For my Libertarian friends

The T wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Boo minimum wage laws.  What do you think about work-hours laws? Or about laws forcing employers to give vacation and time off? Or laws forcing employers to pay overtime when for example a workers works in a holiday?

Edited by JLocke - October 20 2010 at 13:03

Can one be Libertarian and Liberal? Sure. To an extent (as Slarti said) mainly on social issues.

Time to go uber poli sci nerd!
(This is what I do, categorize people right?)


In before: WTF this sucks, this isn't right at all! That should be there!
Cut me some slack. Its a generalization and I felt like making a graph K?


Edited by JJLehto - October 20 2010 at 13:07

Padraic wrote: JJLehto wrote: Padraic wrote: JJLehto wrote: Huzzah for NJ and its stricter labor laws! I'll actually make minimum wage at this job + tips, instead of $5 an hour + tips like in PA Of course I'd like to not be making minimum wage at all but at the moment better then not working. That's odd, how did the position in PA get itself exempted from federal minimum wage laws? Because it was a tip earning job. Even though I am now doing the same job, I will get minimum wage even with tips Ah, the good old tip earning job.  Never had one of those.

Lucky you. I don't plan to keep it any longer then I have to.

He also used "its" when the word we were searching for was "it's".  Oh JJ.

JJ wrote: Cut me some slack. Its a generalization and I felt like making a graph K?

Edited by Padraic - October 20 2010 at 13:19

JLocke wrote: The T wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Boo minimum wage laws.  What do you think about work-hours laws? Or about laws forcing employers to give vacation and time off? Or laws forcing employers to pay overtime when for example a workers works in a holiday?  I know you weren't addressing me, but here is my answer any-old-how. I don't think business owners should be forced to pay employees more than they think they deserve. Just like I don't think they should be forced to hire a certain amount of minorities members. I think people should be hired and payed according to their own ability as an employee, and if they do exceptional work, then it's up to the boss to decide what actions are appropriate.  If the boss is an a****le, then he most likely won't pay the worker for any additional work put in, but that's when the valuable employee is free to take his services elsewhere to a more appreciative business or company. Then, the jerk employer is out a good worker, and loses more than he gains while searching for an adequate replacement.  All's fair in love and war, and all that.  We don't need arbitrary rules put into place to 'guide' us to make the best decisions. Not when it comes to issues like this.

So...how in the world do you enact this system without ensuring wholesale inequality and the enslavement of the lower class to the higher?  I'm asking this question to be polite: I genuinely think the entire libertarian construction of reality is a blithe fable, but if you have an honest method of preventing society from turning into striations of absolute privilege and absolute destitution I'd like to hear it. 

You seem to operate off the assumption that hard work, talent, and responsibility will inevitably pay off.  I suspect this is accompanied by the caveat that the reason society doesn't currently work like this is due to government oversight and intrusion? 

I would also like to put out a general call: of all the libertarians here, how many of you are poor?  Also, of all the libertarians here, how many of you achieved the prosperity in your life based on a stiff upper lip and honest hard work, and not on inheritance, family privilege etc.?

Lozlan wrote: JLocke wrote: The T wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Boo minimum wage laws.  What do you think about work-hours laws? Or about laws forcing employers to give vacation and time off? Or laws forcing employers to pay overtime when for example a workers works in a holiday?  I know you weren't addressing me, but here is my answer any-old-how. I don't think business owners should be forced to pay employees more than they think they deserve. Just like I don't think they should be forced to hire a certain amount of minorities members. I think people should be hired and payed according to their own ability as an employee, and if they do exceptional work, then it's up to the boss to decide what actions are appropriate.  If the boss is an a****le, then he most likely won't pay the worker for any additional work put in, but that's when the valuable employee is free to take his services elsewhere to a more appreciative business or company. Then, the jerk employer is out a good worker, and loses more than he gains while searching for an adequate replacement.  All's fair in love and war, and all that.  We don't need arbitrary rules put into place to 'guide' us to make the best decisions. Not when it comes to issues like this. So...how in the world do you enact this system without ensuring wholesale inequality and the enslavement of the lower class to the higher?  I'm asking this question to be polite: I genuinely think the entire libertarian construction of reality is a blithe fable, but if you have an honest method of preventing society from turning into striations of absolute privilege and absolute destitution I'd like to hear it.  You seem to operate off the assumption that hard work, talent, and responsibility will inevitably pay off.  I suspect this is accompanied by the caveat that the reason society doesn't currently work like this is due to government oversight and intrusion?  I would also like to put out a general call: of all the libertarians here, how many of you are poor?  Also, of all the libertarians here, how many of you achieved the prosperity in your life based on a stiff upper lip and honest hard work, and not on inheritance, family privilege etc.?

