Bitcoin Forum

Wherever it goes for the economy there're no such thing as "two consenting adults" but a whole market to consider.

Minimum wage is a way to prevent unfair concurrence, that one can employ out of exploitation more people than other therefore hitting the market with lower prices which he's only able to present due to slavery.

Other than that, and taken your "slave-employee" is part of the market and the market NEEDS wealth distribution, by underpaying him you're hurting the market as he will not have money enough to consume.

The money saved on paying an employee probably isn't going to be used to light cigars. It's going to be spent on other things which provide just as much market stimulation as overpaying for labor, even more so since inefficiency hurts the market, which is what you're advocating.

You're not talking about "free will", you're talking about take advantage to your behalf of some one who's in a bad situation.

If a job doesn't worth nothing, than it's needless.

You're ignoring the fact that society pays to support underpaid people, to police the streets if nothing else. Society benefits if people have a living wage even though the "free" market value of his labor is less than a living wage. We have three choices:

1. Allow very low wages and don't support anyone -> we end up living in a brutish world.
2. Allow very low wages and support low income people through subsidies.
3. Pass laws that raise wages.

I don't want to live in 1.
We actually live between 2 and 3.

You're ignoring the fact that society pays to support underpaid people, to police the streets if nothing else. Society benefits if people have a living wage even though the "free" market value of his labor is less than a living wage. We have three choices:

1. Allow very low wages and don't support anyone -> we end up living in a brutish world.
2. Allow very low wages and support low income people through subsidies.
3. Pass laws that raise wages.

I don't want to live in 1.
We actually live between 2 and 3.

The reality is that (3) doesn't raise any wages at all but rather makes sure that certain jobs don't exist. Instead of "minimum wage laws" they should really be called "forced unemployment laws" but nobody would vote for that.

I'm reminded of so called 'slumlords' - landlords that pile 27 students into 1 small house, for $100 / week rent per student... If this is really so 'unfair', then why are the students there voluntarily paying it?

You folks are big on sexual freedom, be it homosexuals, deviants or whatever.

I hear the phrase "between two consenting adults" all the time. My question is, why do you people disable your logic circuits as soon as these two consenting adults leave the bedroom? If two consenting adults agree that one will work for the other for less than minimum wage, what business is it of yours? Why is it only sexual acts that get this special treatment?

I can already hear the word "exploitation" ringing in my ears but who are you to decide what counts as exploitation? If someone desperately wants to work for $3 an hour then obviously they prefer that situation over the alternative, doing nothing and getting nothing (or getting an equivalent $3 an hour welfare check). Why are you willing to override personal freedom when it comes to work but not sex? Someone please make sense of this for me because all I see is hypocrisy right now.

I'm an anarchist, voluntaryist, agorist, whatever term is fashionable these days. I think personal liberty should apply to all spheres of interaction, bedroom, workplace, front lawn, whatever. If you want to run around nude or work for next to nothing then I think you should be free to do so, even though I wouldn't do either of those things personally.

If the right of property is derived from the labour invested in it, then shouldn't labour be in control of capital?

"Freedom" to exploit and be exploited isn't freedom, it's tyranny. It's not a freedom because there is no real choice.

The right of private property is derived from being the first possessor because everyone else is a latecomer with respect to them. If you ignore the prior-later distinction then how can we have private property at all? Imagine if the second possessor was said to have a better claim to the property then wouldn't the same argument apply to the third possessor and so on?

The only way there is no "real" choice is if you are being threatened with violence. Otherwise, there is always a choice though you might not like it and wish to get everything for free. Do you think you don't have a real choice to buy a TV because the only way to get it is to pay money? Are you exploiting TV-sellers because you shop around for the lowest price instead of emptying your wallet to the first seller?

And the market is always pushing the prices lower.

The lack of History knowledge is however more harmful. (...)

until people get enough of this exploiters and we get them dealt on Russia 1917's way; lined against a wall and shot in the head.

Blackmarket will exist regardless... it's in the duty of authorities to deal with it.

