Originally posted by bbarrwow, good post ... rec'd ...
Minimum wage laws are simply unjust exercises of state power. They prevent me, as a business owner, from freely contracting with a person willing to work for what I'm willing to pay. If workers are unwilling to work for little money, then they ought to organize and negotiate with me. If I offer too little, they should withold their services from me. Event ...[text shortened]... ant my business to do well, I'll offer wages sufficient to get employees. What's the problem?
Originally posted by KneverKnightSounds like the Canadian "Liberal" RE: LEFT WING gov't
LOL
Reminds me of a place where I used to work. They were fond of posting little "motivational" posters, basically along the lines of "hard work brings you luck".
It turns out that ALL the supervisors there were either related or had gone to the same college together. One of them actually promoted a girl he was having an adulterous affair ...[text shortened]... ed* when her department went under because she didn't have a clue.
Nepotism is alive and well.
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardNo where in any definition of capitalism will you find fraud and slavery.
Typical rightwing generalising, here's how it sounds from the left:
Why would I have to slave my @ss if for some lazy fraudulent slavedriver to get rich?
Under a capitalist system both are illegal.
If you think your employer is becoming too rich go and work for someone less successful lol.
Originally posted by vistesdNo, the state has no business regulating unions, either for or against.
Now the plot thickens—does the state have any business in making it legal/illegal for workers to form union, bargain collectively, withhold their labor collectively (thinking of early US conspiracy laws here, versus Norris-LaGuardia and the Wagner Act—my labor history is rusty, though)? Laws to govern collective as well as individual rights of contract? La ...[text shortened]... ate militias to put down a strike? There’s a whole semester of US labor history here—at least.
The state does have a role in ensuring contracts are honoured.
The state has no business prohibiting strikebreakers it does have a role in protecting strikebreakers if they are threatened with force by the strikers.
Originally posted by bbarrActually, no one deserves anything because free will is an illusion.
I'm exploring a particular line of reasoning, not being sarcastic. You should have picked this up from my response to vistesd.
To recap, it is unjust for the government to tax me so that deadbeat loafers can luxuriate in psych. wards, with access to the very best psychotropics. They do not deserve my money, as I'm the one who earned it with my labor. Forced taxation is of a piece with forced labor.
If I am born with good genes for talent and prudence, or I am thereafter exposed to circumstance that promote these virtues, then how can I am responsible for either? I am just lucky! And if my genes and environment conspire to inhibit to make me a talentless sluggard, well, I am just unlucky.
So, if no one deserves anything, then no one deserves the fruits of their own labour. Hence, the government should feel free to tax anyone as it wishes.
Layabouts rejoice!
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeGood point, rec, if I could. Awarding people off of genetics and environment is not human choice/effort/work.
Actually, no one deserves anything because free will is an illusion.
If I am born with good genes for talent and prudence, or I am thereafter exposed to circumstance that promote these virtues, then how can I am responsible for either? I am just lucky! And if my genes and environment conspire to inhibit to make me a talentless sluggard, well, I am ju ...[text shortened]... labour. Hence, the government should feel free to tax anyone as it wishes.
Layabouts rejoice!
1 edit
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboarddont work then, but you aren't taking my money. How is that fair. Socialism is slavery in that no matter how hard you work, how succesful you become, your money is taken and re-distributed to someone who thinks like you. You are, and will always be, stuck in the same place, with a suffering economy as there is NO incentive to work hard and produce. THAT IS SLAVERY. On the other hand, in capitalism you are free to work wherever you want and become as successful as you want, or don't want, to be. You want to be a lazy bum go ahead and be lazy and poor, but if you want to work hard you can improve your place in society. That is freedom.
Typical rightwing generalising, here's how it sounds from the left:
Why would I have to slave my @ss if for some lazy fraudulent slavedriver to get rich?
Originally posted by newdad27You're a silly sod too.
dont work then, but you aren't taking my money. How is that fair. Socialism is slavery in that no matter how hard you work, how succesful you become, your money is taken and re-distributed to someone who thinks like you. You are, and will always be, stuck in the same place, with a suffering economy as there is NO incentive to work hard and produce. THA ...[text shortened]... and poor, but if you want to work hard you can improve your place in society. That is freedom.