I owe $80,000 in student loans and have less than that in my bank account so I am not rich. The more pertinent question would be is my family poor? The answer is we were. I grew up in the ghetto in North Philly. It wasn't a terrible life; actually it was a great one. There were things that were just normal to me. Like talking salt, pepper, ketchup, milk, mayo, forks, spoons, etc from convienece stores to use at home instead of buying them. Some nights I remember eating popcorn for dinner because we had nothing else in the house.

My two best friend's families didn't have a car until I was 16. One of them ate out at McDonalds for Thanksgiving. That was a fancy day out for his family. I won't say I was poor, because I think describing any American as poor is a disgrace to the people who are really poor. However, we were on the lower end of the income distribution. Now we live quite well as a middle-middle class family. My dad and my mother worked 16 hour days when I was child so that we live comfortably now.

That's my backstory.

Why would enslavement follow from the situation described above? I would happily defend it, but you haven't really given me something to defend.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Lozlan wrote: JLocke wrote: The T wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Boo minimum wage laws.  What do you think about work-hours laws? Or about laws forcing employers to give vacation and time off? Or laws forcing employers to pay overtime when for example a workers works in a holiday?  I know you weren't addressing me, but here is my answer any-old-how. I don't think business owners should be forced to pay employees more than they think they deserve. Just like I don't think they should be forced to hire a certain amount of minorities members. I think people should be hired and payed according to their own ability as an employee, and if they do exceptional work, then it's up to the boss to decide what actions are appropriate.  If the boss is an a****le, then he most likely won't pay the worker for any additional work put in, but that's when the valuable employee is free to take his services elsewhere to a more appreciative business or company. Then, the jerk employer is out a good worker, and loses more than he gains while searching for an adequate replacement.  All's fair in love and war, and all that.  We don't need arbitrary rules put into place to 'guide' us to make the best decisions. Not when it comes to issues like this. So...how in the world do you enact this system without ensuring wholesale inequality and the enslavement of the lower class to the higher?  I'm asking this question to be polite: I genuinely think the entire libertarian construction of reality is a blithe fable, but if you have an honest method of preventing society from turning into striations of absolute privilege and absolute destitution I'd like to hear it.  You seem to operate off the assumption that hard work, talent, and responsibility will inevitably pay off.  I suspect this is accompanied by the caveat that the reason society doesn't currently work like this is due to government oversight and intrusion?  I would also like to put out a general call: of all the libertarians here, how many of you are poor?  Also, of all the libertarians here, how many of you achieved the prosperity in your life based on a stiff upper lip and honest hard work, and not on inheritance, family privilege etc.? I owe $80,000 in student loans and have less than that in my bank account so I am not rich. The more pertinent question would be is my family poor? The answer is we were. I grew up in the ghetto in North Philly. It wasn't a terrible life; actually it was a great one. There were things that were just normal to me. Like talking salt, pepper, ketchup, milk, mayo, forks, spoons, etc from convienece stores to use at home instead of buying them. Some nights I remember eating popcorn for dinner because we had nothing else in the house. My two best friend's families didn't have a car until I was 16. One of them ate out at McDonalds for Thanksgiving. That was a fancy day out for his family. I won't say I was poor, because I think describing any American as poor is a disgrace to the people who are really poor. However, we were on the lower end of the income distribution. Now we live quite well as a middle-middle class family. My dad and my mother worked 16 hour days when I was child so that we live comfortably now. That's my backstory. Why would enslavement follow from the situation described above? I would happily defend it, but you haven't really given me something to defend.

