Subject:
|
Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 24 Jan 2000 14:17:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2599 times
|
| |
|
|
Jasper Janssen wrote:
>
> If the government stopped feeding them, they would be fed by
> charities. Maybe. At least, that's what the libertarians keep telling
> me.
Some would, and some wouldn't. Obviously if your culture feels that
it's appropriate to feed them via the government, they would still feel
that way if the government disappeared right? But they might make them
work a little for it, which would be an improvement.
> they did use it. You could possibly have bought it from them cheap,
> though.
That would have been a better approach. And maybe even cheaper than
operating a military.
> A car produces pollution whether it runs or not.
Oh yeah? Like miniscule fumes from the degredation of the tires and stuff?
> > probably keep that healthy. If that's what minimum wage did, I wouldn't
> > be starkly offended by it, I would only be morally outraged ;-) I think
> > it's a wrong thing to regulate, but I think most of the damage comes
> > from people getting more than they're worth.
>
> So what damage does it do?
It tricks people into a false sense of worth.
It prevents businesses from operating because they'd need a cheaper
labor pool.
It prevents people with no skills from working for a living because no
one will pay them the extreme amount to which the minimum wage is set.
It incents teens to not have to work hard since companies are dying for
help and they know that they can just go somewhere else and get the same
amount. Companies can't reward based on merit and our teens are
learning all the wrong things about what constitutes an honest living.
> There are two or three effects: people lose
> jobs and get replaced by more efficient machines. Good Thing.
Agreed.
> People
> who may be "worth" a little less than minimum wage are paid minimum
> wage, and as a consequence of the race to the bottom thing you get
> with any and all standards, you'll also get a few people who are paid
> a bit less than they might otherwise have been (markets are _never_
> frictionfree..). That combination: also a good thing.
Show me. I'm not groking any logic behind how this is a good thing.
Also, by using "a little less" and "a bit more" you imply that these are
merely minor perturbations. I disagree. If I had to have a minimum
wage, but got to reset it, I'd knock it back to less than half of what
it is - maybe $2 per hour and I bet that people would work for it...at
least if the dole vanished.
> > > Cause, well, I'd rather see somebody starve fast than slow, if they
> > > have to starve. Less chance of them taking up criminal lifestyle.
> >
> > I guess I think that's pretty poor reason to impose government regulations.
>
> Oh?
I don't mean that the govt shouldn't be in the business of discouraging
criminal lifestyle, I mean that the govt should allow people to decide
whether they'll starve fast or slow. I personally would rather fight a
long uphill battle agains starvation then be denied the opportunity by
the government.
> > OK, good. Now we're on the same sheet of music. Democracy (such as
> > we've enacted it) is a fairly liberal notion of how things should be run
> > anyway. And it's inherently flawed. We can do better.
>
> No, we can't.
OK, _we_ (that is, you and I) can't. But I think that John, Frank,
Larry and I could. Even if we don't agree on everything.
> And I don't think _anybody_ has ever suggested getting rid of
> democracy. The only thing that would be remotely in line with
What do you mean by anybody? I'm pretty public about thinking that we
should move on to the next step of social evolution. Democracy was an
improvement over dictatorship and feudalism. That doesn't mean that
it's the end of the chain. Just like humans are the ultimate peak of
evolution (I hope!). We can continue to grow and improve.
> anybody's stated purpose _and_ getting rid of democracy would be
> meritocracy. Presumably based on either income or wealth or both.
I'd like to get rid of it in favor of freedom.
Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
| Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Right, but you've set yourselves up for that. By having all those friendly social programs, you paint a great big target on your chest. My grandfather expatriated to (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
473 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
