. What can we do to fight this sort of corruption?
Can we protest? Can we revolt? Can we withdraw support?
To protest is to speak out to others and expose corruption.
To revolt is to enact force and violence which tends to result in more destruction.
To withdraw support is to cut off the source of the corruption's power.
Capitalism is fundamentally the free exchange of value and has the potential to create good, bad and neutral moral outcomes. Strip it of its corrupt bits and you are left with a voluntary system where both members must agree and therefore have the opportunity to end up mutually better for the exchange.
Governments exist to consolidate power and enforce an order. They rely on compulsory adherence and contain a range of involvement from its people from few to many. From dictatorships to democracies they are all based force. Strip away a government of its corruption and what do you have? I'm not sure you can strip corruption away from a system predicated on violence. I'm also not sure how to ensure the free exchange of value without an agent enforces the rules of free exchange. I'm not sure one exists without the other. Even a black market has to have some arbitrator of disputes or do they simply resort to violence? So then the black market is a hybrid between a free market and a collection of small sub-governmental factions (the mob, gangs, etc...) fighting for capital.
Ultimately it comes down to individual interactions. When a person decides to engage in violence as a means to an end they are choosing a chaotic position. One that if it were to be made universal would justify violence for all. If one chooses to engage in free exchange then they are choosing a peaceful moral position. One that if it were made universal would justify peace for all. How do we get more to engage in free exchanges of value (volunteerism) instead of violent exchanges? How do we get nations to choose peace? Are the "better angels" of our nature going to win out or has humanity always been a back and forth between chaos and peace?
Is violence the opposite of order or is it how order is attained? How do we know if the violence is justified? You would hate to find out later that you were on the wrong side of history. That your war was unjust and that you created more suffering and misery.
Where does pacifism lead? To never defend your self or others seems to allow evil to rule. But if after evil takes power they create order then does it cease to be evil? How can something founded on evil actions not be corrupt at its core and inevitably lead toward more evil?
Is the existence of the nuclear bomb the inevitable outcome of the struggle between chaos and order; peace and corruption? Representing the pinnacle of control and power over nature and each other. Or is it just about defense and survival and there is no evil. There is only to live and die. For what wouldn't you do to protect yourself and loved ones? What is evil when it is life and death? One can not be an angel if one is dead. But the same is true of devils.
I don't fully understand what the goal of this article is. I was watching a lot of online personalities talking about all the societal conflicts that exist in America and in other countries and I kept thinking that while we often talk about the benefits of diversity we do not always talk about the negative side when it comes to a specific type of diversity; diversity of ideology and moral philosophy. There are belief systems that we adopt in an effort to succeed in communities and families and as individuals and when these beliefs are directly threatened by others we feel the need to defend our "side" of the argument. It's important that others know where our moral boundaries are because they represent our strategies for living and thriving so it is no wonder that they are fought for so dearly.
So what can I do to understand the circumstances and perspectives that lead to so much conflict? What can be done when so many hold so many others as the "enemy" of their way of life? This article is an investigation into my own thinking about the social conflicts I see represented mainly by the media I consume. I insert videos and articles in sections to give readers an additional source of information as well as to make the article more entertaining. I hope you enjoy this haphazard romp through my mind under the influence of online media.
1. Inside America
A. Protests Do modern protests work? In my mind, it doesn't seem that anyone is changing their minds based on what is said or done at protests. There are countless YouTube channels dedicated to showing off how stupid and uninformed protestors are from all sides. Protestors don't seem to want to debate or persuade the other side. Their message is one of self-righteous bullying with screaming, destruction, violence and provocation. No one in power seems to care what these people want and nothing productive comes from them.
So, why do people form large groups, stand around public areas and accomplish nothing? I think it is partly due to the idolization of prior public figures who, in the past, gained prominence through protests. People like Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi are touted as historical heroes for their roles in generating awareness around an issue on a large scale through their use of protests which garnered public solidarity. It is also partly due to the massive entitled immaturity and megalomaniacal personalities of many of the protestors.
