San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Friday, November 18, 2016

Income Inequality Is Good For The Poor

What am I doing?  Is the title to today's post some sort of cruel joke designed to hurt the tender feelings of people who call themselves poor?  How could I be so harsh and insensitive to the hardships suffered by the self-identified poor people in this country at the hands of the evil rich?  Even worse, how could I make such a blatantly wrong assertion when I allege that income inequality is good for the poor?  I will answer that last rhetorical question.  I guess that means it was not actually a rhetorical question.  I allege that income inequality is good for the poor because it is true.  No, that is not a tautology.  Let me prove it for you here today.
Ludwig von Mises is the world's second greatest economist.  I bet you have never heard of him, have you?  In case you are wondering, the world's greatest economist is Murray Rothbard.  I bet you have never heard of him either.  No matter.  Both men were expositors of the Austrian school of economics.  The Austrian school, in contrast to the much better known Keynesian and Monetarist (Milton Friedman) schools, are generally not permitted on college campuses.  Their ideas are not permitted in civil discourse.  Their members have to meet in dark, aromatically smoke filled rooms where no one else can see or hear them.  Not one in a hundred economics degrees is held by a person who would identify as an Austrian.  There is a good reason for this enormous unpopularity.  In fact, there are several good reasons for it.  First, the truth is always unpopular. Remember the Welsh rule which states, "That which is popular is almost always wrong."  People hate truth because it proves they are wrong about most of what they believe.  If you want to be popular, and every politician knows this principle well, tell lots of lies.  Second, Austrian economics is unique among economic schools of thought in that it sees government intervention in the market place as always being evil.  Given the fact that most of the idolatrous citizens of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika worship the god of civil government, it is not hard to understand how folks who do not bow down to the throne would be blackballed.
Allow me to quote Mises on income inequality.  His insights are brilliant and brilliantly true, although almost universally ignored.  He wrote, "The market economy - capitalism - is based on private ownership of the material means of production and private entrepreneurship.  The consumers, by their buying or abstention from buying, ultimately determine what should be produced and in what quantity and quality.  They render profitable the affairs of those businessmen who best comply with their wishes and unprofitable the affairs of those who do not produce what they are asking for most urgently.  Profits convey control of the factors of production into the hands of those who are employing them for the best possible satisfaction of the most urgent needs of the consumers, and losses withdraw them from the control of the inefficient businessman.  In a market economy not sabotaged by the government the owners of property are mandataries of the consumers as it were.  On the market a daily repeated plebiscite determines who should own what and how much.  It is the consumers who make some people rich and other people penniless." Did you get all that?  I emphasized the last sentence in bold print for a reason.  If you did not get it, I will explain it for you.
Although ignorant people, which is nothing to be ashamed of, and socialists, which is definitely something to be ashamed of, deny this truth, consumers are always in control of everything that happens in the economy.  Try as he might, a businessman will never make a profit if he is producing things consumers do not want to purchase.  I could go into business tomorrow producing toothpicks with my name carved into them but it is quite likely that no one, even my friends, would be willing to part with some of their cash for what I have produced.  Conversely, consumers reward those who produce things they want with profits.  Businessmen who produce lots and lots of things that lots and lots of people want end up making lots and lots of cash.  They do not make the cash because they are evil. They do not become rich because they are evil. They end up in the top 1% of the income population exclusively because they produce things that millions of people want to buy.
Mises goes on, "Inequality of wealth and incomes is an essential feature of the market economy.  It is the implement that makes the consumers supreme in giving them the power to force all those engaged in production to comply with their orders.  It forces all those engaged in production to the utmost exertion in the service of the consumers.  It makes competition work.  He who best serves the consumers profits most and accumulates riches."  I emphasized that last sentence as well.  It is a lesson everyone should learn and a truth everyone should acknowledge.  How sad it is when millions of stupid people petition their civil authorities to empower them to control the behavior of businessmen.  They don't realize that they already hold all the power.  If you do not like what a business produces, then don't buy the product.  If enough of you agree that business will soon be out of business, and all without a government regulatory body coming along and forcing them out of business.  Businesses that do not bend to the will of the consumers will soon be out of business.  Conversely, and equally true, businesses that do not bend to the will of the government are in business because they are serving the consumers but under attack because special interest groups in government want to suppress their activities.  Who loses in that situation?  Although she does not realize it, it is the consumer who always loses when government gets involved in business.
Mises concludes, "Bigness in business does not impair, but improves the conditions of the rest of the people.  The millionaires are acquiring their fortunes in supplying the many with articles that were previously beyond their reach.  If laws had prevented them from getting rich, the average American household would have to forgo many of the gadgets and facilities that are today its normal equipment.  Inequality of wealth and incomes is the cause of the masses' well being, not the cause of anybody's distress."  Do you understand why I emphasized that last sentence?  I certainly hope so.  It explains why income inequality is good for all of us, including the poor. 
Although Misses' statements are so obviously true, why do so many people categorically reject them?  The answer to that is simple.  Men are sinful.  Envy is one of the most vile of sins and it is on display every single day in the economic world.  Even though men are provided with goods and services beyond their imaginations, they turn around and bite the hand that feeds them because they are envious of the wealth that accrues to those who provide goods and services for them.  Career politicians are shrewd enough to know that they can exploit the sinful envy of mankind and they do so with regularity.  Promising to equalize incomes because the rich have immorally stolen the wealth that is rightfully theirs, career politicians get elected by committing themselves to socialist programs designed to hurt everyone but themselves.  Some of them, like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, have been repeating their lies about wealth distribution for so long I believe they have actually come to believe them.  God calls that giving them over to their reprobate minds and it is an act of judgment that He brings upon the vilest of sinners.  Enough said.

