Neodoxy:"I see the results: an overpopulated planet; and I long for solutions that will force people to appreciate what they already have. Don't stomp on my being moral, Clayton, just because we're all waiting for the big shoe to drop." You're a joke.
Don't stomp on my being moral, Clayton, just because we're all waiting for the big shoe to drop."
You're a joke.
Quoted For Accuracy (QFA)
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Clayton
No one here believes that, either.
You once admonished me to speak for myself. I suspect that you will soon receive a similar admonishment from some of the more zealous libbies on this forum--assuming the length of the OP isn't too daunting.
The laws of economics are descriptive... they simply show what outcomes will arise from policy actions.
Exactly so. They are not inherently moral in the least. Simple cause and effect. I wish to add an element of morality to policy, rather than blindly arguing for the free operation of economic forces, as though cause and effect were inherently moral because it is natural.
If you cap rents, housing will not become cheaper, it will simply become more scarce. Numb-skulled policy initiatives result in blight.
Blight is a bit overwrought. There is quite a bit of room to adjust compensation for low-skilled workers without bringing on an economic collapse. Just as there is profit to be made under capped rents, assuming real estate development isn't curtailed altogether. And I don't prefer either apparent alternative to an increase in the minimum wage: either keep subsidizing the shiftless; or just end the minimum wage and welfare, and let people scramble for the basics. How anyone can say with a straight face that low-skilled workers will be pleased to earn $3 per hour in anticipation of climbing toward a respectable wage...It's not just numb-skulled; it's immoral.
there is profit to be made under capped rents, assuming real estate development isn't curtailed altogether
How anyone can say with a straight face that low-skilled workers will be pleased to earn $3 per hour in anticipation of climbing toward a respectable wage...It's not just numb-skulled; it's immoral.
There are a couple problems with these evaluations.
First, the domain of morality is individual choice. What should I do? What should I not do? To speak of "public morality" is simply a category mistake. There is nothing "immoral" about someone earning $3 an hour because it simply isn't anyone's business except the individuals involved.
Second, let's say that we can speak of public morality. Your evaluations of what is "moral" and "immoral" suppose a completeness of knowledge regarding the state of affairs as they are and the state of affairs as they would be in a free market. In fact, you don't have this knowledge. You can poll your brains out but you still won't have this knowledge. The fact is that you are necessarily flying blind. You construct idealizations in your mind about the state of affairs as they are and the state of affairs as they would be in a free market and you reason about the relative morality of these idealizations. You are not reasoning about the morality of the state of affairs as they are versus the state of affairs as they would otherwise be.
Clayton -
DLD, all morality is subjective, not objective.
You speak of morality, so let me pose a question to you:
If you think an employer should pay employees $10 an hour, if he refuses to do so, would you kill him? After all, this is the logical implication of the state - break my rules and you die. You say this isn't true? Well, then try not paying your taxes, and when the police come to arrest you, refuse. See what happens then.
So which do you think is more moral?
Smiling Dave
everyone wants the same thing, mainly the best possible economic situation for all
A concern for all hasn't been my impression of libertarianism at this forum at all. And I'm interested in the best possible moral situation; which isn't the same thing.
And of course, a minimum wage will acheive the opposite effect of what you want, because it will leave people jobless and homeless and starving if they do not have the skills that deserve a minimum wage, because they will not get hired, obviously.
Charity is a possibility; and abstinence.
Do the math. They have fifty bucks they can invest in expanduing the firm. They have spent 49 of them on seven workers. How will they hire the rest with no money to pay them?
I'm arguing that they can't even hire the seven for $49. Read closely before you get snarky.
If people get paid less, the demand for food goes down Why is it that by some strange coincidence, in the poorest countries food is cheapest?
Really? I think the demand for food is relatively constant. And it's cheaper for you in poorer countries because of favorable exchange rates. If it's cheap for them, it's not because they have less demand for food; it's because they produce little else.
Could you provide a link to someone who makes such an argument? The ony argument I hear against minimum wage is that it gets the opposite result of what we both want, as above
I was only trying to anticipate any arguments in advance; I wasn't accusing anyone of using it.
So that the employer cannot extort anything, since his competition is constantly ready to pluck away his workers
I don't believe that it works nearly so seamlessly as that in reality. There are limited opportunities, more workers than employers.
They will buy less than they would absent your meddling. In this context, it means if you meddle in the wage rate, setting it hire than what the market would, employers will hire less people, increasing unemployment.
I agree that fewer people will be hired at that wage, at least full-time, where the wage would likely apply. But I'm not primarily interested in fueling economic activity at the expense of all other forms of morality. I want to put downward pressure upon irresponsible, teenage and single-mother families--the greatest source of poverty anywhere. Being rid of the minimum wage would just allow marginally more people to have marginally more kids in marginally more poverty. I think the moral thing to do is to draw a line, the minimum wage; and say that if you cannot meet these basic skills, you cannot afford to have kids, absent private charity.
So that blind uniformity thing ain't exactly so
I'm proposing that it can be, not that it is. And if farmers have to be exempted, so be it; but I don't know how subsidies affects that situation, so I don't want to comment.
and it helps those who are actively helping themselves.
By now we know [hopefully] that this is false. No need to repeat the same argument.