And bottom line: private business are NOT to be trusted. They are meant for create profit, not charity.

caveden,

It hasn't to do with machinery, before they have they worked with arms like anybody else,

The major revolt on 1917 was against the "bourgeois", a class you would call nowadays the "capitalists", the "state" came along as it was protecting those "bourgeois".

Also "the State" isn't meant to be "owned" by nobody (unless it is a Monarchy), so in a hypothetical well-made State, nobody would have any "unjustified privileges". Those "unjustified privileges" come out of some taking over the state and treat it as "their property".

but that's an usurpation of the meaning of Democracy

To trust in corporations (not the back alley guy who's selling something for life - small commerce never been an issue) is to trust in people you don't see the face and you don't know, you would need a tight security to prevent market maneuvers from these guys which would put the back alley guy and all others alike out of business and you can't do it without a government body.

Lies exists everywhere, Democracy is far from perfect, but is the best thing to do "damage control" we know so far.

There should be no possessors of property. Humans should just work all the capital for the sake of themselves and their communities.

The difference with between the choices of labor and a television is that, under a Laissez-faire system, the null choice of labour leads to starvation and death, while the null choice of television leads simply to a lack of a television.

I mean, in theory, aren't we all being exploited as these "greedy" corporations are only paying us the minimum of what they think we're worth even though they could probably afford to share more with us?

Don't know where you got that one of "against the Tsar alone"...

To trust in corporations

Lies exists everywhere, Democracy is far from perfect, but is the best thing to do "damage control" we know so far.

I respect your right to hold that opinion. Do you respect my right to hold the opposite opinion? In other words, if I disagree with you and start claiming property as my own, are you going to use violence against me or my property in order to suppress my opinion? This is the crux of the issue. Anarchism is the only system that can support both of our views. You would be free to live in a communistic society with whoever else wanted to and I would be free to live in a capitalist society with whoever else wanted to.

Don't you always have the option to farm, fish, forage or hunt? Unless you plan on eating the money you are paid, there's a more direct way to survive rather than being paid to work some menial job.

Damage control against... the government itself? The implication of that sentence is that people need a government. Care to discuss that, cause I don't agree.

Working in a tipped position, I've had a taste of what an economy would look like without minimum wage laws. When things are good, people are happy, making money (based on their skills, not necessarily by a mandated paycheck). However, when things slowed down, people dropped like rocks. Our micro economy couldn't sustain the amount of consumers and so they went on to other things because the money they were making was no longer worth it. Even now, we have a position that makes the mandated minimum wage and we can hardly keep people. They're going to have to pay more to get a more quality employee. Not because it was sent to them by decree enforced at the point of a gun, but because the market calls for it. I mean, in theory, aren't we all being exploited as these "greedy" corporations are only paying us the minimum of what they think we're worth even though they could probably afford to share more with us?

By damage he means minority. And by control he means, well, "control."

Most of those booms and busts are the result of government fed policy, you realize.  And the fact that some industries are doing horrible in the recession is probably indicative that it's time to stop working there.

For grins, try and figure out how this conversation led me to research carnivorous plants that eat their pollinators.

I agree completely, the great thing about anarchism is that it's all-inclusive of any niche, and each community would choose and experiment with various social organizations. I would never want violence used against those who disagree.

Rather than look at this from an economics stand-point, is it fair to say that the reason I only apply the "between consenting adults" to sexy times is that 'who puts what where' isn't going to change the course of anything?  Take twenty dicks, for all I care, it doesn't change the day to day, except in that one facet.

'who puts what where' isn't going to change the course of anything?

Well, you might have trouble walking/working the next day? Also, having unprotected promiscuous sex increases the risk of spreading disease. I'm willing to be there are plenty of other negative externalities too.

What about putting folding cash into landlord's pocket? (Because it turns him on) :P

Everyone can get tested, who's against that?

You folks are big on sexual freedom, be it homosexuals, deviants or whatever. I hear the phrase "between two consenting adults" all the time. My question is, why do you people disable your logic circuits as soon as these two consenting adults leave the bedroom? If two consenting adults agree that one will work for the other for less than minimum wage, what business is it of yours? Why is it only sexual acts that get this special treatment?

