You Didn't Build That, The People You Hired Did

According to the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of Human Nature, our brains were designed by Evolution to seek out "leaders." This was necessary because we needed leaders to coordinate the actions of the tribe. These leaders were chosen by criteria that have evolved over our history but have always needed to satisfy our sense of "fairness." We granted these leaders not only the power and authority to make the major decisions but, for reasons that will be explained at another time, we also rewarded them with fabulous riches and privileges. One of the main reasons we did this was to decide how to distribute resources.

Today we choose our leaders through a political system where politicians campaign for our votes and the right to represent our interests in the decision making process. We don't reward these politician/leaders with the same level of riches and privileges as we used to because as we evolved from primitive tribal societies to capital driven "free market" societies, the rules of the tribal society have been replaced by the rules of free market capitalism. Thus, the free market now decides how to distribute wealth/resources/privileges.

The free market model is unquestionably much better and fairer than those older models, but just how close to perfect is that model, is a question of fierce debate between liberals and conservatives.
Conservatives and libertarians think that model is as close to perfect as we can possibly get. The more extreme among them think that the free market has a God-like perfection to it.

Liberals, on the other hand, see inequities in the market model and seek to use government to balance things out a bit.
What about the more extreme among them?
For various reasons it would be difficult for me to describe that person. But one thing that would be easy for me to say is that there is practically no one around today in this country that is even nearly equivalent to the free market fanatics among us.

Unlike myself, those free market fanatics would have no trouble at all describing anyone with even a hint of a "pro-active government intervention in the market" sensibility as an extremist.
Anyone with even a hint more than just a hint of such a sensibility would be described as a freedom-hating Marxist anti-American liberty-robber who's goal in life is to take everything from the productive in order to give to the non-productive so that we can all be equally miserable.

Of course this characterization is absurd on its face but many conservatives are completely serious when they say these things. And I'm not just talking about irresponsible talk show hosts who are paid millions of dollars to spew this horseshit. We've even heard "respected" Republiconservatives in important and prominent positions say things like this about the moderate/centrist Obama. (What's that Rush? Obama is a radical leftist ideologue? Just look at his record, stupid.)

Just how absurd this characterization is can best be illustrated by this fact: The closest we've ever come to "taking away from the rich so that we are all equally poor" is to tax billionaires to a point where they are still fucking billionaires and then redistribute a small portion of that money so that someone who works a 40 hour week at a minimum wage job (quite possibly at a company that makes the billionaire a billionaire) can have $140 a month in food stamps, for crying out loud!
See how equal everyone is?
The minimum wage worker buys his food with stamps while the billionaire has someone who's on food stamps buy his food for him, take it home, cook it for him, serve it to him on expensive china then clean everything up after him.

But is everyone really equal in this situation? After all, the billionaire just created the servant's job for her, just like he's fucking God or something. She owes him everything. At least she owes it to buy his oxycodone for him.
You see, when it comes to job creation the relationship between the person performing the job and the person who "created" it is like a one-way street. All the benefit flows from the "Creator" who makes, to the luckily fortunate job performer, who takes.
Look at it this way. If, say, in order to spite the ungrateful "taker", the billionaire "maker" refused to create the job of doing his chores for him, what would the taker do? Starve to death?
On the other hand, if the maker did do that he'd have to do his own chores, which would make being a billionaire kind of pointless, wouldn't it?
Never mind that, he's a job creator!

What does all this blather have to do with the subject title of this post, which is the theme of the Republicon Convention tonight? Hopefully, I can tie things together in my upcoming posts.