A Common man takes a risk when he attempts to become an entrepreneur. If he steps out on his own and becomes his own boss one of the largest consequences is that he loses his employer-provided health insurance. One of the benefits of the ACA is that entrepreneurs risking it all don't have to risk their health as well. With the ACA affordable health care is still available to them.
Other social sAfety nEt programs are there to catch people if they fail, thus encouraging more to become entrepreneurs; and shouldn't our government encourage entrepreneurship? Our sTatist president thinks so...
|President Barack Obama, 12/4/2013: The idea that together we build this safety-net, this base of support – that allows all of us to take risks, and try new things, maybe try – get a new job – because we know that there's this base that we can rely on. (An excerpt from "Remarks by the President on Economic Mobility").|
This is a very good thing in the eyes of rational people, but Lying Lester is not rational. The way I see it, the problem with social sAfety nEts is that they encourage risky behavior. When you remove consequences, society's actions can become irresponsible.
Our sTatist pResident who is obviously in love with the idea of the sTate providing a sense of security for all it's citizens, at the expense of the liberty of our wealthy aristocracy, of course.
I mean, the way things are now people are afraid to leave their jobs and lose their health care. They could actually endanger their lives, or the lives or their loved ones. Binding someone to a job out of fear is a good thing in Lying Lester's opinion.
Why? Because if workers suddenly think they can take a risk and start their own business, then their employers lose a worker and potentially gain a competitor. This would, of course, make the goal of concentrating wealth at the top a little more difficult.
We need workers afraid and (therefore) compliant. We do NOT need thousands of entrepreneurs
creating wealth stealing from the large corporations by becoming competitors!
The way to keep workers afraid and compliant is to get rid of as much of the gOvernment provided social sAfety nEt as possible. Then employers can take advantage of workers (lower wages, cut benefits, etc) without fear of employees who want to "be their own boss".
That is why, if any worker should seek to become an entrepreneur, they should be risking their very lives. But this foolish man, and I use the term loosely, thinks it should be encouraged by the sTate promising to catch them if they fall?
Lying Lester strongly objects. Entrepreneurship is a thing that should be discouraged, as a form of "wEalth rEdistribution". Redistribution, in that the gOvernment takes money from people who work to fund the sAfety nEt programs, but also redistributive in that a former employee might decide to become his own boss - and then "redistribute" money that would have gone to his employer to himself!
Think about it: if a worker becomes his own boss and succeeds... the fruits of his labor will be all his! The entrepreneur's success is therefore a theft from his former employer.
The bottom line is this: Stop entrepreneurship (or strongly discourage it by eliminating/gutting social sAfety nEt programs) and decrease thieving from the wealthy class.
That the sOcialist oBama wants the liberty of our wealthy citizens to not be stolen from infringed upon is shameful in Lying Lester's opinion.
Byline: This estimable blog post was authored by Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason, a devotee of the great philosopher Ayn Rand and an individual who also goes by the name "Lester Nation". A proud purveyor of untruth. LLIN-051.