I can already hear the word "exploitation" ringing in my ears but who are you to decide what counts as exploitation? If someone desperately wants to work for $3 an hour then obviously they prefer that situation over the alternative, doing nothing and getting nothing (or getting an equivalent $3 an hour welfare check). Why are you willing to override personal freedom when it comes to work but not sex? Someone please make sense of this for me because all I see is hypocrisy right now.

I'm an anarchist, voluntaryist, agorist, whatever term is fashionable these days. I think personal liberty should apply to all spheres of interaction, bedroom, workplace, front lawn, whatever. If you want to run around nude or work for next to nothing then I think you should be free to do so, even though I wouldn't do either of those things personally.

Rather than look at this from an economics stand-point, is it fair to say that the reason I only apply the "between consenting adults" to sexy times is that 'who puts what where' isn't going to change the course of anything?  Take twenty dicks, for all I care, it doesn't change the day to day, except in that one facet. You can be the most vanilla person in the pants or crazy, and you still put your pants on one leg at a time (some substitute ass-less chaps for pants, whatever)

I don't care if i'm oversimplifying this, I fail to recognize how "I can stick parts of me in other people's parts in fun and interesting ways" == "There should be no minimum wage"  I make love using an intricate series of pulleys, your argument is invalid.

What about the kids, man?  :P  We don't regulate sexual activities between consenting adults, but what if a man cheats on his wife with a ho, gets AIDS and then gives it to his wife?  Then the negative externalities are that the kids will not have parents.  What about politicians who have mistresses on the side that they pay with government money and who distract them from their jobs?  Ha ha, these are contrived examples to be sure, but you can think of all kinds of ways that not regulating sexual activities can cause negative externalities.  But they certainly aren't good reasons to do so.

If your labor is worth $3 an hour but the minimum wage is $6 an hour, you don't get the $6 an hour at a $3 an hour loss to the employer. You get nothing because you won't be hired. You're presenting a false dilemma. The choice isn't between $3 an hour and $6 an hour. The choice is between $3 an hour and nothing. Whatever can be said about getting $3 an hour, a lot more can be said about getting nothing.

It's not always that sharp a choice. How about if the argument is between $3 and $3.25? Some employers will pay and a few will have to do without the workers. Too bad for them.

If your labor is worth $3 an hour but the minimum wage is $6 an hour, you don't get the $6 an hour at a $3 an hour loss to the employer. You get nothing because you won't be hired. You're presenting a false dilemma. The choice isn't between $3 an hour and $6 an hour. The choice is between $3 an hour and nothing. Whatever can be said about getting $3 an hour, a lot more can be said about getting nothing.

If that theory applies, than a worker whose labor worth 10 would be receiving at least 7 or 8... but by common practice he's getting 6, and give it a chance and he will be getting 3, or even less...

You're looking to small commerce, small contractors and overall "small" something.

If a guy's work worth 10, but his job is meant to be under a huge corporation to which you can barely find anything resembling concurrence, this corp. will pay him whatever less it cans.

Because your idea was actually voided by the Industrial Revolution, up to that time most business were small enough for concurrence to quickly kick in, after the Industrial Revolution you start to get enterprises and corporations that requires heavy investment to start.

If you are skilled laborer then you are an investor. You are investing in yourself. Like all investments, there's a chance it doesn't pay off. If you fix horse carriages for a living but the automobile comes along and you no longer have a job then you need to move to a new career. If you can't find a job with your current skills, get some new skills. It's not my job to subsidize your investment loss.

You're looking to small commerce, small contractors and overall "small" something.

If a guy's work worth 10, but his job is meant to be under a huge corporation to which you can barely find anything resembling concurrence, this corp. will pay him whatever less it cans.

Because your idea was actually voided by the Industrial Revolution, up to that time most business were small enough for concurrence to quickly kick in, after the Industrial Revolution you start to get enterprises and corporations that requires heavy investment to start.

I'm not all that for minimum wage, but I'm for the need of social protection.

