Economics Questions

Re: The Minimum Wage and the Value of Labor

Torsten — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 10:02:08 GMT

I'm not one who believes that the free operation of the laws of economics are the vehicle to a human utopia. I think that this would more likely lead to a planet Earth that resembled the DeathStar--completely economically developed to the last little profit. If a minimum wage slows the "progress" of turning the planet into an asphalt-covered strip mall, subsidizing work instead of slothfulness and dependency (welfare), then I can live with the inconvenience to CEO's and their stockholders. My sense of moral value ultimately outweighs my hunger for economic liberty and prosperity, which I believe is empty absent moral values. My vision of a perfect society isn't one that is so economically prosperous that no morality, through voluntary, responsible limiting of family sizes, or basic mutual appreciation is ever entertained, until it's too late.

So you say that there has to be something else to maintain the morality of society and individuals except their personal preferences, market actors and privately run institutions?

I think you'd be interested into the following:
http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/29870.aspx

Re: The Minimum Wage and the Value of Labor

Jargon — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 00:52:05 GMT

DarylLloydDavis:

I never should have picked up one of those dolls in the first place. But for the sake of argument I humored your implicit conclusion in a past thread that such a society would stabilize in the first place, even though I don't believe that. And now you want me to go beyond that false premise to speculate upon whether or not the imaginary voluntary organizational structure of an ancap society would be impregnable to votes--votes which would open wide the door to a drift toward a state. I say yes; you say no. End of story.

Dude don't you see how immature this argument is? Dolls? Another poster was good enough to point out that your new constitution is no less of a doll than is AC.

Anyways you continue to glide over the utmost importance of the nature of the state. It is a coercive organization. To found it, people must be subjugated under its rule. Voting is not statism if the constituents have voluntarily agreed. The foundation of a state would mean conquering those that did not voluntarily agree to its formation. Thus there can be no drift. It requires a brutal conquest, hardly something that can be 'drifted' into.

My larger point was about principles and the need for compromise. There is no immutable NAP principle against aggression--and there shouldn't be--because endless compromises for context are necessary. In the context of the state we find ourselves in, endless compromises are necessary in order to make progress toward a stable free peace. Human progress from what we face here and now will be about growing and learning, not just about obeying the best principle, NAP or otherwise. People have to change first. And I believe that that requires more than just run-of-the-mill education about the NAP: it's partly the gene pool.

Nor is it always so easy to find who is the aggressor, and who the victim--and it doesn't much matter among adults. Adults must face the consequences for their actions, or their inactions, in order to grow as human beings. My system is about channeling humans into becoming something more than they are today--into a race capable of living by the NAP, even if they hadn't known about it--by forcing them to face the consequences of their actions, or their inactions, and so maturing into full, individual adulthood. What matters in my bully scenario is not how society determines who is right or wrong, but that both have grown as individuals; and society has benefited by it.

So we should progress towards statelessness by continuing the state? Teach nonaggression through aggression? People can easily see the consequences of their actions when they are responsible for only themselves and no one else is responsible for them (by law). Who is society and how does it benefit?

All words can be endlessly challenged and parsed, including self-defense, retaliation, and aggression. That's a given under any system.

So you realize the futility of legislation? Anyways there is a gargantuan difference of terms between 'public safety' and 'self-defense'. Who is the public? What is its safety? Can it be one person or must it be many? How is its safety quantified? These questions are low-hanging fruit for corporations.

Self-defense on the other hand is much simpler:

A: Were you attacked?

B: Yes

A: Did you retaliate?

B: Yes

There ya go. Self defense. Clearly in real life it might not be so simple for a court to decide but at least the term has a concrete definition.

Who stops them from voting, if the majority of the "flock"--most women, the SOB kids, and a third of the men--start to lose their ancap resolve? (Uh oh, I'm picking up the dolls again, aren't I?)

So women and brats are going to wage war on free men? (Uh oh, I'm repeating myself again, aren't I?)

If the survival instinct is stronger than the will to be free, then any threat to survival--whether from an ancap foreign threat, or from the SOB/loafer/criminal element in such a society--will endanger the resolve of women, in particular, to maintain a free, voluntary arrangement--or even "most liberatarians." I don't even want to get into spiritual/mental freedom, other than the drift/Avenue discussions.

There's nothing improbable about free people coordinating their efforts to maximize the possibility of survival. I suspect that free people realize the fruits of their freedom, and realize the leader-narrative to be a manipulative myth.

This is why these forums suck. I myself have no desire to go back and reread all previous posts when joining a thread. I already said that the MW ought to be enough to support an individual's basic existence, not a family's. I don't want to encourage large poor families--and welfare does, which is why I want it ended.

Easy there. How is a basic existence's wages defined? Might it *gasp* be below the market wage in a capital-accumulated society (bar inflation) ?

A state was only desirable in the first place as a protection from attack and plunder--by other groups/states. It was instituted to better ensure survival. If it no longer serves that function, even when one contributes to it by obeying the law, working as hard or harder than anyone else, then I believe that they are justified in acting in the least harmful means necessary to ensure their survival, laws or not. Why let it come to that? I wrote this is in a different forum:

I do not believe that rights actually exist at all. We talk of rights to indicate what behavior is justifiable within the context of human interaction. There is no more a right to property than a right to life. But if, within the context of society and its laws, one is to defend a right to property, and ownership of property is predicated on the existence of a living owner, then a right to life is a prerequisite of the right to property. Without defending a right to life itself, a right to property becomes worthless. Similarly, a right to free speech has no value if the right to live is not equally well-secured, etc. So the right to life supersedes all other rights: it is the prerequisite of all other rights.

