Equality Of Hypocrisy

By Semperpapa

I am continuously stunned by the issue of "equality of income" being brought up by the progressive drones and by the ignorant followers in the media and other liberal enclaves.

What does "equality of income" really mean? Are these fools really believing that there should not be any difference in the retribution that a worker should receive regardless of experience and ability?

It is utterly preposterous to believe that there should not be any difference in income between someone who takes the risk of starting a business, who takes the creativity and personal chance of starting a business and the person they hire?
It is a reality that these individuals who take the chance and build a business based on an idea and a service they believe could make life easier for people and their business profitable, will invest a much greater amount of personal time and finances into the venture. Many of these business owners, ironically, greatly reduce their personal income when the business hits hard times, in favor of maintaining the income of their workers.
And yet, the current regime clearly and skillfully intends to create a divide between the business owner and the very workers. The media calls it class warfare, a very misguided term.

The warfare the current regime and the left in general is fostering in America is clear: American vs. American, based on support for the regime. If you are supportive of the tyrannical policies, you are allowed to prosper, otherwise you are maligned and marked for destruction. All clearly and fundamentally contrary to the Constitution.

But the hypocrisy goes deeper.
Mark Cuban, owner of the NBA team Dallas Maverick is a big time liberal, supporter of Obama.
But as Cuban is the owner of the NBA team, I find it inconsistent to learn that Dirk Nowitzki has a salary of over $19 Millions to increase to over $22M in the 2013/2014 season, but Brandan Wright's salary is barely higher than $900K or Ian Mahinmi's is barely over the $800K.
Can Mr. Cuban tell me why the discrepancy? Could it be that the contribution of Nowitzki to the success of the team is higher than that of any of the other players on the roster?
So why isn't Cuban paying his players the same? He should pay all the players the same salary as Nowitzki, for sake of "income equality".

And the argument could also be made for Mr. Cuban himself. Why is he a millionaire and owner of the team? why does he not share the ownership, and the millions, with all people involved in the Mavericks' organization equally? I am sure that the locker room attendants' salaries are not as high as his profit.
I do not hear Obama calling on the professional sport team owners to equalize the income inside their organizations.

Similarly, I am absolutely positive that when some big name like George Clooney, Mat Damon, Susan Sarandon or Scarlet Johansson are cast for a cinematographic role, their compensation is not equal to that of every other actor in the production. So, what makes Clooney's booking more worthy of a higher pay check than any of the other actors?
Name recognition? Acting abilities? The prospect that having a name like that on the movie marquee would attract more viewers and therefore make more money for the producers?
Yes, yes and definitely yes.
Again, I don't hear Obama accuse Hollywood of income inequality. No call for "fair share" from Obama for Steven Spielberg, Michael Moore or Tom Hanks.

The truth of the matter is that in a truly equal society, the very essence of freedom is only in the opportunities available to every member of it society.
Opportunity is synonym of freedom. The opportunity to work as hard as it is in our capacity to achieve a better level of financial independence possible. Most of all, independence from any form of governmental coercive control of the conditions by which free expression of one's strengths and capabilities are exercised.

Instead, government has become as intrusive as any liberal government in the world. America used to be a beacon of freedom and opportunities for the rest of the world, but the liberal politics of the last 100 years has created the basis of the decline of our principles.
Sure advancements have been achieved. The Civil Rights movement is possibly greatest sample, but, as it happens so often, good advances are taken hostages by those who aim at exploiting other people's suffering in order to maintain personal power and significance (i.e. the revs Al Sharpton and Jessi Jackson).

For the progressive liberal movement, the only equality they have at heart is that of their hypocrisy.

Just my thoughts!