Understanding 47% [W:330, 669]

[rocket88]

as I noted, the parasites tend to be able to out vote the producers

You'd be surprised how many "producers" vote Democratic, and how many "parasites" voted for Mitt.

 

[Federalist]

Again - so what? The Constitution gives the Congress the power to do this and the duly elected representatives of the American people enacted appropriate legislation.

Again, the constitution doesn't require that the government tell people what they must pay their workers. It may allow it, but it certainly doesn't require it. So it is perfectly consistent with the constitution to eliminate federal minimum wage legislation.

However, it is inconsistent with statism to leave one's fellow man in peace, so I can fully understand (and was able to predict) your support for such initiations of aggression.

What is your obsession with this MANDATE idea anyways?

I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm not obsessed with any mandate idea.

 

[haymarket]

Again, the constitution doesn't require that the government tell people what they must pay their workers. It may allow it, but it certainly doesn't require it. So it is perfectly consistent with the constitution to eliminate federal minimum wage legislation.



I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm not obsessed with any mandate idea.

Yes you are. You seem to feel that if the Constitution does not mandate a particular thing then it should not be done.

 

[Federalist]

You seem to feel that if the Constitution does not mandate a particular thing then it should not be done.

No. It depends on the policy in question. If the policy is not mandated and it results in the government initiating aggression, then I would say it should not be done.

 

[haymarket]

No. It depends on the policy in question. If the policy is not mandated and it results in the government initiating aggression, then I would say it should not be done.

the American people said otherwise.

 

[Federalist]

the American people said otherwise.

I support or oppose a policy based upon whether I consider the policy in question to be ethical.

However, feel free to blindly accept whatever policy is supported by the majority. How could the state possibly be wrong, right?

 

[haymarket]

I support or oppose a policy based upon whether I consider the policy in question to be ethical.

However, feel free to blindly accept whatever policy is supported by the majority. How could the state possibly be wrong, right?

I think the more pertinent question is how since the minimum wage is constitutional and has been renewed and increased countless times over the decades and obviously has the support of not only the American people but their representatives..... how could you be right and the vast vast majority wrong? I am not saying that the majority make it right. I am saying that we have had minimum wage for eight years now and it has been increased by a number of Congresses over the years which means it was a whole lot more than a one shot winning an election. It is now a firm and respected part of American policy and a fixture in American life as well as our economic system.

Two thirds of Americans want the minimum wage raised to $10 per hour.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/06/americans-minimum-wage-poll_n_752921.html

Your view is simply counter to what the American people want. it shows quite clearly why libertarian thought is well outside the American mainstream and is fringe extremism not embraced by the American people. It helps explain why you fellows cannot even get one percent of the vote for President as your label of LIBERTARIAN is like the skull and crossbones on a medicine bottle.

 

[Federalist]

I think the more pertinent question is how since the minimum wage is constitutional and has been renewed and increased countless times over the decades and obviously has the support of not only the American people but their representatives..... how could you be right and the vast vast majority wrong?

Not sure. How could the vast majority have at one point supported slavery? I can't tell you why people hold the values they do. I can only tell you that, according to my values, it is wrong to initiate aggression against others. Therefore I can't, in good conscience, support legislation that imposes price controls under the threat of aggression.

 

[haymarket]

Not sure. How could the vast majority have at one point supported slavery? I can't tell you why people hold the values they do. I can only tell you that, according to my values, it is wrong to initiate aggression against others. Therefore I can't, in good conscience, support legislation that imposes price controls under the threat of aggression.

All that makes no sense and is just extremist jargon which bears no relationship to the reality we live in.

 

[jaeger19]

that is a moronic argument

for it to work you'd have to claim that the top 5% use more of the infrastructure and receive more of the government spending than the other 95%

I didn't get anything from tarp

Not moronic.. true. When it comes to wealthbuilding absolutely. Infrastructure in this country was built for the wealthy.. and not just in this country.. any country. You want to protect your kingdom? need roads to travel troops on.

Want to transport goods and services.. roads... want electric power? need public power.. nuclear, hydro electric and power grids etc.

The average American just doesn't need the government that much. Yep.. we all need protection such as police and fire... but if you have huge warehouses, or office buildings, or you transport a lot of cash, or property... you have way more to lose than the average guy and thus you need and use way more government protection.

Yes we need power.. but if you manufacture you need way more power than the average guy.

Not to mention laws. Business needs way, way more regulation than the average person.. How often does the average person need copyright protection? Or have to enforce a business contract? or prevent a competitor from slandering them? Or thousands of other things that business needs so that it can operate in a fair marketplace?

not dang much for the average guy.

The fact is.. that overall, infrastructure benefits the wealthiest FAR FAR more than it does the average guy. The average guy can go live simply and off the grid so to speak. Most business, especially thriving businesses cannot.