Our difference concerns the nature of morality. In my opinion, morality is not simply what is voluntary. One can voluntarily watch a child die of starvation. Is such a man moral? If you answer yes, then you have the moral sophistication of a robot or a roach. Morality must be anchored with an appreciation of innocence and a judgment of guilt. A moral man would not allow the innocent, or the relatively-innocent to die, especially if it were only so as to preserve his full, "lesser" rights. It isn't that the dying, relatively-innocent adult has a claim on, or an entitlement to, the other's property; but that morality dictates that the other aid the dying man; or else he is not a moral man. And a truly moral society is one that equally does not stand by and let the innocent child, or the relatively-innocent adult, die of deprivation--one that dictates that the innocent be protected.

All attempts to explain the origins of the state are speculation. Personally I think it lies in the power of myth and the human want of protection. I don't disagree that watching a child die is immoral. But is it moral to put a gun to that man's head and take his money and give it to the child? Maybe? But what happens when we institutionalize such far-fetched scenario's. Systemic abuse, corporatism, enrichment of the few by the many under the mythical narrative of necessity and security.

First we need to ask, why is the child starving? Can that be helped without violence?

Didn't you say you didn't believe in rights?

Also another thought occured to me. When a state exists as a minarchy, it is doing the least a state can do to impede economic development. Thus the tax base will expand rapidly. Thus the revenue stream to the state will also expand rapidly. Thus the state will grow from the fruits of the unhampered market. A minarchy could only exist as such under conditions of an exponentially shrinking tax rate. Such things are politically difficult. Just another consideration for all you minarchists out there.

DLD, don't wanna make you mad but lets get past these smokescreens of 'intellectual dolls' and 'human nature' whereby you can gloss over answers. Kinda reminds me of Keynes' animal spirits.

Re: The Minimum Wage and the Value of Labor

Clayton — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 20:58:54 GMT

@Daryl: I'm not condescending to you, I simply don't agree with your ideas on morality.

anti-elite, classist, us vs. them dogma like this:

"The parasitic class utilizes whatever form of bullying it has at its disposal in order to live at the expense of others."

So do criminals and lazy, boorish people.

When I use the term "parasitic class" I mean it to include every individual who has forsaken a path of moral decency whereby he strives to bring into the world at least the value he intends to consume. The parasitic class are not all parasites. They don't all succeed at doing it. The State simply happens to be the parasite par excellence.

Herein lies part of our problem. By holding up the State on a pedestal as some kind of grand or glorious thing that deserves something other than continual mockery, denigration and sarcasm, we are propagandizing parasitism. People look to their heroes in order to model themselves after them. A hero like Buddha or Epicurus won't teach you how to leech off of others. But a hero like the President, Prime Minister, King or Queen is about nothing but leeching off of others.

Within each of us is a principle of parasitism. You acknowledge this. Frederic Bastiat eloquently states this principle:

Slavery is on its way out, thank Heaven, and our natural inclination to defend our property makes direct and outright plunder difficult. One thing, however, has remained. It is the unfortunate primitive tendency which all men have to divide their complex lot in life into two parts, shifting the pains to others and keeping the satisfactions for themselves. It remains to be seen under what new form this deplorable tendency is manifested.

The oppressor no longer acts directly by his own force on the oppressed. No, our conscience has become too fastidious for that. There are still, to be sure, the oppressor and his victim, but between them is placed an intermediary, the state, that is, the law itself. What is better fitted to silence our scruples and—what is perhaps considered even more important—to overcome all resistance? Hence, all of us, with whatever claim, under one pretext or another, address the state. We say to it: "I do not find that there is a satisfactory proportion between my enjoyments and my labor. I should like very much to take a little from the property of others to establish the desired equilibrium. But that is dangerous. Could you not make it a little easier? Could you not find me a good job in the civil service or hinder the industry of my competitors or, still better, give me an interest-free loan of the capital you have taken from its rightful owners or educate my children at the public expense or grant me incentive subsidies or assure my well-being when I shall be fifty years old? By this means I shall reach my goal in all good conscience, for the law itself will have acted for me, and I shall have all the advantages of plunder without enduring either the risks or the odium."

- The State, excerpt

So, when I say "parasitic class", I don't mean those who have this principle of parasitism within themselves since that would be all of us and I don't mean only those who succeed in plundering, I mean those who are in a bad moral (we could say spiritual) state where they would if they could. The only thing stopping them from plundering others is the opportunity. This is an uncomfortably large segment of society as you can see by watching video of the LA riots, etc. But it isn't absolutely everyone. There are people with enough moral decency to refrain from injuring and plundering others even when given the opportunity to do so without consequence.

The problem is that we do not hold up these people as heroes or ideals to be striven after.

As far as the biological component goes, I don't think we have much say in that. It will work itself out in time. And from what we know about biology, this situation of systematic parasitism will not last. The principle of parasitism within us will never be eliminated because it is just the aggrandization of self-interest which is an essential component of any living being.

Nor do we have to wait for our biology to change in order to bring about a revolution and suppression of the parasitic class... the biological component of rape still resides within us but our frontal cortex and the social wiring in our brains enable us to pretty effectively suppress this behavior. We need to re-orient our moral thinking so that we understand that taking material things from others that belong to them is in the same class of behavior as rape. It is criminal behavior. As we begin to change ideas and attitudes about the morality of taking from some on the pretext of giving to others supposedly in desperate need, the suppression of the parasitic class will continue and grow.

Clayton -

Re: The Minimum Wage and the Value of Labor

DarylLloydDavis — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 19:51:19 GMT

Jargon

But you still don't get it. It's ok if people drift culturally towards a more matronly nature, but one cannot drift into statehood. The state must establish itself by force

I never should have picked up one of those dolls in the first place. But for the sake of argument I humored your implicit conclusion in a past thread that such a society would stabilize in the first place, even though I don't believe that. And now you want me to go beyond that false premise to speculate upon whether or not the imaginary voluntary organizational structure of an ancap society would be impregnable to votes--votes which would open wide the door to a drift toward a state. I say yes; you say no. End of story.

