Being entitled to one’s own opinions vs. one’s facts
Part of what makes this country great is the institutional freedom of religion. It manifests itself in the phrase, “I’m entitled to my own opinion on god and spirituality and I don’t have to worry about the government.” Many other countries do not allow for this entitlement, whether by laws or societal pressures.
Unfortunately, this entitlement to one’s own religious beliefs has been inappropriately applied to any and all political issues, whether it should or not. Any issue involving public policy or politicians has become “politics” which I find ridiculous. An example of a political issue is how to correctly collect taxes in all forms. It is very hard to be 100% conclusive on the best method, and different logical opinions are acceptable, and I believe individuals are entitled to differing opinions. Another would be the question of when life begins. All rational, open-minded people can agree that an ovum is not a life subject to the laws and protection of the state, but a baby in a delivery room cut from the umbilical cord is a life subject to the laws and protection of the state. In between those two points lies political opinions, which individuals are entitled to.
Absence of evidence
Today, a political issue is anything that Republicans and Democrats argue about. Let me be clear; this is preposterous. Sometimes the Republicans are 100% correct and the Democrats are 100% wrong. Sometimes the Democrats are 100% correct and the Republicans are 100% wrong. The fact that two politicians are fighting over something does not make them entitled to their own “beliefs.” Politics in the strict sense and religion can only be based on beliefs in the absence of evidence.
If you have evidence that directly contradicts your political “belief,” your belief is WRONG. You are entitled to your fantasy, but don’t preach some moral equivalence about everyone being entitled to their beliefs. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs, but no one is entitled to their facts. If you claim to believe in a lie, you’re either ignorant or a liar. You have no right to announce it uncontested under the veil of “entitlement.”
Example of a belief: “I believe God has a beard.”
Example of an untrue fantasy: “I believe the government is better at reducing costs than the competition of the free market.”
The political arena has degraded so much that the second example is afforded as much credence as the first by tagging them both as “beliefs.” The first example is a belief that cannot be verified or disputed, so it is a legitimate “belief.” The second example is a statement that can be disputed by looking at historical accounts of multiple governments. There is no evidence to support the second statement, but endless data disputing it.
Illustration of competition
Imagine a country where one company sells candy bars. It has decided that a candy bar should cost $5. Let’s say it costs $2 to make it available to the public. Some people think this is too much, but there is nowhere else to get candy bars.
Insert a second company. It finds a way to make that same candy bar for only $1.75, and charges $4.75. Everyone starts buying their candy bar, and to avoid losing all its business, Company #1 starts charging $4.75, but makes less money.
Insert a third company. It also costs them $1.75 to make it, but they decide they don’t need as much profit, so they only charge $4.
Extend this scenario out to hundreds or thousands of companies in hundreds of different industries and you will see why a government monopoly is COMPLETELY incapable of reducing costs as efficiently as a free market. I am open to logical counter-arguments if you can find one.
Believing that a government can reduce costs better is simply wishful thinking that will get you nowhere. All they can do is set prices, not costs. Most likely, people choose to believe it because if it were true, than their ideological goal would be easier to reach. The ends justify the means. The fact that it is false does not concern the ideologue. [By the way, feel free to show me evidence that contradicts my assertion. I welcome facts and logic.]
False compassion of the minimum wage
Another “belief” that seems to be held by most of both political parties is that raising the minimum wage is “compassionate.” A wage is the price of labor, no different than the price of a candy bar or a car. It is worth what it is worth. If licking 100 stamps and placing them on envelopes saves someone $5, that is what it is worth. It is irrelevant if you think someone should be paid $10 for that task. If you force everyone to pay that person $10 when it is only worth $5, no one will be hired to lick stamps. Artificially raising the price of labor with a minimum wage does not change the actual benefit of that labor. It is no different than the disastrous price controls that the government has tried to utilize in the past, causing lines at gas stations. Raising the minimum wage is the opposite of compassionate.
Michigan Democrats are trying to raise the minimum wage in the state from $7 to $10. Any labor worth $8 per hour will not occur, or companies will figure out how to automate it. If it is worth $8, and the employer pays someone $10, he will lose $2. Do that long enough, and he will go out of business, causing the employees to be unemployed so that no one is making $10 or $8. Again, if you can point out an error or omission in my facts or logic, I welcome it.
Beliefs exist in a vacuum of knowledge or evidence. Once someone shows you evidence that your belief is incorrect, your belief should disappear. Anything less is a state of denial in pursuit of not having to deal with cognitive dissonance. And so this public acceptance of entitlement to beliefs has led to being told never to speak about religion AND politics in polite company. Most issues currently considered politics should not be such, and people should have the utmost comfort discussing them in pursuit of dispelling pernicious myths.