Modern protestors do not have the same kind of morally salient principles that famous advocates such as Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi had. These prior protestors based their grievances on rational moral arguments such as legal equality, taxation, and freedom. Today's protestors already benefit from a radically more equal and free society so when they fight for values such as endless immigration, radical socialism, and identity politics it doesn't have the same moral weight as in the past. Modern protestors do not make the kinds of persuasive arguments required for their causes to have an impact on the general public especially when the outrage seems out of proportion with what they fight for.
Protestors who demand that others bend to their will via government policy are immature because they don't understand that others do not want to subjugate themselves to the will of others and they are megalomaniacal because they imagine themselves as so morally righteous that they are willing to use force to enact their desires. They would rather demand the government cow-tow to their desires to enforce their rules and their whims without oversight or justification. Instead of appealing to individual freedom and moral reasoning they appeal to authority to solve the issues they claim without fully thinking about the consequences of enacting such regulations. Also, the government doesn't work on behalf of screaming groups. The checks and balances of the government, while often times slow to change and corrupted by power, at least offer a process for analyzing proposed policies on behalf of all the people instead of just enacting dictatorial mandates from small groups.
The only protests that seem to work come from a peaceful demonstration founded on moral reasoning that gives voice to groups of people who were previously unorganized. Government policies should not be determined based on the emotional outcries of entitled college students and irrational maniacs. If people use screaming, force and violence to accomplish their goals they will only get resistance from those that value civil discourse. Only through moral reasoning will the masses be convinced that a cultural change is necessary and it is only when it is in the government's best interest that it will respond to changing cultural expectations.
An example of this is the recent federal change in marriage laws for gay people. It took years of people discussing the moral underpinnings and practical implications of gay rights before enough people agreed and for the federal government to make a major change in the laws. This is how democracies work. They take time, argumentation and general agreement for change to occur which requires patience and reasoning on behalf of those who care to make America a better place.
B. Political Conflicts (Left Vs. Right) I have been watching a lot of YouTube videos of Jonathan Haidt explaining the differences between the left and the right. What I have gathered is that they both offer important perspectives regarding how societies should organize policies. One issue, I see, is the lack of balance in each approach. Too much collectivism, as pursued on the left, leads toward the subjugation of the individual, excesses in wealth distribution, authoritarianism and denial of the corruptible nature of humans in power. Leftists believe that if only the societal environment were more perfect then so would be the people be within it. Unfortunately, the only way to control the societal environment is through engineering and control. Hence, they see the government's role as being the force for that control.
Alternatively, the conservation of status quo policies and purity, as pursued on the right leads to another form of authoritarianism which doesn't allow for changing ethical considerations, global cooperation, and secular values. In their pursuit of order and tradition, the right has a hard time adapting to new information, especially when it has religious or cultural implications. This thinking leads toward policies that discriminate against those who do not fit into the tradition or those who pursue more hedonistic endeavors. The right wants to use the government to confirm dissidents to their frame of reference and maintain the purity of a system that they see as moral and effective. Gay rights, drug laws, and foreign policy come to mind as things the right hasn't dealt with well in the past.
While traditionally conservatives have supported smaller government intervention and liberals have supported freedom the current political expectation seems to be in how each party can spend more of the public's money in the way they see fit. Even the designations I am using, right and left, exemplifies the divide between the principles each party grounds their policy strategies. They are opposites, mutually exclusive and therefore zero-sum. If one wins the other loses and since both believe so strongly in their positions they are willing to fight (hopefully not to the death) for their ideas. How can a government move forward for the people if the people running it have opposing goals?
There are three solutions to this division that I think might help. One is to give each side less power over the other. Lessen the role of government as the libertarian's desire and force people to deal with each other on a more individualistic basis. The second way is to help those of one political bent or the other see the similarities that exist between the two groups. Focus on shared goals and common threats in order to bind America together. The third idea is to promote compromise and humility. Both groups need to recognize the limitations of their philosophies and work toward balancing the conversation using evidence and morality as a guide.
Here is a Ted Talk Jonathan Haidt gave about the division between the Left and Right.