Thursday, November 17, 2016

Marijuana Good, Tobacco Bad

Did you hear that the citizens of Colorado who were crazy enough to vote ended up legalizing marijuana production and consumption in this state a year or so ago?   Ha! Ha!  Of course you did.  The geo-political zone known as "Colorado"  has been the subject of a never ending stream of jokes about marijuana and its alleged effects upon any human being who ingests it for the past year.  There was another marijuana related law on the ballot this year.  It seems that a bit of a problem has developed with marijuana tourists.  Marijuana tourists are people who come to Colorado to purchase and consume marijuana.  Since they can't legally take the marijuana home most of them make the decision to smoke it here.  The problem with smoking it here, for a tourist, is that it is not legal to smoke it in public and no hotels that I am aware of allow it to be smoked on their premises.  That puts a marijuana consumer in a bit of a pinch.  She can purchase the stuff but she can't find a legal place to smoke it.
Proposition 300 was designed to solve the problem of the marijuana tourist by allowing for public locations where tourists can smoke the marijuana they have purchased.  The law passed and effective next year it will be legal to smoke marijuana in public businesses like bars, coffee shops, restaurants and anywhere else that gets a permit from the government.  Hooray for the marijuana smokers.  They will be able to smoke the stuff they have purchased without fear of being arrested, albeit still subject to extensive government regulation and control.  But at least it will be possible for profit seeking businesses to obtain permits from the government that will allow them to permit marijuana to be smoked in their establishments.
Does anyone besides me see the irony in this situation?  I have posted several articles to this blog in recent years describing how smoking tobacco has become an increasingly criminal activity.  You can find some of them here, here, here and here.  More and more municipalities in the Denver metro area are banning smoking tobacco in public.  A week or so ago I wrote a series of posts about Hawaii.  In Hawaii it is now illegal to smoke tobacco anywhere in public that does not have a government sign declaring that spot to be a legal smoking zone.  Colorado is rapidly moving in that direction.  Boulder, that lovely socialist haven north of Denver, has criminalized all use of tobacco except in private.  I can't smoke, if I wanted to, on any of the Open Space trails in Boulder.  Golden, that lovely town that brings Amerika Coors beer, has banned smoking on its golf courses.  I can't light up a cigar on the golf course, if I wanted to, without being cited and fined for a misdemeanor.  Of course, smoking tobacco in all businesses, both public and private, was banned years ago.  Just try lighting up your pipe in any business or public location and you will find out just how oppressive the new laws have become.  Smokers truly have no rights.
I trust you now see the irony.  Next year it will be legal to smoke marijuana in a bar, coffee shop, restaurant or public business but attempting to smoke a cigar in those exact same places will be against the law.  Unlike marijuana, a businessman who wants to allow his customers to smoke tobacco in his establishment has no means to bring that about.  There are no permits available for businesses that want to allow tobacco consumption on their premises but there will be permits available for any business that wants it to allow marijuana smoking on their premises.  You might want to scroll down to the bottom of this blog and read the quote from Frederic Bastiat.  If you are too lazy to do that (I would be), here is the quote, "When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law."  I believe the majority of the voters in Colorado have lost their moral sense and, as a result, the rest of us have lost our respect for the law. 