I'm not all that for minimum wage, but I'm for the need of social protection.

If a job worth less than 3 US/h than it's not worthing nor it's something to be called "innovative".

Further than that, if you want to go on your own, you still have the right to do it, however when it comes to hire people we're talking about one taking profit out of someone else's work, that's what "work for others" stands for.
If you want to co-op with someone under an innovative "we don't know if it can take off", than you could be his parter, not his pimp... sorry... boss. That's the key issue.

Work for such wage isn't an "option", to the best it qualifies for "extreme poverty need", and instead of help we go on exploit the situation...

As for joint ventures, the ones on it can either succeed or not, anyway, they're fair. If it fails one lose some money and the other effort, if it kicks in both win... so that's life.

Work for such wage isn't an "option", to the best it qualifies for "extreme poverty need", and instead of help we go on exploit the situation...

Minimum wage is a social barrier, not an economic one.
It's meant to not have poverty situations exploited, has nothing to do with production or even economics.

Looks like you folks skipped all history classes and just want to jump in a slippery slope we all must already know where it ends. Back on when corps were already around and economics were what you seam to want now, unions were as good as "a social fund to pay for your funeral".
It's not "quite" you guys I would concern about in this issue.

Also the Google behavior has changed once it became a big corporation... it's no longer that "generous", as its stock holders want profit just for sit around with the shares in the pocket.
Actually stock holders are the "rich freeloaders", they occupy the opposite chair of the freeloading budget, being the other those on unemployment checks...

Define «hard-earned»...
Are you in position to define exactly what's hard and what's easy? One that just inherited from his dead aunt would still be within such group?

And as so... the workers are in the "easy money"?

Minimum wage is a social barrier, not an economic one.
It's meant to not have poverty situations exploited, has nothing to do with production or even economics.

Looks like you folks skipped all history classes and just want to jump in a slippery slope we all must already know where it ends. Back on when corps were already around and economics were what you seam to want now, unions were as good as "a social fund to pay for your funeral".
It's not "quite" you guys I would concern about in this issue.

Also the Google behavior has changed once it became a big corporation... it's no longer that "generous", as its stock holders want profit just for sit around with the shares in the pocket.
Actually stock holders are the "rich freeloaders", they occupy the opposite chair of the freeloading budget, being the other those on unemployment checks...

Define «hard-earned»...
Are you in position to define exactly what's hard and what's easy? One that just inherited from his dead aunt would still be within such group?

And as so... the workers are in the "easy money"?

Still, Google didn't employ anyone to write blogs, you could take risk... or not, they hadn't hire you and you could stop at anytime. But you were pretty much on your own.

Here we're talking about directly taking profit of others' work which, regardless it give 1 US profit or 10 wouldn't still change the income of the employee, who gets himself a load of imposed rules to comply with along.

Still, Google didn't employ anyone to write blogs, you could take risk... or not, they hadn't hire you and you could stop at anytime. But you were pretty much on your own.

Here we're talking about directly taking profit of others' work which, regardless it give 1 US profit or 10 wouldn't still change the income of the employee, who gets himself a load of imposed rules to comply with along.

Let me remind me you that the moral sensibility of human beings may be far different from your(...)

Wait! Let me check... white skin, probably red blood inside (but I really don't want to split it now), arms, legs... guess I'm a human being myself  ;D

SgtSpike,

Sure... but one thing is for your venture to get profitable fair and square other is for it to be profitable out of others' being underpaid.

Actually we already have it around, with the exploitation of chinese. "Far from sight slavery". Everything has its production costs and if you're buying it too cheap, someone else's paying the "difference".

But I already see your points, and we are becoming redundant. Yep, politically we wouldn't get along, but luckily money is color (and wing)-blind.

Wait! Let me check... white skin, probably red blood inside (but I really don't want to split it now), arms, legs... guess I'm a human being myself  ;D

So, are you saying that if you don't have white skin you aren't a human?

Noooooooo, he's clearly saying if you don't have arms or legs you aren't a human.

Now that reminds me.... what do you call a man with no arms and no legs in a pool?

