The Ultimate Discrimination

October 25, 2000

The Democrats---those members of the Democrat/Republican party most skilled at politics---are arguing for an increase in the minimum wage, and they will get it. The Republican faction dare not even suggest anything approaching limits to government wealth-redistribution policies during an election year, when such a stodgy and hide-bound attitude would cost them dearly at the polls.

A few have wondered why, if boosting the minimum wage by a buck will benefit the poor, we don't boost it by five or ten bucks, and wipe out poverty altogether. Of course, this question is never seriously debated by the government or its supporters, who simply disdain to consider it. The term "frivolous" may be used: a shibboleth of the fascists when confronted by a simple argument which is simply unanswerable. An even smaller number may question the authority of government to dictate the terms of employment between one private individual or company and another, but that position is so utterly out of synch with modern political theory that its advocates risk hospitalization for shock therapy. Uncle could provide it at his facility in Springfield, Missouri, where dirty brains are washed.

But there are other considerations. If Uncle Sam gets his knickers in a bunch at the thought of people working for "too little" money, he becomes equally frazzled by the prospect of discrimination. There has been inadequate attention paid to the discriminatory aspect of the minimum wage, or wages in general.

In the "good old days," people worked for money. And those who first produced the money worked for it too. Indeed, they worked very hard, even risking their lives. This, plus the intrinsic utility of the money they mined, gave it a value worth working for. When you received a packet of coins at the end of the week, it was because you had worked to obtain it, just as the initial producer of that material had worked to obtain it. Perhaps the worker never thought of it in those terms, but it was, nonetheless, true: nobody got money for nothing. Nobody was discriminated against. Work for work.

Today, in our enlightened, progressive, age, things are altogether different. The worker still toils for "money," but he cannot define it, describe it, or analyze it. In fact, he may be paid via the "electronic transfer of funds," which means that his compensation is added to his bank balance each payday, automatically: a transfer of electronic signals through a wire, via computer. Who "mines" or otherwise creates, these electronic signals? What work is done to produce them? It would seem that the originator of this "money" obtains it for nothing, and that's where the discrimination comes in. Why should you work for what the banker gets for nothing? Even if one is paid via the old time-honored method of a check, the number on that check----the "money"----was originally created de novo by a banker making a loan to someone. What work was involved? Does the banker work ten times harder crediting an account with a thousand dollars, compared with a hundred? Is there another occupation which rewards the "worker" ten, or a thousand, times more for doing the same thing?

It's high time we become sophisticated enough to divorce our thinking from the antiquated concept of working for money Already, in the form of welfare, that separation is implicit. But why should there be discrimination in the awarding of income? Ultimately, the question must be faced: Why should ANYONE be required to work?

The answer which you would be given today is: to obtain income, of course. But, as we have seen, "income" can be created with the stroke of a pen, or automatically generated and distributed by computer. The source of this income; indeed, the source of all modern money, is the banking system. If there is any work done in obtaining it, that work is minimal indeed, but the rewards are very great. In other words, discrimination. Millions toil to obtain what the banker or the welfare recipient get for nothing. Why should there be discrimination against workers? The evil, which the proponents of the increased minimal wage claim to be fighting, is not that some are paid too little for their work, but rather, that they need work at all! The electronic blips flow through the wires automatically; why should one work to obtain them? To cover the costs of the computers, programmers, buildings, wires, etc.? Ah, but those are "paid for" with the blips themselves! In other words, if you could create what passed for money, would you concern yourself with the "cost" of the equipment needed to produce it? That's like worrying about the high cost of gasoline when you can pay for a tankful by returning a cup of it.

I anticipate your question: if we can all have income without working for it (as justice demands!!) who's going to make the steel, grow the food, mine the coal, drive the trucks, teach, etc.? The answer is simple, but may be shocking to the politically naïve: slaves. America has the clout to seize and put to work various people, and it would be perfectly lawful—the laws being whatever the rulers say they are. If the term "slavery" offends, then we shall change it. How about "prisoners?" We have such an abundance of laws, and they are so complex and confusing, that lawbreakers can easily be found if we make even the slightest effort to look. If "prisoners" still sounds too harsh, why not "volunteers?" The IRS, after all, continues to insist that our tax system is voluntary, even while prosecuting and jailing those who fail to volunteer. Words, after all, are devices to be used with skill and discernment. Virtually anyone can be convicted on a tax charge, so our jails will never lack volunteers who could learn to keep the wheels of society turning.

What if we ran out of volunteers, or they rebelled, as we recently saw in France and England, regarding fuel costs? Well, we could return, I suppose, to the barbaric practice of providing goods and services in return for some THING, i.e., money; or we could learn to accept, in return for imaginary money, imaginary food, clothing, and shelter. But the discrimination of requiring some people to actually toil for something that its creators get for nothing is not acceptable. Onward and upward to the brave new world which beckons! Fiat can buy it for us!

In 1792 the U.S. Congress adopted a bimetallic standard (gold and silver) for the new nation's currency - with gold valued at $19.30 per troy ounce

Gold Eagle twitter                Like Gold Eagle on Facebook