Wednesday, November 16, 2016

Colorado's Minimum Wage Law Comes Home To Roost

The mentally ill and State worshiping people who made the conscious decision to vote in the last election cycle have created a new law that I will be forced to comply with in the near future.  Yes, its true, Colorado's minimum wage has just been set at $12/hour starting January 1st of 2017.  Actually, it will escalate to that point in a couple of years but the first increase begins January 1st.  Throughout the campaign in support of the new law the folks who believed it was a good idea continually informed me that it would not have any negative impacts upon business, employment or economic growth.  All I heard from them was that even business people thought it was a good idea.  At that time I posted an article to this blog arguing that business people who want to pay their employees a higher than free market wage are free to do so but I, as an owner of a janitorial firm, should not be forced to do so against my will and as a matter of state statute.  I don't force anyone to work for me and those who work for me are paid precisely what we voluntarily agree they will be paid.  Government did not need to get involved, but it did, and now you have to suffer the consequences.  Why do I say "you" have to suffer the consequences when it is my bottom line that is going to be harmed?  Let me tell you why.
An article in Sunday's Denver Post, written by Aldo Svaldi, said, "While businesses who backed the higher wage say they think it could be good for their employees and their business, many are doing a calculation that involves finding the right balance between passing on higher costs to customers, adjusting staffing and work hours, and looking for other cost savings."  Did you get that?  Now that the law has passed, and all employers who have minimum wage workers are going to be required to give them a 44% increase (current wage is $8.31), it is not hard to see why the workers are happy.  What is less obvious is what employers will now have to do.  As the article stated, business owners are now being forced to decide between raising the prices for their goods and services, cutting back on the hours they pay for labor or reducing their current workforce (or not expanding it).  These results were entirely predictable but generally ignored in the rhetoric that floated about prior to the election.
The Colorado Restaurant Association took a survey of its members of which 220 of them responded.  Here are the results of that survey, according to the article in the newspaper:
  • 90% will pass on the cost of higher wages in price increases for customers.
  • 70% are going to cut employee hours.
  • 70% are going to cut the number of employees.
  • 60% are going to suspend expansion plans.
  • 20% are going out of business at the end of this year.
Aldo, who clearly knows nothing about economics, wrote, "In an ideal world, businesses would just incorporate higher labor costs into the prices they charge customers, with no defections or loss in sales."  What imaginary world does Aldo live in?  Why, in his imaginary '"ideal" world would consumers make the voluntary decision to pay more for something when they do not have to?   According to Aldo consumers should believe it is their responsibility to pay the wages of laborers who work for the companies they buy things from.  Why should that be?  Indeed, if Aldo's ideal world really existed there would be no need for a minimum wage law at all because consumers would happily and voluntarily routinely pay more for something so the people employed in making that thing could make lots and lots of money.
When the majority of Colorado voters who made the immoral decision to vote on this issue decided that they had the moral and civil right to determine how much a person should be paid in a private transaction it was guaranteed that negative economic consequences would follow.  Those negative consequences are now here.  Consumers of goods and services, including my customers, will now be forced to pay more for the same service.  Those who refuse to do so will fire their service providers.  I have no idea how many customers I am going to lose or exactly how harmful this new law is going to be for my business.  Who knows, I might end up going out of business as well.  Employees, who thought they were getting a good deal, will now find that they will be working less hours.  People who now want to work for the new higher wage will find no jobs waiting for them as employers like myself make the rational and economically necessary decision to not hire any additional workers.  I have shelved all plans for hiring new people until I see just how bad things are going to be.  Like most other employers, plans for expansion are  now on hold.
Although ignorant voters claimed that unemployment would not rise with a higher minimum wage, the fact that 20% of restaurant owners are planning on closing their doors for good when the new law takes effect speaks otherwise.  Maybe that figure is a bit high.  Maybe, like me, they are just mad at what has happened.  We evil free market capitalists don't want to give up any of our ill-gotten profits so we quite naturally squawk and complain when a moral law is enacted forcing us to support the noble workers we employee.  Maybe only 10% of the restaurants will go out of business.  I wonder where those newly unemployed folks will find work when other restaurants are not hiring and reducing hours?
Ultimately the citizens of this envy filled and ignorant state will pay the price for the law.  The most common response to the new law is to raise prices and hope for the best.  That is what I will be doing and I already know how my customers are going to respond.  People will complain, as they always do about how prices keep going up, up and up but little do they realize that those who voted for this economically damaging new law are the ones responsible for the increases.  I didn't want to raise my prices but I will go out of business if I do not.  Margins in the janitorial world are quite slim.  It sure would be nice if consumers would take their anger out on themselves and leave innocent businessmen alone.  But we all know that isn't going to happen.  Profit seeking businessmen always take the blame.  Sometimes it is almost enough to make me close the doors, fire all my employees and move to the country where I would try to eke out an existence by subsistence farming.  Humm.....maybe it is my time to try to become a gentleman farmer. 