C. Ideological Conflicts (Communism Vs. Capitalism) Ideology is the underlying system of beliefs that inform a person or group's perspective on fundamental values. Where morals describe specific dispositions toward right and wrong, ideology describes the matrix in which morals intermingle and influence each other and inform broader decisions and behavior. Just like the divide between the political left and right, opposing ideological principles cause many of the conflicts that we see growing inside of America today. It is in the fundamental philosophical dispositions that we judge actions and make decisions. When two groups have opposing solutions to big problems it is our shared ideologies that, as Jonathan Haidt says, "Binds and blinds" us together and keeps us compromising with the "other".
Take, for instance, the concepts of capitalism and communism. These are opposing value systems that inform political policies and social interactions. They impose rules for behavior and dictate levels of state power and allocation of resources. Capitalism relies on principles such as respect for property rights, individual ownership of resources, trade (with varying degrees of regulation), prices are generally determined by markets, voluntary association, and individuality. These principles inherently produce financial inequality but distribute financial power among more people (groups) allowing for more fluctuations in both failure and success.
Communism explicitly opposes the principles of capitalism in that communism relies on central power and decision making based on the assumption that decisions about resource allocation can be done perfectly if only it were under a singular control. Communism requires that property and thus resources be controlled by a small group of decision-makers, trade is replaced with rations, prices are determined via committee, no freedom of association and focuses on the forest (group), neglecting the needs of the trees (individuals).
So, how can people within a country that hold such fundamentally opposing ideologies ever get along? If they can't then what can be done? During the Cold War, the negative effects of the communist philosophy were actively resisted and persecuted, potentially to the detriment of individual freedom but for reasons of maintaining the system that has produced massive increases in wealth and standards of living that all classes have benefited from. It is ironic that those that hold the group above the individual (communism) would accept a philosophy that requires everything to be controlled by a central agency. (Communism requires distribution of resources based on needs and therefore some agent must calculate those needs.)
Where do ideologies come from? I think the first place to look is in childhood, where people are first introduced to moral concepts. There is a reason that most religious people adhere to the religion of their parents. Parents play a major role in determining the kinds of environments, conversations, and interactions that shape how children develop their moral philosophies. If parents promote collectivism over individuality they are priming their child for a worldview conducive to communism. This isn't to say that understanding the benefits of community and compassion for others is not a virtue but when it takes precedence over the individual it can lead to a top-down approach to society as opposed to the bottom up ideation of focusing on the individual first.
Schools are also responsible for shaping the minds of children but there is so much to say about the systematic problems with the American public school system that I do not know where to start. Teachers tend to be women, women tend to lean left, which leans communistic, for one (I know this is a huge generalization). K-12 schools do not focus on philosophy, logic, argumentation or morality and if they did it would probably produce outcomes as mediocre as the current system produces in terms of performance, life skills, and promoting individual potential. It seems that post-high school academia is the biggest culprit of promoting anti-capitalistic ideologies. Colleges are primarily run by those on the left and those that see the government as the answer to society's problems and thus many college students begin to learn about how communism, in its "ideal form", would produce a utopia that we would all benefit from.
I think as time goes by and people see the disadvantages of traditional school systems a more diverse and practical system will emerge, primarily online. People will be less indoctrinated by public schools and colleges, leading toward a more balanced and practical acceptance of moral philosophies that do not require massive government control. At least that is my hope. Again, it comes down to balance. A system that has no room for individual freedom of choice skews the world toward slavery and a system that is void of order leaves no room for stability. Without the rule of law trade can not thrive but with too many restrictions there can be no peace.
Here is an article about moral conflicts and how difficult they are to resolve.
Moral or Value Conflicts
By Michelle Maiese
Originally Published July, 2003; Current Implications section added by Heidi Burgess in April 2017.
A. Personality Personality plays a major role in how we interact with the world and it has a high genetic component. Where personality describes a person's character and interactions with the world in general, which takes into consideration all possible interactions, political attitudes describe a person's attitudes toward a more narrow set of situations; those that are social and hierarchical. Political attitudes dictate one's orientation toward how people should behave in a society and how the government should influence and regulate those behaviors.