 

[jaeger19]

for that idiocy to work, you have to claim that the government is spending wisely.

and you don't seem to understand that as long as most of the people see tax hikes as something only the rich should pay, they will keep demanding more and more spending on them.

No I don't have to claim that... because whether we spend wisely, or spend stupidly.. the debt we have is simply to big. If we were to cut spending to the bone.. it STILL doesn't account for all the spending before. that bill will need to be paid.

And it doesn't really matter what most people demand. First of all.. most people don't demand.. most rather work and get on with their lives. You've been brainwashed to think that we are a "society of takers" in that our middle class and poor DEMAND entitlements.. and that the poor downtrodden wealthy are being forced to finance it..

Well, nothing could be farther from the truth. First of all, the vast, vast majority of folks don't have a lick of power when it comes to deciding spending. They are not putting lobbyists in a politicians ear 24/7 promising everything from campaign funds.. to a cushy job for them and their family when they retire from the government.
Oh yeah.. the poor and middle class VOTE.. every 2--6 years.. wishkabbible.

However, you are right about one thing.. accidently... if no one has to pay.. then spending will increase. Well, its the wealthy that lobby for spending... because its the wealthy that benefit. that money ends up somewhere and its in our bank accounts.
that's fact.. otherwise there would be no poor and middle class people.

No.. for that last decade or so.. we could lobby for all sorts of spending from tax cuts, to subsidies to wars to benefit our industrial complex. and guess what.. with low taxes.. we didn't have to pay for it.. we just passed it on to the next generation.


You want to stop spending.. you tax the rich every time a spending increase is proposed. Want to go to Syria.. great.. we need increase taxes on the rich to pay for it. Suddenly Syria doesn't seem like such a great idea. See, wealthy individuals are fine with deficit spending when they know they are gonna get their turn at the trough.

 

[Federalist]

All that makes no sense and is just extremist jargon which bears no relationship to the reality we live in.

I guess whether any of it makes sense depends on one's attitude towards one's fellow man. If one regards it as ethically acceptable for one person to initiate aggression against another, then I suppose the idea that this is wrong simply wouldn't make sense.

 

[haymarket]

I guess whether any of it makes sense depends on one's attitude towards one's fellow man. If one regards it as ethically acceptable for one person to initiate aggression against another, then I suppose the idea that this is wrong simply wouldn't make sense.

Nope - if one has to jump through all sort of mental hoops and twist and pervert the normal meaning of everyday things such as taxes, civil rights laws and eminent domain to make a frankenstein monster of it and keep ridiculously labeling it as AGGRESSION - that is the real thing this depends on.

 

[jaeger19]

exactly, we shouldn't be paying for children others spew out. If we have to then we should have the right to restrict the destructive behavior of others

Its like health care-if you pay for your own health costs, then go ahead, stuff yourself to obesity, drive a car without a seatbelt on, or smoke 8 packs of unfiltered cancerettes a day. BUT IF I AM TAXED TO PAY FOR YOUR HEALTHCARE I should have the right and power to restrict cost inducing behaviors you might want to engage in

Restrict the destructive behavior of others. Well, here is the thing.. if you stuff yourself to obesity, or drive a care or smoke 8 packs of unfiltered cancerettes.. even if you have insurance.. it ends up costing the rest more. Because my insurance has to absorb your medical costs. Fact. and there is NO WAY.. by the way that you are paying for a 500,000 dollar surgery after falling down the stairs and hitting your head without insurance. so don't try the old.. going back to paying for healthcare with chickens schtick.

What you are spouting is exactly what liberals spout.. gun control "to protect the children", no transfats because of obesity, no marijuana because of the dangers, wear your seatbelt in the back seat, take your drug tests etc etc. All are done in the name of protecting us from extra costs.

that being said, I don't want to pay for those kids either... that's in part why I support the right to choose abortion, want adoption made easier... and want to see a program that pays welfare reciepients more money if they have elective birth control procedures or they elect to go on birth control such as IUD or implant.

But certainly, we don't want a system where some government entity decides who is worthy and who is not. Do you want government to decide whether you constitute a good parent? Because I gosh darn guarantee that their are some that would believe you need to have your kids taken away.

 

[jaeger19]

I support or oppose a policy based upon whether I consider the policy in question to be ethical.

However, feel free to blindly accept whatever policy is supported by the majority. How could the state possibly be wrong, right?

Things like minimum wage came about because companies would and did pay their employees in company script and then charge them more for things to live from the company store and after a day of work, they actually owed the company more money. And when they complained, they hired shoulder strikers and knee breakers to put the employees back in line. Fact.

So the fact is that minimum wage in part protects the individual from the aggression of the corporation.