Allotting absolute power to an employer places the worker in a position of disempowerment.  Without wage laws, without reasonable restrictions on the amount an employer can demand an employee work, without incentives like double pay on holidays...there is no conceivable way that this can result in a utopia.  In the good ol' US of A, the distance between the upper and lower classes is already growing at an alarming rate.  I simply reject the concept that if the government was stripped of its power, civilization would suddenly (or even eventually) rectify itself.  The libertarian position stems from a concept that government is a wicked, restrictive force that prevents the individual from realizing their personal potential; however, when it is functioning properly, that selfsame government prevents the privileged few from dominating the disenfranchised many.  I very firmly believe that, given the chance, corporations and their ilk would gladly harvest their employee's organs for bus fare.  Rejecting Unionization and all the various laws safeguarding workers would cement the hapless employee's complete lack of power.  Viola!  Endless seas of disposable wage slaves and unrestricted exploitation of the labor pool.

These debates are always much, much harder with those who have successfully achieved class mobility.  The fact that you are currently middle-class as a result of your labor serves as a marvelously durable ideological mortar.  Correct me if I am mistaken, but Libertarianism also believes that each individual should achieve the level of success and comfort that their relative talents allow.  This means that, if someone is unemployed, downtrodden, or persistently poor, that they deserve to be so.  This, for me, is a violation of every belief and ethical code I hold dear.  The concept of the complete equality of man does not, in truth, state that we ARE all equal; rather, it states the desperate need for us to be treated as equals, to avoid catastrophic suffering and class oppression.

I have a great many qualms with our system, actually.  I favor the full socialization of health care, college, etc., so it's doubtful that you or I are going to clasp each other like bosom ideological buddies anytime soon.  I also confess that I haven't read through the 200+ (!) pages of this debate, but my perspective didn't seem to be satisfactorily represented, so I thought I'd drop my line in the pool.  Hopefully I won't regret it. 

Lozlan wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Lozlan wrote: JLocke wrote: The T wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Boo minimum wage laws.  What do you think about work-hours laws? Or about laws forcing employers to give vacation and time off? Or laws forcing employers to pay overtime when for example a workers works in a holiday?  I know you weren't addressing me, but here is my answer any-old-how. I don't think business owners should be forced to pay employees more than they think they deserve. Just like I don't think they should be forced to hire a certain amount of minorities members. I think people should be hired and payed according to their own ability as an employee, and if they do exceptional work, then it's up to the boss to decide what actions are appropriate.  If the boss is an a****le, then he most likely won't pay the worker for any additional work put in, but that's when the valuable employee is free to take his services elsewhere to a more appreciative business or company. Then, the jerk employer is out a good worker, and loses more than he gains while searching for an adequate replacement.  All's fair in love and war, and all that.  We don't need arbitrary rules put into place to 'guide' us to make the best decisions. Not when it comes to issues like this. So...how in the world do you enact this system without ensuring wholesale inequality and the enslavement of the lower class to the higher?  I'm asking this question to be polite: I genuinely think the entire libertarian construction of reality is a blithe fable, but if you have an honest method of preventing society from turning into striations of absolute privilege and absolute destitution I'd like to hear it.  You seem to operate off the assumption that hard work, talent, and responsibility will inevitably pay off.  I suspect this is accompanied by the caveat that the reason society doesn't currently work like this is due to government oversight and intrusion?  I would also like to put out a general call: of all the libertarians here, how many of you are poor?  Also, of all the libertarians here, how many of you achieved the prosperity in your life based on a stiff upper lip and honest hard work, and not on inheritance, family privilege etc.? I owe $80,000 in student loans and have less than that in my bank account so I am not rich. The more pertinent question would be is my family poor? The answer is we were. I grew up in the ghetto in North Philly. It wasn't a terrible life; actually it was a great one. There were things that were just normal to me. Like talking salt, pepper, ketchup, milk, mayo, forks, spoons, etc from convienece stores to use at home instead of buying them. Some nights I remember eating popcorn for dinner because we had nothing else in the house. My two best friend's families didn't have a car until I was 16. One of them ate out at McDonalds for Thanksgiving. That was a fancy day out for his family. I won't say I was poor, because I think describing any American as poor is a disgrace to the people who are really poor. However, we were on the lower end of the income distribution. Now we live quite well as a middle-middle class family. My dad and my mother worked 16 hour days when I was child so that we live comfortably now. That's my backstory. Why would enslavement follow from the situation described above? I would happily defend it, but you haven't really given me something to defend. Allotting absolute power to an employer places the worker in a position of disempowerment.  Without wage laws, without reasonable restrictions on the amount an employer can demand an employee work, without incentives like double pay on holidays...there is no conceivable way that this can result in a utopia.  In the good ol' US of A, the distance between the upper and lower classes is already growing at an alarming rate.  I simply reject the concept that if the government was stripped of its power, civilization would suddenly (or even eventually) rectify itself.  The libertarian position stems from a concept that government is a wicked, restrictive force that prevents the individual from realizing their personal potential; however, when it is functioning properly, that selfsame government prevents the privileged few from dominating the disenfranchised many.  I very firmly believe that, given the chance, corporations and their ilk would gladly harvest their employee's organs for bus fare.  Rejecting Unionization and all the various laws safeguarding workers would cement the hapless employee's complete lack of power.  Viola!  Endless seas of disposable wage slaves and unrestricted exploitation of the labor pool. These debates are always much, much harder with those who have successfully achieved class mobility.  The fact that you are currently middle-class as a result of your labor serves as a marvelously durable ideological mortar.  Correct me if I am mistaken, but Libertarianism also believes that each individual should achieve the level of success and comfort that their relative talents allow.  This means that, if someone is unemployed, downtrodden, or persistently poor, that they deserve to be so.  This, for me, is a violation of every belief and ethical code I hold dear.  The concept of the complete equality of man does not, in truth, state that we ARE all equal; rather, it states the desperate need for us to be treated as equals, to avoid catastrophic suffering and class oppression. I have a great many qualms with our system, actually.  I favor the full socialization of health care, college, etc., so it's doubtful that you or I are going to clasp each other like bosom ideological buddies anytime soon.  I also confess that I haven't read through the 200+ (!) pages of this debate, but my perspective didn't seem to be satisfactorily represented, so I thought I'd drop my line in the pool.  Hopefully I won't regret it.