Tuesday, November 15, 2016

Do Veterans Get Too Many Benefits?

On April 3, 2014 I wrote a piece for this blog entitled "Veterans Behave Like Spoiled Brats."  That post can be found here.  In the last couple of weeks, to my complete shock and surprise, two different people have commented on that post.  I am not surprised that people would comment on a blog post that takes veterans to task for behaving poorly.  Veterans are a sacrosanct class of people in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika and anyone who does not adore them is fair game for harsh criticism.  What surprised me is that two people I do not know actually read my blog!  I thought I only had about ten regular readers, all of whom I know personally, and rarely do I get anyone coming to my blog who is not a regular.
The second comment on that post was from an affable fellow by the name of Chet.  I wonder if he is related to Chet Atkins?  I was a big fan of Chet Atkins as a youth.  At any rate, Chet is a kindly soul with interesting things to say.  In fact, his second comment to that post was so interesting I decided to dedicate today's post to my response.  Chet takes exception to my belief that veterans are receiving far too many benefits.  But don't take my word for it.  Here is Chet's argument as extracted from the comments section of the above post:
"After giving this some thought for a few days I thought I would give my rebuttal to this. First, I want to go ahead and make a disclaimer that if you feel there is no need to have a standing army for any reason than we will have to hit the wedge right there and agree to disagree. Now, with that being said, if you feel that a organized standing army is necessary to protect America's interest then I believe there are a couple of ways to accomplish this. I do not believe you could ever raise an army in this day and age with pure volunteering. To ask society to volunteer your life for a country who will offer no incentives other than a base pay during service, and no benefits post service would be a very hard sale. You will either adopt a Israel type system where everyone must enlist for a minimum of 2 years, or you will have to intrigue society to volunteer with incentives for serving. If you are going to continue with an AVF then expect your volunteers to want the government to uphold their end of the agreement as all people would hope for from both parties. If you say, 'the government doesn't owe you benefits' and that is the way it was, I doubt we would have the military force that we do, or if we would even be a world superpower as we are now. I understand you may not agree with having this status in world politics but I would much rather be where we are now rather than places like south America, or Africa to give a few examples. I completely understand your feelings on involvement with foreign affairs, but this argument about an agreement made between the Federal Government and its service members. If you say the government needs to offer less or nothing at all then that is a position you are absolutely entitled to hold. I may disagree with the consequences that would be rewarded with that position, but regardless a contract was signed, incentives were agreed to be provided given the veteran meets the criteria, and the Government should do everything possible to honor and be accountable to the commitments made just as the veteran held on his/her end. I applaud your honesty and respect your boldness to present an argument that could receive some very crude backlash. I only hope my argument can shed some light on the position of the Veteran."
Please allow me to comment upon each of the points Chet makes in his reply to my post.   Chet begins with the disclaimer that if I do not believe in the necessity for a standing army there is really not much for us to discuss.  I have not given much thought to the idea of a standing army.  One young fellow that I know has argued that a standing army is unnecessary and I found his arguments persuasive but, other than that, I have not thought much about it.  Chet has forced me to think about it some more.  It seems to me that a standing army is absolutely necessary to preserve the Amerikan Empire.  The SDA military has far too many sticks in the fire to not keep millions of people on the payroll.  But that, it seems to me, is precisely the point.  Since I believe the founding fathers intended for this country to resist the urge to become an empire I also think they believed that a militia should be sufficient to defend the geo-political area known as America.  If we are to be an empire, and we are the most powerful empire the world has ever seen, then a standing army is an absolute necessity.  On the other hand, if we are to simply defend our own lives, freedom and property from foreign aggression I believe the size of the military forces could be reduced dramatically.  As the aforementioned young fellow I know argued, professional soldiers could be employed full time by the State to train and lead the militia if the time came to defend the country.  There would also be a place for military technologists who specialize in using technology to create defensive weapons.  How large those two groups would be I do not know and cannot say.  What I do know is the military I envision would be dramatically smaller than the one we presently employ if for no other reason than there would not be military bases spanning the globe and soldiers engaged in perpetual warfare on foreign soil.