Going into this section I assumed that it was a simple task to bridge the gap between personality and politics. I assumed that those that were more conservative would be more orderly, conscientious, and stable. I assumed that those that identified as liberal would be more open to experience, compassionate, and agreeable but after reading a couple of scholarly articles (listed below) I found that the correlation between personality traits and political behavior may be due to an underlying genetic variable that influences both. This does not change the relevance of the correlation but indicates a stronger and more primitive genetic influence in individual dispositions.
Taking into consideration that, based on the paper "Correlation no Causation"(linked below) , the genetic component accounts for roughly 50% for both personality traits and political attitudes we can better understand how people come to their beliefs and how they might be changed. This understanding should allow us to not be so angry with others knowing that they are not in complete control of their genetic predispositions or the environment they were born into. This does not mean that people aren't accountable and adults who have had exposure to moral arguments have an opportunity to go against the grain and align themselves with better ideologies. If people can better understand the influences on their ideologies they can better resist those that are not morally justifiable and hopefully be open to alternative ideas.
Here is a YouTube clip of Jordan Peterson discussing personality and political leanings.
Here are a couple of interesting articles that discuss personality and politics. This is a huge topic so I might write more about it in the future. For now, I offer some things to ponder.
Recently, in my investigation into ideology and politics, I have come across someone that seems to have a great understanding of human behavior and how it relates to both psychology and evolution. The following YouTube video is by Jonathan Haidt and describes how the individual evolved a reliance on the social world for meaning. Check it out and see what you think.
I think the only reason I bring up male and female differences here is to give a little context to why the two sexes differ on average in certain areas of life but I don't think that women and men differ on fundamental goals. In societies that are wealthy enough to concentrate on more abstract concepts we can argue about how to better things but when it comes down to it men and women need each other and our species cannot continue to thrive without cooperation between the sexes. We should celebrate the evolutionary advantages that the two sexes have been specialized to excel at and we should not pretend that all men and women are the same just like we shouldn't pretend that all people are the same. Also, keep in mind that statistical averages and tendencies do not dictate behavior, they only generalize observations about behavior. Statistics describe the past and individuals dictate the future. It is up to everyone to determine what they think is the right behavior in each moment and with better understanding people might be able to make better decisions that benefit themselves and others.
One statistical difference between men and women is their differing orientations toward people and things. Women tend to focus on endeavors that involve the nurturing, facilitation and the maintenance of people. This explains why they are over-represented in medical and social services, education and administrative assistance and why women are more likely to adopt political attitudes that have to do with helping people such as social programs, equal rights, and other liberal policies. Men tend to focus on things, so they lean toward endeavors that involve technology, transportation, and management. This last one seems like it would be a female endeavor because management often entails people but I think men end up in management because they treat the team as a system or machine. They can take the emotional aspect out of the equation and look at each person as a part of a system that's goal is effectiveness and efficiency, not as individual personal successes. This tendency is good for assessing the allocation of labor but not in maintaining morale. That is why good HR policies help facilitate work relationships and good managers do not neglect the human side of the business.
The feminine and masculine are the two sides of life. The yin and yang. The order and the chaos. The emotional and the rational. Just like everything else, balance requires the acceptance and understanding of other's feminine and masculine tendencies as well as your own feminine and masculine tendencies. Also, understanding how men and women differ in their communication styles can help forgo needless arguments and misunderstandings. There are many resources for understanding how men and women differ with respect to communication styles, expectations and goals so I recommend looking into to these differences to better understand how other's think and behave to understand what goes wrong in relationships whether at work, at home or in society. Anything that can help 50% of the population get along with the other 50% of the population seems helpful, although, I admit, it's probably not the biggest problem in America.
This YouTube clip discusses some of the differences that men and women have regarding social expectations and communication.
In the following Youtube clip, Jordan Peterson talks about how the sexes diverge when given the freedom to choose their occupation.