You're making assumptions. So the society doesn't notice when the bully is bullying the anti-bully? They only notice when the anti-bully retaliates? Some would not consider retaliation aggression. I don't see this scenario as a problem to the NAP at all, more of a "gotcha" attempt.

My larger point was about principles and the need for compromise. There is no immutable NAP principle against aggression--and there shouldn't be--because endless compromises for context are necessary. In the context of the state we find ourselves in, endless compromises are necessary in order to make progress toward a stable free peace. Human progress from what we face here and now will be about growing and learning, not just about obeying the best principle, NAP or otherwise. People have to change first. And I believe that that requires more than just run-of-the-mill education about the NAP: it's partly the gene pool.

Nor is it always so easy to find who is the aggressor, and who the victim--and it doesn't much matter among adults. Adults must face the consequences for their actions, or their inactions, in order to grow as human beings. My system is about channeling humans into becoming something more than they are today--into a race capable of living by the NAP, even if they hadn't known about it--by forcing them to face the consequences of their actions, or their inactions, and so maturing into full, individual adulthood. What matters in my bully scenario is not how society determines who is right or wrong, but that both have grown as individuals; and society has benefited by it.

I see a huge difference between thou shalt not aggress except for self-defense and no regulation except public saftey. Self-defense is easily defined. Public safety is not. What is the public? What is safety? Is safety a subjective value? How can that be measured? What is the public other than a handful of individuals? Could one person's needs account for public safety? And on and on..

All words can be endlessly challenged and parsed, including self-defense, retaliation, and aggression. That's a given under any system.

#3 Sheeple are only a problem when you let them vote about what is done to everyone. Beyond that, what's the problem with letting people suck at thinking?

Who stops them from voting, if the majority of the "flock"--most women, the SOB kids, and a third of the men--start to lose their ancap resolve? (Uh oh, I'm picking up the dolls again, aren't I?)

4) A survival instinct stronger than the will to be free

#4, I believe this is true of most libertarians. What's your point? Also what is freedom? Absence of phyiscal control? Or spiritual/mental?

If the survival instinct is stronger than the will to be free, then any threat to survival--whether from an ancap foreign threat, or from the SOB/loafer/criminal element in such a society--will endanger the resolve of women, in particular, to maintain a free, voluntary arrangement--or even "most liberatarians." I don't even want to get into spiritual/mental freedom, other than the drift/Avenue discussions.

How do you think these families feed people on a Minimum wage employment if it's not a 'living wage'? Sounds like welfare to me. Cut the welfare, the family size shrinks.

This is why these forums suck. I myself have no desire to go back and reread all previous posts when joining a thread. I already said that the MW ought to be enough to support an individual's basic existence, not a family's. I don't want to encourage large poor families--and welfare does, which is why I want it ended.

I don't understand this. Minimum wage and your conception of morality are necessary to people obeying the law? What about self-interest combined with societal wealth?

A state was only desirable in the first place as a protection from attack and plunder--by other groups/states. It was instituted to better ensure survival. If it no longer serves that function, even when one contributes to it by obeying the law, working as hard or harder than anyone else, then I believe that they are justified in acting in the least harmful means necessary to ensure their survival, laws or not. Why let it come to that? I wrote this is in a different forum:

I do not believe that rights actually exist at all. We talk of rights to indicate what behavior is justifiable within the context of human interaction. There is no more a right to property than a right to life. But if, within the context of society and its laws, one is to defend a right to property, and ownership of property is predicated on the existence of a living owner, then a right to life is a prerequisite of the right to property. Without defending a right to life itself, a right to property becomes worthless. Similarly, a right to free speech has no value if the right to live is not equally well-secured, etc. So the right to life supersedes all other rights: it is the prerequisite of all other rights.

Our difference concerns the nature of morality. In my opinion, morality is not simply what is voluntary. One can voluntarily watch a child die of starvation. Is such a man moral? If you answer yes, then you have the moral sophistication of a robot or a roach. Morality must be anchored with an appreciation of innocence and a judgment of guilt. A moral man would not allow the innocent, or the relatively-innocent to die, especially if it were only so as to preserve his full, "lesser" rights. It isn't that the dying, relatively-innocent adult has a claim on, or an entitlement to, the other's property; but that morality dictates that the other aid the dying man; or else he is not a moral man. And a truly moral society is one that equally does not stand by and let the innocent child, or the relatively-innocent adult, die of deprivation--one that dictates that the innocent be protected.

Re: The Minimum Wage and the Value of Labor

Zerubbabel — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 18:56:30 GMT

Daryl you concluded your original post by stating your motives, honest motives of open intellectual inquiry.

"I won't respond to every post, as I'm more interested in gathering a diversity of opinion than in defending my own."

After 8 pages of gathering a diversity of opinion, and by no means defending your own opinion, you conclude your inquiry with this profound summary statement:

"Fuck You"

Perfect! Absolutely Perfect! ROFLMFAO! Thank You!

The 2nd place finish in the entertainment value of this thread was the irony of when you berated an interlocutor for "playing with intellectual dolls." Seeing your argument as a forest and not trees (I didn't have the stamina to actually read your posts to the end. [I'm glad the "Fuck You" came early in the post])- it's essence was a rewrite of the Constitution or your blueprint for the perfect state. Your argument distills down to your insistence that mankind (starting first with the people on this forum) adopt your ingenious plan. Your whole schtick is one big intellectual doll!

The 3rd place finish in the entertainment value of this thread was the burning question of whether you are, or are not, a "libertarian." First you admonishes an interlocutor for assuming that you are not a "libertarian" then you make a declarative statement that you are NOT a "libertarian" while admonishing the interlocutor for treating him as such.