Chet wonders if I believe that an "organized standing army is necessary to protect America's interests."  The answer to that question depends upon the content of America's interests.  As that term is generally used America's interests include undeclared wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq.  It also includes a declared war on "terror," whatever that means.  It also includes military bases throughout the world.  It also includes a naval force in all of the world's oceans.  It also includes an air force that can bomb just about any country to smithereens in a moment's notice.   My definition of America's interests is a bit smaller.  I believe America's interests should be to defend the life, freedom and property of SDA citizens who live in the SDA, and nothing more.  All interests related to nation building and empire expansion must stop.
It is what Chet wrote next that I found most interesting.  He believes, and I suspect he is correct, that it would not be possible to recruit an all volunteer military force without offering sufficient financial incentives for those who sign up.  I had never thought of that point before and I believe Chet is on to something.  A base pay, similar to the minimum wage plus free room and board,  for service is probably not going to cut it when it comes time for some high school graduate to sign on the dotted line and give up four years of his life to the military.  Certainly some additional incentives must be offered if the military is to reach its recruitment goals.
My problem with the vast array of benefits currently being paid to veterans is not the mere fact that they are getting what the law says they are entitled to receive.  My problem is that the pay and benefits received by veterans were never subjected to the free market to determine what they should be.  It would have been possible for military recruiters to start with the lowest pay and the fewest benefits and then work their way upward until the exact amount of pay and benefits required to obtain an all volunteer force could be attained.  We have no idea what that level of pay and benefits would be because all pay and benefits have been predetermined by Congress, and they seem overly generous to me.  But who knows?  Maybe I am wrong and pay and benefit packages would actually be more generous if the free market was permitted to determine what soldiers should be paid.
Chet expresses his appreciation for the fact that he is a citizen of the Amerikan Empire and not of some third world country.  If you have the opportunity to choose the country you wish to become a citizen of it always makes sense to choose the most powerful empire the world has ever seen as your home.  I was born in this land as well.  I have not expatriated and have no plans of doing so.  Still, I wish the people who rule over me would cease being an empire and leave the rest of the world alone.
Chet makes the powerful point that, regardless of my opinion on the matter, the federal government has promised certain pay and benefits to veterans and it had better darn well pay them.  In addition, there is no point of me crying about it because it is a done deal.  He is 100% correct with both assertions and I agree with him 100%.  However,  I was not arguing in my original post that I believe the federal government should renege on the promises it has made to veterans.  Like it or not, that is the way that it is and I accept it.  My beef with veterans had much more to do with their attitude towards people like me who they believe are not showing them sufficient respect and honor for what they have done.  My problem was with men like (taken from the original blog post) "Army Staff Sergeant Chris Steavens had to say about his treatment since returning, 'When I raised my right hand and said, 'I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America,' when I gave them everything I could, I expect the same in return.'" I am not willing to give veterans everything I can in return for what they have done and I believe they should stop asking me to do so.  That was the primary point of my original blog post.
Thank you Chet for motivating my little brain to think about some things I have not thought about before in such detail.  If we ever cross paths in the real world I think that I should like to buy you a creamy Boddington's Pub Ale and we could discuss these things further.