I've never heard that joke before but I'm guessing it's starts with F and ends with UCKED.

Also, what do you call a man with no arms and no legs in a pile of leaves?

I cheated and Google told me his name is Russell.

What about a man with a truck on his head?

How can you call it underpaid if someone is willing to work at that pay scale?

Easily - by believing that his (BCE's) subjective values are superior to the subjective values of the parties to the exchange, and therefore that they may be forceably imposed upon them. Paternalism in rare form.

Isn't that the fault of his own ignorance?

I don't know. He may be ignorant of the fact that he would subsume other people's values to his own by force. He might just not care. Most likely, he does know and thinks that it's just because his values are "better".

Which gets back to the OP's question - why it is wrong for me to impose my (conservative) social values on people's sexual, recreational, or other lifestyle choices, while it is perfectly fine for him to impose his values on others when it comes to pecuniary matters? Obviously, the assumption is being made. I (along with the OP) want to know WHY.

I think it's far more consistent to say that one may not impose his values on other people through force, period.

«Not force», «not coerce»... all relative, all roundabout to nothing.

If a person has no food will work for whatever it takes, or steal, or do something to get his stomach refill... if he goes to work is has been coerced by hunger to do it, if he goes steal he will coerce somebody into give him food.
Either way and on any way, coercion exists and remains.

I've to say I'd so far found more coercive rules within those "anarchist groups" than anything else. Like somebody once said: Nobody is against dictatorships, they might is be against the dictator not be themselves.

Now that reminds me.... what do you call a man with no arms and no legs in a pool?

Money is not morals, Two different concepts, no matter what you believe. Personally, I think minimum wage provides a useful floor on labour as supply is, by definition, most always lower than demand (in unskilled labour anyway). Free market economics applied to the social construct of employment doesn't scale, as there are always people willing to work for far less.

I respect your right to hold that opinion. Do you respect my right to hold the opposite opinion? In other words, if I disagree with you and start claiming property as my own, are you going to use violence against me or my property

You folks are big on sexual freedom, be it homosexuals, deviants or whatever.

3) are concerned with "purity" often to do with sexuality and race.

Now - to the economic argument:

The core value that underpins liberal morality is to protect and empower. That is the moral duty of anyone in any sort of power.

What has happened in the US, is that 30 years of relentless deep-framed propaganda (see http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff.shtml ) that started around the time of the Powell Manifesto, has completely warped political discourse in the US... to the point where people who a generation ago would have been union-guys, are now unwitting shills for mega-conglomerated corporations.

I am old enough, and well travelled enough to have seen what gives people the most freedom. It's not "everyone out for themselves", it's not "small government", it's not "privatise everything"... it's a state that protects and empowers its citizens through tax contributions made by the citizens, with a greater percentage of tax being paid by corporations and the wealthy.

We've been through this before. This is how we got out of the 1930s depression

http://www.hyperhistory.com/online_n2/connections_n2/great_depression.html

When I went to university it was in a time/country when the state paid all my expenses, and gave me a grant. I also worked in a strongly unionised industry in the holidays - which paid enough for me to buy a house, while I was at university. When I left, I was able to travel for years, play in bands etc for years - I had freedom. I am happy to pay tax so other people can have the same freedoms I did.

Today kids leaving university have a life of never-ending debt to look forward to... because the state no longer protects and empowers. You're on your own, at the mercy of usurious corporations that have you over a barrel.

Now you may think you're going to be best off... going it alone... going all unibomber... stocking up on gold (or bitcoins), baked beans and shotguns.

You're wrong. Organised labour is the only reliable way to protect yourself against the chronic excesses of a class-system. This is the only reliable leverage you have - to stop business. It's the only thing that has ever worked.

So yea, I'm socialist / liberal - and I'm not alone. Here is a poll conducted before the last US election where people got do decide on issues rather than candidates... the results were then matched with the candidates

http://www.dehp.net/candidate/stats.php

That is what people, on the whole, are like.


Good luck with going it alone.

I'm a socialist liberal.

Jonathan Haidt did a global study a couple of years back on the core moralities that separate liberals and conservatives. Everywhere in the world they boiled down to 3 things.