You display the enthusiasm and arrogance of youth. Are you? You do have one great attribute that I wonder after. It is not the genius of your plan, or your ability to influence people or to earn their respect; these you do not have. I wonder at how you are able to hold the attention of so many people who have no love or respect for you.

Re: The Minimum Wage and the Value of Labor

gotlucky — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 17:46:11 GMT

DarylLloydDavis:

But, see, statements like this make me realize that you have no grounding in what morality even is

Fuck you. Your constant condencension is obnoxious. You know damn well what I mean, whether I use your pet semantical terms, or not. If you haven't read my post to Jargon, on what I consider to be morality, then I invite you to do so; and if you have already done so, then I await any valid criticism of it. And maybe you'll then apologize for utterly mischaracterizing my stated point of view:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

This made my day.

So, Daryl Lloyd Davis, what is the punishment for people who disagree with the rules your state makes up?

Oh, and you may think that by ignoring me the question will go away, but I can assure you that anyone reading this thread has noticed this gaping hole in your idea of morality.

In one of your responses to Wheylous:

DarylLloydDavis:

My document is a blueprint for dismantling the state, even while using it as a teaching tool toward an ideal end, imposing a respect for children, discouraging unfettered land development, and encouraging personal accountability.

In one of your responses to Clayton:

DarylLoydDavis:

I have explicitly stated on this forum that I do not consider myself a libertarian. Never have.

So which is it? Are you a statist or an anti-statist? There is no third option.

And I will ask again:

What is the punishment for those who do not want to follow your laws in your statist society? The more you ignore this, the more everyone reading this thread sees the bullshit you are spewing.

Re: The Minimum Wage and the Value of Labor

DarylLloydDavis — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 17:28:07 GMT

Clayton

But, see, statements like this make me realize that you have no grounding in what morality even is

Fuck you. Your constant condencension is obnoxious. You know damn well what I mean, whether I use your pet semantical terms, or not. If you haven't read my post to Jargon, on what I consider to be morality, then I invite you to do so; and if you have already done so, then I await any valid criticism of it. And maybe you'll then apologize for utterly mischaracterizing my stated point of view:

If you follow the threads with DarylLoydDavis, you will notice a lot of this same idealized moral conception in his arguments. The root problem is that the though-experiment incorrectly treats groups as telic actors - it is not immoral for "rich people" to not give to "poor people", even if they are starving, even though it is immoral for a rich person not to help starving people when he can.

I have made it explicit that I support state intervention to spare the truly innocent, including truly helpless adults, if they cannot survive and will starve without it: It would be immoral not to help. But I do not support helping those who can help themselves, but won't help themselves--except to other peoples' money. And it is just as immoral for a poor person not to help a starving person as it is a rich person. It has nothing to do with class distinctions, or group vs. individual classifications, at all.

I myself went through a brief phase of locking into the pure fight of thwarting those who control most wealth, at all costs. But I quickly rejected it as inherently-negative, reactionary, and ultimately anti-social: it's quixotic self-indulgence masquerading as intellectual activism.

The root moral cause of the State is the justification and acquiescence to hypocrisy or double-standards.

I largely agree with this assertion/observation. But I believe that the motivation behind this "justification and acquiescence" is a genetic predisposition, to varying degrees, within all humans, to employ hypocrisy and impose a conforming acquiescence upon others, so as to acquire increased ownership of the material goods that ensure survival, physically and genetically. This unconscious, or completely-conscious in many cases, disposition does not disappear absent statutory law, as implied by your old post. This is why, if the situation isn't to be given up as hopeless--as it reasonably could be--then a change in the prevailing genetics and unconscious drives of humanity must be effected. And I wrote my document with that end specifically in mind, believe me or not.

Privilege and special exemption is the essnece of the State. It is the widespread, popular acceptance of bad morality that is the foundation on which the State is built. Without it, the State would collapse in an instant.

Less privilege and fewer special exemptions is an apt description of my proposed direct democracy. But I reject the implicit assertion contained in your contention that the State would collapse, if only popular acceptance were dispelled: It is not merely a popularly-held misconception about the blind justice of the law that stands in the way of progress toward a freer people. There are all sorts of different people, none of whom are the Farmers-Elite, who adore such a system, well aware of its use as a ruse for plucking the people--from armed robbers to welfare's new mothers, and so many more inbetween.

Taking other's property for nothing is a legitimate, ingrained, evolutionary survival strategy; and my admittedly-very-un-PC system is specifically designed to turn the tide away from this side of the gene pool. I don't see any other way to alter the course of humanity and its population trends, than through this imposed genetic manipulation, and the local, hands-on training in a system of direct governance, rooted in personal accountability and self-reliance, that my system provides.

So, I think we (all of us) need to go back to the drawing boards on morality

I already have. And this document reflects a lifetime of analysis and observation. ( I'm reading a biography of the Buddha now, incidentally.) You can ignore or dismiss the moral conclusions I've reached, if you wish; but until you actually refute their logic, I'll ask you to spare me references to other thinkers, like Epicurus and his prescription for a moral life spent in friend-filled communes and pastoral self-analysis. I view all loyalties, even to friends, as inherently immoral--anti-individual:

Furthermore, I believe that humans, if they are to mature into fully-moral individuals, must face the full consequences of their actions as directly and as personally as possible. But most do not: They cede their free choice to others; they shelter themselves within groups--familial, political, sports, religious, etc.--and they act in the name of those they claim to represent. Within these contexts, loyalty is widely considered to be a virtue; to me it is a vice. For the surest test of one's loyalty comes not in a defense of the innocent; but in a bold-faced, spirited defense of the guilty. Loyalty perpetuates immorality.