*The following article is not necessarily the one being referenced in the YouTube clip above. It is just one study I found that backs up the claim that Jordan Peterson is talking about.
Gender Differences in Personality Traits Across Cultures: Robust and Surprising Findings Paul T. Costa Jr., Antonio Terracciano, and Robert R. McCrae National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health
A. Narratives and Persuasion The first step to peace is the denial of force as a means to enact change. If we accept this axiom then we are left with the difficult task of persuading others through words. This is where argumentation and debate become valuable and essential to society. This rests on the right to freedom of speech which should not be taken for granted. The following podcast discusses moral argumentation in an informed way and talks about the power of narrative to help persuade others. If one can frame an issue in a way that is both relevant and relatable by using real-world examples, appealing to strongly held beliefs and not using insults one can persuade others without alienating them or attacking their identity.
B. Jonathan Haidt: How common threats can make common (political) ground
4. Closing Thoughts
A. Ascetic Preferences Vs. Justifiable Force (Morals and Laws)
On important factor to think about is the difference between what we would prefer people do and what we are willing to force people to do. We should not take lightly the application of force, especially through the rule of law. Nearly any law, if it is enforced, means the potential for violent outcomes and therefore we should take seriously those laws we promote. Also, keeping in mind that once a law is created it is nearly impossible to retract.
B. Religion?
I'm not mentioning religious differences much here because it is such a big topic that it deserves its own article and because others have discussed it thoroughly. Just google religious conflicts and you will get your fill. Obviously, people are passionate about religion and religious ideas are a large cause for conflict but the purpose of this article was to investigate things that I have not spent as much time on and to understand something new.
C. This last section contains the thoughts that sparked this blog article as well as additional media to ponder.
When you look at a population in terms of diversity of ethnicity, color or culture you will notice degrees of integration. Integration and harmony only come from shared value systems. Ethical boundaries have to be respected for individuals to get along so when people hold compatible belief systems they can collaborate and work productively.
Instead of focusing on the diversity of race, ethnicity, and culture we should be focusing on what we all have in common. What are our goals as individuals and as groups? Differences among us can be characterized as either superficial and insignificant or deep and important, and the distinction is important. In order to get along, we must be honest about what we care about and think hard about what we have in common. If it is nothing then we will fight and if it is everything then we are the same.
In a society whose population is less integrated, it can be presumed that there are conflicting value systems guiding individuals in each group. Individuals look out for the group and have to make moral judgments on behalf of the community. It is only individuals that can act.
People do not want diversity. A diversity of value systems causes conflict. What we really want is a shared value system that binds us in peace. We are all displaying our value systems and groups take on the value systems of their followers.
Why focus on differences? Shouldn't we focus on similarities? Like shared values and ethics. What happens when two groups hold opposing values? For example, if one values freedom and another values slavery. How can they ever work together? Why should one be a slave to the other?
Moral or Value Conflicts
By Michelle Maiese
Originally Published July, 2003; Current Implications section added by Heidi Burgess in April 2017.
Wealth inequality is not a problem. Poverty, violence, force, coercion, child abuse. Those are problems but the fact that Bill Gates has a billion dollars in his bank account and I have a thousand dollars in my bank account isn't a problem. We are both doing fine. The only way for anyone, other Bill Gates or myself, to even out those two statistics is to use force.
So what are you willing to do to force equality? After you create this universal policy of wealth distribution will you feel the same when they come to take your earnings and property to enact your "just" prescription? Or are you only happy to take from other's?
What makes people think that they are capable or qualified to solve other people's problems? How is it that twenty year olds, who have never had a job, think that they have solved anything in the way of social prosperity? Why do people think that their way should be forced onto others and if only they were in charge it would all get better? Why is everyone so interested in forcing others to do and think their way?
Freedom depends on people not using force to solve their problems. Freedom from coercion, violence, theft and fraud allow people to thrive. Free trade and capitalism, in spite of corruption by the government, has led the western world to a level of prosperity like none other in history and yet so many demean it's values and deny it's by-products.