 

[Federalist]

Nope - if one has to jump through all sort of mental hoops and twist and pervert the normal meaning of everyday things such as taxes, civil rights laws and eminent domain to make a frankenstein monster of it and keep ridiculously labeling it as AGGRESSION - that is the real thing this depends on.

Aggression is generally well understood to mean violation of or damage to another person's body; or trespass upon, damage to, or taking of something owned by another. If you'd prefer, I can refer to the torts of trespass to the person, trespass to chattels, and trespass to land. Those are the sorts of actions that I generally consider to be acts of aggression. But we can use the term torts if it helps your understanding.

 

[Rocketman]

What is it you are ranting about? It is nonsense.

You were challenged to stop the attacks and debate specifics. You are unable to do just that.

I have been better at it that you as you have not posted anything that backs your opinion. Maybe you aren't cut out for this, just saying.

 

[haymarket]

Aggression is generally well understood to mean violation of or damage to another person's body; or trespass upon, damage to, or taking of something owned by another. If you'd prefer, I can refer to the torts of trespass to the person, trespass to chattels, and trespass to land. Those are the sorts of actions that I generally consider to be acts of aggression. But we can use the term torts if it helps your understanding.

"generally well understood" !!!!!!!! :doh:roll: Really?

In your world the person who refuses to pay their taxes and then refuses to turn themselves into the rightful authorities and has to be arrested , handcuffed and taken in is somehow someway magically transformed into a virginal innocent victim and the government and agents who arrest and prosecute that tax criminal are somehow now servants of satan for instituting "aggression" against this upright model citizen.

We know what your "generally well understood" interpretation of aggression is. And it is ridiculous.

 

[haymarket]

I have been better at it that you as you have not posted anything that backs your opinion. Maybe you aren't cut out for this, just saying.

What opinion is that?

here is your post 348 which starts with you reproducing my comments about hard work

Originally Posted by haymarket
that is simply BS. Lots of poor people work extremely hard and have a great deal of drive. to pretend otherwise is to engage in gross dishonesty.

and your reply to my post

Most that do are no longer poor

Where is the verifiable evidence for this statement of alleged fact. YOU HAVE NOT DONE SO. You have had several days to do so. It seems that it is you who are not really good at this opting to instead engage in personal attacks and sniping rather than providing verifiable evidence for a claim of fact which is a normal part of debate.

But you can have another chance - please do provide the verifiable evidence for you claim that most people who are poor and work hard are no longer poor.

 

[Federalist]

"generally well understood" !!!!!!!! :doh:roll: Really?

In your world the person who refuses to pay their taxes and then refuses to turn themselves into the rightful authorities and has to be arrested , handcuffed and taken in is somehow someway magically transformed into a virginal innocent victim and the government and agents who arrest and prosecute that tax criminal are somehow now servants of satan for instituting "aggression" against this upright model citizen.

We know what your "generally well understood" interpretation of aggression is. And it is ridiculous.

Essentially yes, I think you understand. They are people using aggression against (or committing a tort against, if you prefer) someone who has not committed aggression against (or committed a tort against) anyone else. Thus those people are the ones who are INITIATING the aggression.

 

[haymarket]

Essentially yes, I think you understand. They are people using aggression against (or committing a tort against, if you prefer) someone who has not committed aggression against (or committed a tort against) anyone else. Thus those people are the ones who are INITIATING the aggression.

Only in your world run under your assumptions which bear no relationship to the real world where pragmatics determine how every government functions by something other than Alice In Wonderland fantasy beliefs. You already admitted that no single government in the world today operates from your belief system about this aggression idea. You then admitted that you can find no government in history of a nation which operated by your beliefs in the past. In short - your ideas about aggression are something not of the reality that every single nations government has ever found themselves operating under. And that includes governments of the right, of the left and of the center. Not one does it your way or subscribes to your belief system. Not a one.

 

[Federalist]

Only in your world run under your assumptions...

No, it's pretty much a matter of fact. Those people are committing torts (either trespass to the body, to chattels, or to land) against people who have not done so first. Thus they are the initiators, since they are the first to commit the tort.

 

[haymarket]

No, it's pretty much a matter of fact. Those people are committing torts (either trespass to the body, to chattels, or to land) against people who have not done so first. Thus they are the initiators, since they are the first to commit the tort.

The FACT is that no country can run a government under your belief system. And having said that - nothing else you can say really matters in the real world.

 

[Federalist]

The FACT is that no country can run a government under your belief system. And having said that - nothing else you can say really matters in the real world.

Yes they certainly can. People can govern themselves without resorting to initiating aggression against each other.

 

[haymarket]

Yes they certainly can. People can govern themselves without resorting to initiating aggression against each other.

Examples of nations which do it your would would include ________________, and _____________________, and ____________________, and ___________________.

Please fill in the blanks.