And pleasure is no guide to true morality: often the most disagreeable, shit-eating acts are also the ones that lead to the greatest personal growth; hence my emphasis on individual accountability, not anti-elite, classist, us vs. them dogma like this:

The parasitic class utilizes whatever form of bullying it has at its disposal in order to live at the expense of others.

So do criminals and lazy, boorish people. And I've yet to hear a solution for this from you, except for further posts here to enlighten your ancap masses.

Thank you for your replies to my posts, Clayton; I've enjoyed the debates, even when they were heated. I've learned a good deal from this forum--mostly negative, I'm afraid--but at least I have a more complete understanding of the potential resistance to what I see as meaningful and moral reform.

Re: The Minimum Wage and the Value of Labor

DarylLloydDavis — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 15:40:33 GMT

Wheylous

You, on the other hand, are proposing that the end result be a non-voluntary society. You actively work towards it and reject elements of voluntary, non-aggressive action.

My end result would not look like an ancap society, rooted only in free market principles, no. It would be a less densely-populated world, where people show courtesy and respect for one another, and most especially for kids and animals--Earth's true innocents (And I know quite well that this sounds very unsophisticated; but sometimes values are so.)--without the intervention of any government whatsoever. My document is a blueprint for dismantling the state, even while using it as a teaching tool toward an ideal end, imposing a respect for children, discouraging unfettered land development, and encouraging personal accountability. Do I think that my document will lead to the ideal free world I would want? No. But it's the most realistic, and therefore the most honest, concrete, moral plan I could conceive for attempting to take a course to a better world.

I reject the vision of an ancap society as an end unto itself--though it would be a vast improvement over what we have today--because I judge it to be morally incomplete, unstable given human nature, and unworkable upon purely economic grounds, e.g. private road systems, private law enforcement, justice, and money. Yet I would freely acknowledge that my own system aims even further out than an ancap society--educating the people, hands-on, and changing them, using a direct-democracy "twisting" of the current system, such that they forego the obsession with ownership and production of material property, so widely on display at this forum, and accomodate themselves to a more mature, modest, peaceful Life. For me, unfettered materialism and stable, sustainable peace are antithetical.

The Constitution for Ron Paul is a tool to decrease government. To you it is a tool to legitimize the role of government in people's lives

If none of what I have now said to you has sunken in at this point, then I will assume that you believe I am a liar, a secret statist. And in this case, I see no point in making any further assertions, or defenses of my positions, with you, Wheylous.

Re: The Minimum Wage and the Value of Labor

Jargon — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 09:11:31 GMT

DarylLloydDavis:

Jargon

When I said, "...that it doesn't matter so much how they begin: it's where they end up...," I was saying that women will influence an ancap society, assuming that people are the same, genetically and psychologically, as they are today--toward the same drift to the left--and into a state system. It isn't productive to posit that women begin as different creatures than they are now, and then assert that therefore there will then be no such drift.....Thanks. Why didn't I think of that? That requires no thought at all: it isn't even an experiment then; it's just turning all women into something they are not, Barbie Dolls, if you like. Tell me how they are changed. Otherwise, they will bond, band together, and eventually influence their ancap hubbies out of a principled resistance to any collectivized, entitlement to the defense of life from their kids needs and want. It's as much an indictment of the modern male, as it is the female.

Why "AREN'T NEVER WILL DURR" we get to AC? You haven't given a reason other than throwing your hands in the air and making cybernoise.

Genetic diversification and motherly protectiveness: Drift. Why didn't that stick? Ever tried to be logical with a woman? Do you think that all that criminals and a-holes really need is someone to sit down with them and explain the merits of the voluntary exchange and the NAP? Some of you forum guys seem to spend too much time in each others' company. There are a lot of people out their who have absolutely no daily respect for the rights of others. Private self-interest is often an ugly thing, not any force for positive change. And seceding into a separatist society won't preclude that drift into ugly self-interest.

But you still don't get it. It's ok if people drift culturally towards a more matronly nature, but one cannot drift into statehood. The state must establish itself by force. By demanding and taking taxes involuntarily. Thus, you can have all the drift you want, but when push comes to shove, the establishment of a state will require violent conflict. Thus, it isn't something one drifts into.

Let's agree to disagree, Jargon. The only principles that don't get compromised are the ones that never see the light of day. You guys hate my versions of thought experiments, but apply the NAP to this:

What is best for society may not be best for the individual. When a schoolyard bully gets a black eye from a kid he used to pick on every day, this may be good both for the newly-courageous kid and for the newly-humble bully. But society sees none of this--sticks to blind rules that take no notice of Becoming: Moral law is only about Being. Be considerate of others. Be non-violent. But such rules are irrelevant in real human conflicts, because these situations arise from unconscious needs and drives, where people feel that they are doing the right thing. And they have much to learn from these mistakes.

You're making assumptions. So the society doesn't notice when the bully is bullying the anti-bully? They only notice when the anti-bully retaliates? Some would not consider retaliation aggression. I don't see this scenario as a problem to the NAP at all, more of a "gotcha" attempt.

Gigantic fucking elastic clause there. "For the protection of public safety"? Really? Can you envision no scenario's where that tiny hole gets reamed out to a grand canyon of regulatory capture?

Of course I can. But words are required. And "Thou shalt not commit aggression, except in self-defense." still leaves room for all sorts of lawyerly interpretation. Reams of definitional terms about aggression, self-defense, intent to commit, real versus implied threat to commit, premeditation to commit, defense of reputation, falsehood as aggression, ad nauseum. And if a company knowingly distributes an unsafe product, causing injury to its customers, there will have to be some, presumably-written, interpretation of the NAP as to how the safety of the consumer is addressed; hence a law/regulation--equally subject to challenge and reinterpretation. It only takes one judge, or one lawyer to start a drift.

