You’ve probably had a boss who was a jerk. Indeed, you may be working under a jerk of a boss right now. Question: Would it be a good idea to pass an Anti-Jerk Law to protect workers from these jerky employers? Like existing employment discrimination laws, the Anti-Jerk Law would allow aggrieved employees to sue their employer for jerkiness – and received handsome compensation if they prove their charge in a court of law. I doubt many people would endorse this Anti-Jerk Law. On what basis, though, would they object?
During the Euromaidan protests, journalists routinely described Ukraine’s prosecution and imprisonment of Yulia Tymoshenko as “politically motivated.” The phrasing always struck me as odd. If she were innocent, you’d expect journalists to call the charges “trumped-up” or “false.” And this “politically motivated” meme is still going strong.* Which raises a general question: When people dismiss […]
You probably should generally remove the word “need” from your vocabulary. The term is an emotional trump word that makes it so people don’t critically examine a subtle weighing of values.
A great deal of seemingly dead-serious conflict is occurring in the USA (and other countries). Trumpers versus Bidenistas; lockdowners versus anti-lockdowners; pro-abortionists versus anti-abortionists; and so forth.
WHY PEOPLE ESPOUSE THE STATE: Because they believe that anarchy won’t work or because they are evil.
Most research on the economics of discrimination focuses on race and gender, but Becker’s framework works equally well for political bigotry.
Truly patriotic education can only be achieved in a constitutional, and therefore patriotic, manner.
A brigade of pearl-clutching, virtue-signaling, cancel-culture keyboard warriors wants you to know that Cuties (Mignonnes — it’s actually a French film) is a bad, bad movie that no one should watch and that Netflix should immediately remove from its lineup.
What’s afoot? Orwellian doublethink of the highest order. Sure, the hated 1950 Loyalty Oath seems far less onerous than the new Diversity and Inclusion Vow. But the people who refused to sign the 1950 Oath were heroes standing up for freedom of conscience. The people who question today’s orthodoxy, in contrast, are hate-mongers who need to be excluded from high-skilled employment.
When you undergo a medical procedure or volunteer for a research study, you’re presented with forms to sign, outlining what’s going to happen (and what bad things could happen), and expressly consenting to have those things happen. If you’re accused of rape, “he or she didn’t physically resist” isn’t an acceptable defense. In fact, express consent is the emerging standard, sometimes to seemingly ridiculous degrees (i.e. re-requesting consent at each stage of an encounter). Consent, I think we can agree, is a big deal in America today.