Utterly Meaningless

“Kasic believes equal pay is mostly a non-issue, and that new legislation — like the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, or the Paycheck Fairness Act — is not needed to tackle any perceived problems. She argues that sponsors of such measures are “exploiting” the wage gap to advance their own agenda.”

So if there is no gap, these laws can sit on the books forever and just never be used. Sounds fine to me.

But someone wants to advance some agenda to help women. And I’m supposed to be against that?

Well, my poor little female brain just can’t understand why someone trying to help me is a bad thing. I’ll just go lie down before I get the vapors. . .

Nance

Some people don’t believe we need the government to protect us from every little thing. I don’t need my “daddy” to go after my employer that I CHOSE to work for. I can go after them myself and if they don’t hear me out, I can go get another job.

“The road to Hell is paved in good intentions”

This is not a conservative idea. This is a libertarian idea.

“One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation.”

“The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” – H.L. Mencken

Do you have any idea what problem the Ledbetter Act is attempting to fix?

I’ll save you the Googling. The Lilly Ledbetter Act aims to fix a terrible SCOTUS ruling in which a woman (Lilly Ledbetter) was illegally discriminated against in terms of salary. The men in her firm were paid more for identical work. When she learned this (after several years there) she immediately filed a complaint. The SCOTUS eventually ruled that she didn’t file in a timely manner. That the time limit had expired even though she didn’t learn of the discriminatory behavior until well after that deadline had passed. Just plain not what Congress intended. The Act under discussion now makes plain what Congress intended many years ago.

BYW, I should have mentioned that the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was signed into law in Jan. It was the first law signed by Obama.

And before commenting here on anything, Shayla should have mentioned that her blog links to Mimi Rothschild (never mind HSLDA.) She needs to do some Googling all right. . .

Sorry, just got my reading glasses from bedside. I meant to call out Shayrah, not “Shayla.”

Some of us, Shayrah, actually like it when our government is helpful and effective. Competence is a valued commodity, including the times our government gets something right.

Nance

You don’t need to be religious to be against the government regulating coices and private property. I’m atheist, anti-HSLDA, female, and I also support liberty–socially and fiscally, for individuals and companies. I do not support this law. Even if it might mean that companies are discriminatory. I would rather have freedom and risk than big government that feels OK telling people what they are allowed to do.

I understand that is a very unusual opinion and most people could not understand valuing liberty and freedom more than government interference.

Kim, I’m wondering how close you see your libertarianism to actual anarchy? I remember Cheryl Seelhoff explaining her own gentle kind of anarchy at NHEN once, I think in a wide-ranging discussion about “choice” in family matters (homeschooling, reproduction, marriage.) You’re right, very unusual but also very interesting to think about . . .

I understand that is a very unusual opinion and most people could not understand valuing liberty and freedom more than government interference.

Not that unusual, I guess. I was on the founding BoD for the Citizens for Voluntary Trade. But then my politics drifted a bit leftward.

(Thinking more as I wait for Kim) —

“Religious freedom” ideally is individual liberty, but in practice tends toward organization and then governance, in which religious leaders eventually exploit the illusion of individual freedom to literally rule a population. Similarly (seems to me) “corporate libertarianism” winds up being governance rather than freedom FROM governance, even “corporate cannibalism” in which the illusion of individual liberty from governance is tyrannically exploited by too-big-to-fail business overlords to run the whole world (into the ground?) sans individual choice or representation.

Perhaps America isn’t a current example of that but it sure is starting to feel that way. . .

When the individual’s only real “choice” is accepting exploitative governance or leaving the population (quitting the job, leaving the religion, renouncing citizenship) I wouldn’t call it “liberty and freedom over government interference. Quite the opposite.

Kim, I’m wondering how close you see your libertarianism to actual anarchy?

Not an anarchist at all. I am not part of the Libertarian Party. The Libertarian Party seems to be a catch-all for people who are anti-government or think that governments should compete like corporations. How ludicrous.

I believe a properly functioning government would enforce national security (not isolationism), protect property rights and contracts, protect people’s rights to life and liberty. I believe that it is right and proper for the government to have a monopoly on the use of force with individuals, of course, allowed to own firearms to protect themselves since the police force cannot possibly be everywhere.

I know that liberals consider money a form of force and I disagree. Without the power of military force, all interactions between individuals have to be consensual. That doesn’t guarantee that every choice is our favorite, nice, ‘fair,’ equal, or even right. I would rather allow for the possibility of people feeling ‘stuck’ in bad situations that can be changed by their choices rather than be in a situation by the military force of the government.

So — Objectivism then maybe? (which I always thought of as a little-l libertarianism form, am I wrong about that?)? Trying to understand, not label but floundering (duh!)

JJ,

On the nose! Yep–I like Ayn Rand’s philosophy very much. I won’t pretend that having the government extremely limited is a utopia, like I’ve heard many say. I find it moral, and not the alternative.

I was just sitting at a book club meeting with a bunch of women who were trying to determine whether or not the imminent socialist healthcare plan should treat 80 year-olds or at what percentage of survival-versus-cost to the government should they be cut off from medical care. They were talking about the life or death of someone else’s loved one using money from millions of people who know nothing about the sick person and betting that person’s life on whether or not THEY–this dissassociated group of women who feel they can be empowered with such a decisions because of their intelligence and ‘caring’– think it’s a worthwhile investment. Cold, presumptuous, and elitist was more my opinion of them and their sentencing.

Objectivism is libertarian-ish while hating the Libertarian Party as a bunch of no-defense anarchists without a cohesive principle. Did you know there are ‘Libertarians for Life?’

I don’t mind being labeled correctly, so good call! I didn’t think the philosophy was that well known.

Skip Oliva, who founded CVT referenced above, is also an Objectivist. IIRC, he’s not particularly a fan of the Ayn Rand organization. He used to post here every once in a while.

I’ve never checked out CVT. Sounds about right!

I always thought that if I’d been under the Russian thumb (or bootheel as the case may be) then I would certainly prefer Objectivism to reality, and if I were a slave then Christianity would look like blessed deliverance.

Or if I’d been abused in my own family, or fallen into some form of self-abuse that I needed rescuing from — alcoholism etc —

But without any of that, it’s harder to understand the appeal. For me I mean.