I see a huge difference between thou shalt not aggress except for self-defense and no regulation except public saftey. Self-defense is easily defined. Public safety is not. What is the public? What is safety? Is safety a subjective value? How can that be measured? What is the public other than a handful of individuals? Could one person's needs account for public safety? And on and on...

Welcome to the Avenue:

1) Female protectiveness/pussy-whipped males/SOB kids.

2) Egotistical/Controlling Politicians (No more Congress under my system)

3) Group-think "sheeple" more interested in identifying themselves by their loyalties to groups than through individual accountability

4) A survival instinct stronger than the will to be free

#1, this sucks and is largely a reflection of a culture of dependence and apathy. Part of that can be eliminated by repealing public education and also having jobs pay enough so that women don't have to work. This can be provided by a free market. Beyond that, it's up to the people to make their changes.

#2, not a problem with AC

#3 Sheeple are only a problem when you let them vote about what is done to everyone. Beyond that, what's the problem with letting people suck at thinking?

#4, I believe this is true of most libertarians. What's your point? Also what is freedom? Absence of phyiscal control? Or spiritual/mental?

I didn't ignore it at all. I asserted that different populations within a given modernized state do not all necessarily shrink over time. The Arab population in Europe is growing, even as the Anglo population shrinks. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/5994047/Muslim-Europe-the-demographic-time-bomb-transforming-our-continent.html

That is also real world evidence. Your response failed to make note of that counterpoint: You ignored me. And it specifically addresses cultures who one finds in MW jobs, i.e. immigrants from underdeveloped countries. They come over, fail to fully assimilate, and out-populate the shrinking modern, "native" population. If a MW reduces the number of these available jobs, then it discourages immigration--much as our slumping economy has discouraged illegal border crossing to the south. Remember, too, that I don't want to use up the Earth's resources by most quickly spreading the least little bit to the most possible people. Small families good; large families bad.

How do you think these families feed people on a Minimum wage employment if it's not a 'living wage'? Sounds like welfare to me. Cut the welfare, the family size shrinks.

I did. And if you meant by: "This lack of competition for bidding labor may well be a result of restricted market entry." that companies enjoy an inordinate power to screw low-wage workers over, paying them less than would be a just wage--less than is justified by any competition between the companies--then I agree.

I think that it's possible but I can't currently substantiate that suspicion. The upside is, in stable markets, wages are always rising!

I hope I've made it clear that I didn't ignore you previously, regarding population and development; and I only posted an extensive explanation of my moral scheme at your specific request. The connection between the imposition of an MW and morality is that citizens ought agree to remain law-abiding in their country, only so long as it secures their lives to such an extent that their honest full-time work can afford them at least a basic subsistence. Otherwise, all bets ought to be off.

I don't understand this. Minimum wage and your conception of morality are necessary to people obeying the law? What about self-interest combined with societal wealth?

Re: The Minimum Wage and the Value of Labor

Clayton — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 04:50:26 GMT

Voluntary exchange is not an unconditional moral good, in my opinion, even when no direct aggression is committed

But, see, statements like this make me realize that you have no grounding in what morality even is. I have issues with Rothbard and Hoppe on ethical theory, as well, but at least they have the foundations right.

"Voluntary exchange" is simply not a proper object of moral theory - it's like saying "cumulus clouds are not an unconditional moral good" ... gibberish. Morality concerns the choices and actions of an individual. When moral propositions are made regarding an unorganized group (humanity is an unorganized group), they simply mean "for every individual..." "It is immoral for humanity to allow murder" really means "for each and every individual, the act of committing murder is immoral."

Holding organizations responsible for their behavior is a bit more complex and modern law is in horrid shape on this subject. It holds some people responsible for things they should not be held responsible for (e.g. a pawn-shop owner who unwittingly sells stolen goods) and fails to hold other people responsible for things they should be held responsible for (e.g. board members and senior staff at banks that go bankrupt).

I do not hold the free market or anarchy or liberty as ends in themselves. I wrote a post on this issue a long time back, you should take a look. Something much bigger is at stake, here. The root moral cause of the State is the justification and acquiescence to hypocrisy or double-standards. Privilege and special exemption is the essnece of the State. It is the widespread, popular acceptance of bad morality that is the foundation on which the State is built. Without it, the State would collapse in an instant.

So, I think we (all of us) need to go back to the drawing boards on morality. What is right and wrong? How do we know? Parts of the answers are scattered throughout the world's religions and philosophy but they have been and continue to be actively suppressed. Those who rule us understand the root source of their power: corrupted morals. They suppress good moral teaching either through direct oppression and censorship or (the new method) by drowning it out with garbage and propaganda.

What is right and wrong? It is simply pleasure and pain. What brings you pleasure is morally right. What brings you pain is morally wrong. Of course, this has an asterisk on it. Unlike other animals, you are capable of long-range planning and foresight. Your immediate suffering or gratification may lead to other longer run consequences that you prefer or disprefer more strongly than the present pleasure or pain. Hence, your action (choices) has both a long-run and short-run component to it and this is why what feels good at the moment may not always be morally right and what feels painful at the moment may not always be morally wrong.

I'm working on a short book-length treatment on this subject. Minus the stuff on reincarnation and some of the more mystical stuff, the Buddhists (certain schools anyway) have it precisely right. So did Epicurus. Given the immediate appeal of these religious and philosophical ideas to any mature adult (to use your term), ask yourself why these ideas are so rarely heard. I'll tell you why. It's the same reason you're probably afraid to take your car to the mechanic - he just may use his specialized knowledge and superior credentials to bully you into having to pay him for work and parts that you did not need. Mental bullying is profitable just like physical bullying is. The parasitic class utilizes whatever form of bullying it has at its disposal in order to live at the expense of others. Just like the State wants to disarm its subjects in order to render them the more vulnerable to its predation, so it wants to suppress right morality in order to maintain the evil status quo.