Your argument simply does not work. Let me ask you something. How is it that a doctor is paid more than a janitor? How is it that a secretary with 10 years experience is paid more than one with one year of experience? Government does not dictate these prices, yet somehow they are different.

Your argument rests on the assumption that businesses have the power to dominate. However, they do not. Businesses only operate through mutual cooperation. You are assuming that a business can unilaterally make decisions such as setting a wage. Unfortunately for them, the supply of labor is not infinite. Just as a consumer does when purchasing  a product, businesses are forced to compete for the scarce resource of labor.

There's a reason the work day now is shorter than a century ago. There is a reason that businesses offer vacation leave. Hint: it is not government. The workday has shortened and wages have risen due to an accumulation of capital which allows each worker to be more productive per hour worked.

You accuse the free-market of elevating the privileged few. This is laughable for this is exactly what government does. Government allows the politically well connected to enjoy luxuries not possible in a free market of willing exchange.

Remember that the free market is what created the middle class. Are you then going to assert the very same thing is destroying it? Government is destroying the middle class, particularly Fed policies.

You are b*****dizing Libertarian theory in your critique. LIbertarianism is not utopian. It recognizes that people will inevitably draw a short stick. It merely holds that it is not moral to correct perceived imbalances in society by stealing money and redistributing it. Do poor people deserve to be poor in a pure free market? I would say no. The poor should be helped most libertarians will tell you. This should be done through private charity. In fact, a purely free market can elevate the lower classes more than anything charities can do.

I find it insulting that you attribute my beliefs to my "class mobility".

We've addressed all these points in the past, but to name a few: The poor are not getting poorer. The are getting richer at a slower pace than the rich. Why is this so abhorrent to you? Thanks to capitalism, everyone's standard of living is improving. What does it matter if some improve faster than others? We never claimed that Libertarianism will result in income equality nor do we find that a desirable result.

Emploers will not have "absolute power." They are customers competing for labor. In order to attract the best labor, they will have to offer incentives to their workers. Also, you seem to think that you have to work for someone else. Most people who get rich do so by starting their own business. This is pretty easy and low cost in America compared to the rest of the world. It would be even easier without all the government restrictions in place. Don't like the wages you're getting with your employer? Start your own business. I have to go to work, but I will respond in more depth later.