Conservatives:

1) respect authority whether right or wrong
2) are loyal to their side whether right or wrong
3) are concerned with "purity" often to do with sexuality and race.

...

The core value that underpins liberal morality is to protect and empower. That is the moral duty of anyone in any sort of power.

What has happened in the US, is that 30 years of relentless deep-framed propaganda (see http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff.shtml ) that started around the time of the Powell Manifesto, has completely warped political discourse in the US... to the point where people who a generation ago would have been union-guys, are now unwitting shills for mega-conglomerated corporations.

Back up for a second and explain what you mean by the strict father and nurturant parent frameworks.

Well, the progressive worldview is modeled on a nurturant parent family. Briefly, it assumes that the world is basically good and can be made better and that one must work toward that. Children are born good; parents can make them better. Nurturing involves empathy, and the responsibility to take care of oneself and others for whom we are responsible. On a larger scale, specific policies follow, such as governmental protection in form of a social safety net and government regulation, universal education (to ensure competence, fairness), civil liberties and equal treatment (fairness and freedom), accountability (derived from trust), public service (from responsibility), open government (from open communication), and the promotion of an economy that benefits all and functions to promote these values, which are traditional progressive values in American politics.

The conservative worldview, the strict father model, assumes that the world is dangerous and difficult and that children are born bad and must be made good. The strict father is the moral authority who supports and defends the family, tells his wife what to do, and teaches his kids right from wrong. The only way to do that is through painful discipline - physical punishment that by adulthood will become internal discipline. The good people are the disciplined people. Once grown, the self-reliant, disciplined children are on their own. Those children who remain dependent (who were spoiled, overly willful, or recalcitrant) should be forced to undergo further discipline or be cut free with no support to face the discipline of the outside world.

Most kids want stuff -- toys, candy, electronics -- and of course they want their parents to pay for it. They have the idea that daddy and mommy just sort of "have money." If you ask most little kids where that money comes from, they will say daddy works, or mommy works, but they don't really get it. They don't really think about the future, or deferring gratification, and they really don't understand what it means in the long run if their parents go into debt.

Most voters want stuff -- pensions, health care, welfare -- and of course they want the "government" to pay for it. They have the idea that politicians just sort of "have money." If you ask most voters where that money comes from, they will say -- er -- my taxes, but they don't really get it. They don't really think about the future, or deferring gratification, and they really don't understand what it means in the long run if their government goes into debt.

Parents often say that their kids should obey them because they pay the bills, and in particular, own the house -- "As long as you live under my roof, you'll live by my rules!" "If you don't like it here, feel free to leave!" Of course, it is very hard for children or teenagers to leave home, so the threat is fairly empty, but it seems to squelch debate anyway.

Patriots often say that citizens should obey the government because it provides services -- and in particular, because it runs the country. "If you live in this country, you obey the rules." "America -- love it or leave it." Of course, it's very hard for people to leave a country -- and go where -- to another tax cage? -- so the threat is fairly empty, but seems to squelch debate anyway.

In general, parents will take feedback from their children, but kids don't get any kind of binding vote. Parents also often bribe children to comply, and punish them if they disobey -- neither of which is any kind of rational argument.

Governments will take feedback from their citizens, but citizens don't get any kind of binding vote. Governments also bribe citizens to comply, and punish them if they disobey -- neither of which is any kind of rational argument.

Children who are spoiled with appeasement and unrealistic expectations will throw temper tantrums whenever their bribes are limited in any way.

Government dependents who are spoiled with appeasement and unrealistic expectations will throw temper tantrums whenever their bribes are limited in any way.

Patriotic propaganda explicitly references the family, and uses parental metaphors all the time... The Founding Fathers, the Department Of Homeland Security, the Fatherland in Germany, Mother Russia, the Strict Father (Republican) and the Caring Mother (Democrat), Uncle Sam and Homerule. Soldiers are "brothers in arms." Stalin was "Father of the Country." Mao was the "Father of the Chinese Revolution." And what's more American than "Mom and apple pie"? Just look at the parallels -- "My country, right or wrong," and "Blood is thicker than water."