I'm not interested in denigrating your proposed Constitution - you clearly went to a lot of work to put it together and I respect that. I just don't agree with your approach and a lot of your ideas and conclusions.

Clayton -

Re: The Minimum Wage and the Value of Labor

DarylLloydDavis — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 03:42:47 GMT

Clayton

it's not the first time you've claimed to desire the elimination of the need for government) and that the strategies which have been put forward by Rothbard, Hoppe, David Friedman and others are simply unworkable... a rather pompous dismissal

I don't share the same sense with libertarians of what is the very foundation of a moral society. Voluntary exchange is not an unconditional moral good, in my opinion, even when no direct aggression is committed. And I'm not smitten with the virtues of an unfettered free market, untempered by the common sense and social consciousness of its practitioners. So I reject the premises upon which Rothbard and other libertarian theoreticians extrapolate.

When I say that I want a world free of government, I'm not envisioning the DeathStar, or even a sprawling, spire-filled global metropolis. I envision a planet modestly-populated by a more mature version of the human race, living closer to Nature than they do now, free people freely opting to treat the true innocents of Earth, animals and their own children, with all due care and respect. I invite you to return to our first discussion, about Somalia, where I made this plain--or so I thought. (Thread: How does a free territory remain free from a state(?))

And so I designed a document that would best teach what is naturally my own version of what is moral, including this unique amendment in place of the current, criminal-coddling Fifth Amendment (i.e. pleading the Fifth):

Amendment V – The intentional, knowing, reckless or criminally-negligent infliction of death or grave physical or psychological injury—a disabling injury that is not susceptible to humane, restorative care or natural, restorative healing, absent professional medical or mental health intervention— by an adult upon a minor, a post-partum human being younger than eighteen years of age, henceforth shall be a high crime: an offense so heinous and degenerate that, upon conviction and exhausted appeal of the convicted, the latter shall be confined by the state, apart from the public, until death.

You've never responded to the problems with democracy raised by regular, run-of-the-mill public choice theory which isn't even Austrian.

Every aspect of my document is a direct calculation of public choice theory as it relates to my sense of both human nature and morality. And I have done nothing but respond to often-repetitive challenges--another downside to these forums. Frankly, I have received the least amount of interest from you. I've been left with the impression that you don't even closely read such snippets from as document, as above; hence you blithely say that I "limit liability," when I specifically make an end to the official immunity of politicians against civil and criminal suits, when irreparable harm is done as a result of their actions or decisions. And you dismissed my 95%/51% formulations with nary a second thought. That is of course your prerogative; but please don't accuse me of just scrawling out a random alternative Constitution, when you haven't even bothered to ask me about the choices that went into it.

Re: The Minimum Wage and the Value of Labor

DarylLloydDavis — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 02:33:42 GMT

Jargon

When I said, "...that it doesn't matter so much how they begin: it's where they end up...," I was saying that women will influence an ancap society, assuming that people are the same, genetically and psychologically, as they are today--toward the same drift to the left--and into a state system. It isn't productive to posit that women begin as different creatures than they are now, and then assert that therefore there will then be no such drift.....Thanks. Why didn't I think of that? That requires no thought at all: it isn't even an experiment then; it's just turning all women into something they are not, Barbie Dolls, if you like. Tell me how they are changed. Otherwise, they will bond, band together, and eventually influence their ancap hubbies out of a principled resistance to any collectivized, entitlement to the defense of life from their kids needs and want. It's as much an indictment of the modern male, as it is the female.

Why "AREN'T NEVER WILL DURR" we get to AC? You haven't given a reason other than throwing your hands in the air and making cybernoise.

Genetic diversification and motherly protectiveness: Drift. Why didn't that stick? Ever tried to be logical with a woman? Do you think that all that criminals and a-holes really need is someone to sit down with them and explain the merits of the voluntary exchange and the NAP? Some of you forum guys seem to spend too much time in each others' company. There are a lot of people out their who have absolutely no daily respect for the rights of others. Private self-interest is often an ugly thing, not any force for positive change. And seceding into a separatist society won't preclude that drift into ugly self-interest.

Anyways, what virtue is there in compromise when the non-compromise solution is better? When only ignorance is the obstacle to a better outcome, compromise is intellectual laziness because it ignores and permits, not corrects, fallacious thinking

Let's agree to disagree, Jargon. The only principles that don't get compromised are the ones that never see the light of day. You guys hate my versions of thought experiments, but apply the NAP to this:

What is best for society may not be best for the individual. When a schoolyard bully gets a black eye from a kid he used to pick on every day, this may be good both for the newly-courageous kid and for the newly-humble bully. But society sees none of this--sticks to blind rules that take no notice of Becoming: Moral law is only about Being. Be considerate of others. Be non-violent. But such rules are irrelevant in real human conflicts, because these situations arise from unconscious needs and drives, where people feel that they are doing the right thing. And they have much to learn from these mistakes.

Gigantic fucking elastic clause there. "For the protection of public safety"? Really? Can you envision no scenario's where that tiny hole gets reamed out to a grand canyon of regulatory capture?

Of course I can. But words are required. And "Thou shalt not commit aggression, except in self-defense." still leaves room for all sorts of lawyerly interpretation. Reams of definitional terms about aggression, self-defense, intent to commit, real versus implied threat to commit, premeditation to commit, defense of reputation, falsehood as aggression, ad nauseum. And if a company knowingly distributes an unsafe product, causing injury to its customers, there will have to be some, presumably-written, interpretation of the NAP as to how the safety of the consumer is addressed; hence a law/regulation--equally subject to challenge and reinterpretation. It only takes one judge, or one lawyer to start a drift.

I just meant that you often use human nature as an excuse instead of examining the avenues which human nature is permitted to expand into by the state.