Monday, November 14, 2016

Republicans Don't Riot, Or Wear Safety Pins

I have watched the news with amazement the past couple of days.  Since Donnie won the right to be the next King of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika there has been an outpouring of hatred for him and those who elected him.  Ironically, most of the hatred has expressed itself in the form of people claiming they are marching, screaming and, occasionally, destroying private property in the name of love.  This isn't the first time I have seen crazed zealots denounce hatred in the name of hatred and I suspect it will not be the last.  What did capture my attention however was the fact that when the Republicans lose an election for King they don't take to the streets in protest, whereas the Democrats seemingly always do.  Now why would that be?
I do not recall any Republican demonstrations after the coronation of Kings Clinton and Obama.  On the other hand, I recall significant public demonstrations after the coronations of Kings Reagan and Bush II.  When the Democrats won the White House Republicans licked their wounds and tried to figure out some way to get the Kingdom back.  When the Republicans win the White House Democrats cry like spoiled little children.  There has to be some reason for the difference in behavior and I think I have figured it out.
Republicans have become, politically, what the Democrats were when I first registered to vote in the mid 1970s.  Since then Democrats have also moved to the left and become avowed socialists.  The Republican move to the left was purely a utilitarian move as they recognized they could never out compete the Democrats in promising to give things away.  So they adopted the "vote for me and I will give you free stuff" attitude that was so successful for the Democrats.  Meanwhile, the Democrats actually adopted a political philosophy and abandoned their utilitarianism.  They tapped into the political beliefs of the majority of the citizens in this country and they all become socialists.
Socialism is a secular religion.  It has doctrines that must be believed by the faithful and religious rituals that must be performed by the members.  Socialism is grounded upon the anthropological reality that all men are sinners who suffer from massive amounts of envy.  As a result, the doctrines of socialism assert that anyone who has income and wealth is evil whereas those who have lesser amounts of income and wealth are noble beings.  The dividing line is 50%.  Those in the top half of the income and wealth populations are evil people who should be punished for exploiting the poor working people under them.  Special vitriol is reserved for those in the top 10% of the income population and those in the top 1% of the income population are deemed worse than Hitler.  It is impossible, in the eyes of the socialists, to ever do anything immoral to a person in the top 10% of the income population since they are all reprobates who deserve whatever they get.  It is impossible to steal from them, no matter how much of their income the government takes from them.  They are the perfect patsies.
What does this have to do with the Democrat response to King-elect Donnie?  Everything.  Democrats truly believe they have a moral claim on the money of people who make more than them.  Democrats truly believe that people who make more money than them are immoral simply because they make more money.  The only exception to this rule is Democrat celebrities who are given a free pass because they campaign for their socialist heroes.  Democrats truly believe that it is a moral behavior to use the power of the vote to elect career politicians who are committed to taking massive amounts of income and wealth from the top 49% of the income population and giving it to the lower 51%.  In other words, Democrats do not believe it is possible to steal from the rich, whoever they are.  They see themselves as altruistic Robin Hoods, scurrying about doing good by using government coercion to steal from the rich.  They also believe that they have been done real harm when some of their wealth and income transfer programs are scaled back.  They see that as an act of theft.  Ironic, isn't it?
Now what happens when the elected King is one of those evil rich people?  Even worse, what happens when the elected King refuses to acknowledge the moral propriety of behaving like Robin Hood?  Their entire world comes falling down upon their envy filled little heads and they run about crying out for a savior who will restore things to the way they used to be before, when the rich were properly exploited.  Rather than adapting to the new rules and regulations, as the Republicans did under Clinton and Obama, they take to the streets in protest where they find a lap-dog media more than willing to sympathetically report their story.
The day after the election a friend of mine called me to tell me that the building in which he was working, which housed a DNC office, was filled with people crying streams of tears as they reported to "work," or whatever it was they were doing for the DNC.  They were mourning as if their god had died and indeed he, or she, had.  The transfer of power to the Republicans scared them beyond belief.  They are all such devotees of socialism they could not conceive of a world in which the government would not be called upon to provide cradle to grave security.  The idea of personal responsibility frightened them so much they huddled together in little groups and cried upon each other's shoulders.
Several poignant news stories showed images of college students, women mostly, standing around shedding rivers of tears while wearing baby-pins on their shirts.  When queried about the meaning of the baby-pins they tearfully replied, between sobs, that they represented "safety" in an unsafe world.  These were college students!  Meanwhile, in other nurseries....oops......I mean on other campuses around the country, college students gathered in safe rooms to discuss their feelings about the change of King.  They all expressed their collective fears for the future and most of those fears centered around the idea that King Donnie is going to destroy their lives forever.  Steeling themselves against those anticipated fortunes they then gathered up enough courage to take to the streets in protest.
After looking at the differences and similarities between the two groups I conclude that both Democrats and Republicans are worshipers of the almighty State.  The main difference between them, however, is that Republicans are emotional adults and Democrats are emotional children.  As a free man who worships the God of the Bible I find it all quite amusing.