The arguments are almost identical... If you receive government services, you owe obedience to the government -- just as if you take food and shelter from your parents, you owe obedience to your parents. Your parents own the house, so you have to obey them, or leave. The government owns the country, and so you have to obey it, or leave.

These "arguments" make no sense, but we all hear them a thousand times from our parents, so when politicians repeat this crap, it's almost impossible to resist, because it's been so deeply ingrained in our brains. This is why people take politics so personally, because they're really talking about their families. Numerous studies show that political biases tend to occur at the unconscious level, in patterns formed during early childhood. Don't you see the pattern? The government is an effect of the family. People try to change governments all the time, from the top down, using politics and laws and lobbying and voting, and it never really works. If you want to change the government, change the family. If you want a more peaceful society, have more peaceful families. Very, very few people can view politics outside the lens of their own family histories. Children eventually grow up and understand working, salaries, income and debt. Most voters never do. Most voters view government finances the way a five-year-old views his parents' money. And the reason for that is simple. Government schooling starts around the age of five. And that's when the indoctrination begins, and the thinking -- stops.

I am old enough, and well travelled enough to have seen what gives people the most freedom. It's not "everyone out for themselves", it's not "small government", it's not "privatise everything"... it's a state that protects and empowers its citizens through tax contributions made by the citizens, with a greater percentage of tax being paid by corporations and the wealthy.

We've been through this before. This is how we got out of the 1930s depression

When I went to university it was in a time/country when the state paid all my expenses, and gave me a grant. I also worked in a strongly unionised industry in the holidays - which paid enough for me to buy a house, while I was at university. When I left, I was able to travel for years, play in bands etc for years - I had freedom. I am happy to pay tax so other people can have the same freedoms I did.

Today kids leaving university have a life of never-ending debt to look forward to... because the state no longer protects and empowers. You're on your own, at the mercy of usurious corporations that have you over a barrel.

Now you may think you're going to be best off... going it alone... going all unibomber... stocking up on gold (or bitcoins), baked beans and shotguns.

You're wrong. Organised labour is the only reliable way to protect yourself against the chronic excesses of a class-system. This is the only reliable leverage you have - to stop business. It's the only thing that has ever worked.

I don't understand why it's so essential that be entitled to be paid more than they are worth if it happens to be less than the supposed minimum wage. They know what they are agreeing to and they should know what's best for themselves.

There are no "boss-rights" and "employee-rights". There are only terms in a private contract. Depending on who owns the businesses assets, anything goes. It's their property.

You folks are big on sexual freedom, be it homosexuals, deviants or whatever. I hear the phrase "between two consenting adults" all the time. My question is, why do you people disable your logic circuits as soon as these two consenting adults leave the bedroom? If two consenting adults agree that one will work for the other for less than minimum wage, what business is it of yours? Why is it only sexual acts that get this special treatment?

I can already hear the word "exploitation" ringing in my ears but who are you to decide what counts as exploitation? If someone desperately wants to work for $3 an hour then obviously they prefer that situation over the alternative, doing nothing and getting nothing (or getting an equivalent $3 an hour welfare check). Why are you willing to override personal freedom when it comes to work but not sex? Someone please make sense of this for me because all I see is hypocrisy right now.

I'm an anarchist, voluntaryist, agorist, whatever term is fashionable these days. I think personal liberty should apply to all spheres of interaction, bedroom, workplace, front lawn, whatever. If you want to run around nude or work for next to nothing then I think you should be free to do so, even though I wouldn't do either of those things personally.

Now - to the economic argument:

The core value that underpins liberal morality is to protect and empower. That is the moral duty of anyone in any sort of power.

Those things are all just tools - however ham-fisted - to achieve a goal that libertarians in general support - worker and employer mobility. You need both for a healthy economy.

Sorry folks! You keep talking about "violence" as if it was a linear one-kind only thing. The violence you normally refer is to brutality, but let people starve is a form of violence, exploit people is a form of violence, coerce by economic means is a form of violence...