Welcome to the Avenue:

1) Female protectiveness/pussy-whipped males/SOB kids.

2) Egotistical/Controlling Politicians (No more Congress under my system)

3) Group-think "sheeple" more interested in identifying themselves by their loyalties to groups than through individual accountability

4) A survival instinct stronger than the will to be free

Cool so just ignore everything I said about economic growth reducing population growth rates and also all of the real world evidence out there to support it. Great.

I didn't ignore it at all. I asserted that different populations within a given modernized state do not all necessarily shrink over time. The Arab population in Europe is growing, even as the Anglo population shrinks. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/5994047/Muslim-Europe-the-demographic-time-bomb-transforming-our-continent.html

That is also real world evidence. Your response failed to make note of that counterpoint: You ignored me. And it specifically addresses cultures who one finds in MW jobs, i.e. immigrants from underdeveloped countries. They come over, fail to fully assimilate, and out-populate the shrinking modern, "native" population. If a MW reduces the number of these available jobs, then it discourages immigration--much as our slumping economy has discouraged illegal border crossing to the south. Remember, too, that I don't want to use up the Earth's resources by most quickly spreading the least little bit to the most possible people. Small families good; large families bad.

oligopsonized labor markets. Google it.

I did. And if you meant by: "This lack of competition for bidding labor may well be a result of restricted market entry." that companies enjoy an inordinate power to screw low-wage workers over, paying them less than would be a just wage--less than is justified by any competition between the companies--then I agree.

Yeah let's just ignore the fact that a blue collar worker can buy a machine that can go 100 mph and buy a house or an apartment today whereas 100 years ago he could not and had to share living space.

We've had a minimum wage since 1938, so you'd have to know better than I do what would have happened during and after the Depression to real wages, if the largely-unregulated companies of the day had been permitted to continue to pay peanuts. http://www.minimum-wage.org/history.asp

Great combination of ignoring the population reducing effects of development and arbitrary appeals to a nebulous morality in which workers must consult a monopoly to become employed.

I hope I've made it clear that I didn't ignore you previously, regarding population and development; and I only posted an extensive explanation of my moral scheme at your specific request. The connection between the imposition of an MW and morality is that citizens ought agree to remain law-abiding in their country, only so long as it secures their lives to such an extent that their honest full-time work can afford them at least a basic subsistence. Otherwise, all bets ought to be off.

Re: The Minimum Wage and the Value of Labor

Clayton — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 00:38:08 GMT

Why don't you cite where I have used the term "modest goal" that you put into quotes.

I shouldn't have put the quotes, I didn't mean to imply you literally used that term. You have, however, repeatedly claimed about the unrealisticness of "ancap society" generally which is contradictory given the fact that you claim in this very post that your goal is the eventual elimination of the need for government. In any case, you posit that your proposed, model constitution represents some kind of achievable path to the elimination of the need for government (this is why I assumed you were claiming to be a libertarian, it's not the first time you've claimed to desire the elimination of the need for government) and that the strategies which have been put forward by Rothbard, Hoppe, David Friedman and others are simply unworkable... a rather pompous dismissal given that you've obviously never read any of them in any depth and given that each of these men and many others in similar traditions of anti-statism have spent all or most of their careers studying the social sciences related to the State.

I'm not going to appeal to authority because you can trot out many more PhDs to oppose my PhDs... and it's not about that. The point is that if you are seeking the truth, you should look under every rock. The mainstream views hardly need any repetition, they are all-pervasive.

Ah, then our previous discussion of the merits of your common law advocacy were an exercise in arbitrary argumentation?

No. The conditions for common law simply do not exist at present. They will not exist until people are freer to resolve their own disputes outside of the State's monopoly courts. So, a return to common law is more of an end goal than a means or strategy. The strategy to getting there is discrediting and busting up the State's monopoly on courts and reducing the scope and reach of its legislative and executive powers which subvert the natural course of law.

Are you arguing that I ought not share them--ought not offer up my own prescription for what ails my own country?

Share away, I've never complained about you posting here. The problem is that you are recommending more of the very poison which is ailing our country. Democracy is the problem, not the solution. You've never responded to the problems with democracy raised by regular, run-of-the-mill public choice theory which isn't even Austrian.

Re-mapping costs and benefits from decision-makers is automatically a bad idea. You really have to have an insanely powerful argument why this is a good idea. Limiting liability and conferring privileges is a bad idea because it decreases the disincentives for wrong decisions and increases the incentives for wrong decisions. Yet democracy - and any other form of government for that matter but democracy is particularly bad in this regard - inevitably does this.

I object to your ideas not to your expressing them. You seem like a decent person and I think your mistakes are technical but they are mistakes.

Clayton -

Re: The Minimum Wage and the Value of Labor

Wheylous — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 00:33:19 GMT

Yet all his actions have been almost entirely with the goal of reducing state power. Your goals are those of twisting state power.

Try to see the difference. This is what he does. He sees 5 agencies:

A,B,C,D, and E.

He wants to reduce government power. Hence, he cuts 3 of them. Because the amount of violence used by the state is objectively on the net less, this is an improvement for liberty.

In any case where he rediverts resources, say from a small chunk of foreign interventionism to giving aid to veterans, or from one large entitlement program to a much more trimmed-down version, his ultimate goal still remains "remove them all!" He uses compromise to work towards the goal of maximizing freedom. His goal is voluntaryist, his methods moderate but always with the goal in mind.

You, on the other hand, are proposing that the end result be a non-voluntary society. You actively work towards it and reject elements of voluntary, non-aggressive action.

The Constitution for Ron Paul is a tool to decrease government. To you it is a tool to legitimize the role of government in people's lives.

I'd also appreciate an answer to my other questions interspersed through the thread.