I meant that in contrast to welfare, which is given to those who aren't helping themselves, or anyone else.
the moment you insist all employers pay sum arbitrary number that you decide is their "moral value", you are writing a death warrent
Not an arbitrary figure: a figure tied to the Consumer Price Index. (see previous posts)
Not to mention that the employer will start thinking about outsourcing his whole factory to a country that has no minimum wage
I'm in favor of economic self-sufficiency: I don't want to internationalize economic development, until we live on the DeathStar.
As for furthering education and training opportunities, what is she going to live from while she is getting her education and her training?
If one generation of single mothers has to suffer so that future ones will learn to delay having children until they get educated, I'm OK with that.
Of, all possible words to describe the effects of a minimum wage, "productive" is the very last one
I put it into quotes to signal my understanding that it was not the most productive solution in the literal, economic sense. But morally, I think it would be productive in any number of human ways.
I'll read the Samoa thing later.
clayton First, the domain of morality is individual choice. it simply isn't anyone's business except the individuals involved.
clayton
First, the domain of morality is individual choice. it simply isn't anyone's business except the individuals involved.
Is this the final criterion: individual freedom. I say that your sense of morality is only valid in a theoretical vacuum. I say that morality involves a judgment of all acts, yours and everyone else's. And I believe in guilt by association, for those who stand by in freedom, even under our imposed social contract. It would be one thing if this $3 per hour were actually a transaction taking place in a vacuum; but it doesn't--and never will. There are all sorts of trade-offs taking place within this imposed system that could yield a little here and there, so that the low-skilled worker didn't need to accommodate all.
You construct idealizations in your mind about the state of affairs as they are and the state of affairs as they would be in a free market and you reason about the relative morality of these idealizations. You are not reasoning about the morality of the state of affairs as they are versus the state of affairs as they would otherwise be.
I judge things as I see they are; and they are immoral--economic activity at the expense of personal and moral accountability. And I'm not arguing for a free market: I'm arguing against it, in this case. More generally, I judge moderation to be more moral than greed. So I'm willing to curb individual freedom--freedom to be greedy--by imposing a moderation upon those who would otherwise show no morality themselves--both employers and single mothers. I won't stand silently by, content with my own freedoms. Wrong is wrong.
You are a pyschopath. Not only do you acknowledge your desire to curb freedom, the implications of doing so are indeed murdering those that oppose you.
@Daryl: Please be careful with editing, you didn't bother to include ellipsis and this snipping out of context alters the meaning of the statements.
Is this the final criterion: individual freedom.
Of course not but individual choice is a brute fact and individual moral responsibility is the logical consequence of this brute fact if you adopt a theory of morality consistent with the golden rule.
I believe in guilt by association,
Then you and I have nothing further to talk about.
1. I'm interested in the best possible moral situation 2. ...a minimum wage... will leave people jobless and homeless and starving......I agree that fewer people will be hired... Charity is a possibility; and abstinence. 3. I think the moral thing to do is to draw a line, the minimum wage; and say that if you cannot meet these basic skills, you cannot afford to have kids, absent private charity. 4. ...If one generation of single mothers has to suffer so that future ones will learn to delay having children until they get educated, I'm OK with that...
1. I'm interested in the best possible moral situation
2. ...a minimum wage... will leave people jobless and homeless and starving......I agree that fewer people will be hired... Charity is a possibility; and abstinence.
3. I think the moral thing to do is to draw a line, the minimum wage; and say that if you cannot meet these basic skills, you cannot afford to have kids, absent private charity.
4. ...If one generation of single mothers has to suffer so that future ones will learn to delay having children until they get educated, I'm OK with that...
Very interesting morality you got there.
So fewer people will be hired, meaning those patriots you were so supportive of at first will just have to live on charity and abstinence, but it's worth it, because future mothers will learn their lesson.
I think I have summarized your position accurately, and woe is the planet if it teaches people like you to read and write.
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
Wheylous
DLD, all morality is subjective, not objective
I don't believe that. All value is subjective though. And if some people place no minimum level of value on honest labor then I believe that their morality is deficient. There are real trade-offs in the real world. If a man exercises his individual freedom and turns his back upon someone trapped under a fallen tree, he is immoral. For a truly moral person it makes no difference whether someone would have forced them to do the right thing anyway. This is the common complaint of a selfish brat, who objects to a moral act because of the conditions imposed for doing it. Just do it.
So fewer people will be hired, meaning those patriots you were so supportive of at first will just have to live on charity and abstinence, but it's worth it, because future mothers will learn their lesson
You've been misreading the gist of my OP from the start. But as for the single generation of no-skilled single mothers, I suspect that they'd be as well or better taken care of than in any ancap society. And the line ought to be drawn somewhere.
Please be careful with editing, you didn't bother to include ellipsis and this snipping out of context alters the meaning of the statements.
Sorry. I didn't mean to mislead: I was lumping together two parts into one quote. I'll use ellipses next time.
Over that? I would have thought that obvious. Fair enough, Clayton.
Guilt is by action only. Collective guilt is caveman morality.
"Guilt is by action only. Collective guilt is caveman morality."
What part of anything he's said, done, or advocated, indicates that he doesn't hold such a morality or mindset?