Is anyone in this thread actually saying that if I pay someone less than X/hr they think it is right to use force against me? 

Isn't that what anyone who supports minimum wage laws is saying?

Well as a voluntarist, I believe people are only compelled 'not to do something.'

So if I move into an unused house and grow my food in the backyard, you're not going to use violence against me just because a piece of paper says that you are God over that house, right? That would be initiating force against me.

So, if I go on vacation or go to work can you claim my house is unused? Do I have to be inside my house 24/7 to prevent you from claiming it's unused?

I'm not talking about someone's residence, but rather, say, a "rental property".

You're just dodging the question. You're also assuming your conclusion when you use the terms "own" and "rent". Why not look at the situation purely through the lens of the non-initiation of force?

Adherence to the non-initiation of force requires a theory of property rights.

If I take the coat you are wearing, am I initiating force?

Can I rent a room in my house while retaining ownership of said room?

Did you steal the coat from me yesterday? If so, then you initiated force and I am just reclaiming my property.

You can't ignore property rights to focus purely on the non-initiation of force.

No it doesn't.

Yes, because there's no non-violent way to remove someone else's coat if they're not interested in removing it. You start to remove my coat; I go into the fetal position; what's your next move?

So I give you some money, and you let me sleep in a room inside your residence. In the morning I decide to go into the fetal position on the floor. You're not happy about the fact that I haven't left. What's your next move?

That depends. Did I rob you, or steal it from a coat rack while you were eating out? If the latter, then it's an abuse of language to claim that I initiated force against you.

There's no reason to continue this discussion, because you seem to literally not understand what I'm saying.

I'm not conversing with you in bad faith. I honestly thought that I pointed out where I think you're assuming your conclusion several times. Basically, you seem to have internalized an entire system of property rights which is in no way principled or even consistent, so your political ideology can't be principled, no matter how black and white it sounds ("No initiation of force against a person or his property").

Will you kill me for your coat? How far does it go?

"We were here first; you were born into our society, so who are you to question our laws? You must remain a slave for life because this is our society."

Responses to crimes have to be proportional. The point of restitution is to make the victim as whole as possible. If you steal my coat, you owe me my coat, the cost of losing my coat for that amount of time, the cost of enforcing justice on you, plus any costs for emotional harm if you scared me or made me depressed because the coat had sentimental value, etc. The point is to make it as if you had never stolen my coat in the first place, insofar as that's possible. No, I can't kill you for a coat.

That's not how it works.

If I own property, I control how it is used. If I let you use my property under certain conditions, you have to adhere to those conditions or go somewhere else. That's got literally nothing to do with "society". If you don't like the rules that exist on my property. Go out and claim your own property. How is that totalitarian? It's not.

Ah, but you're assuming that I'm going to comply with the armed thugs you send after me. Ultimately, you will kill me for the coat, provided I (non-violently) resist restitution persistently enough.

Private property has everything to do with society. It is a social norm.

If your private property-based society encompasses the inhabitable world, you are literally saying, "Do what I (or we) say or die."

No, that's a straw man argument. If the only choice is to kill you or allow you to keep my coat then you will keep my coat. However, life is never black and white like that. There are many other ways that I can get my coat back. I could simply wait until you are asleep and take it then. There are many other ways that don't involve killing you or causing you physical pain.

My point was that saying what you can and cannot do on my private property is not the same as saying you have to obey my laws, anywhere you go, even on unowned land. You must understand that, right?

If you insist on living your life in my society stealing from others it is probable that you will be highly disappointed, institutionalized and/or dead. This is highly self destructive behavior. It appears your beliefs are as deeply emotional and musterbatory as anyones. (that goes for me and bitcoin2cash also)

It's already the case that you can't get a decent chunk of land that you can actually grow something on without shelling out a couple thousand bucks to some speculator who isn't even using it. Where I live, in the middle of a large city, there isn't anywhere that I can go and be self-sufficient and be left alone within a hundred-mile radius. This is not primarily due to "big government", but rather "big property".

Such as?

Small difference. I have to obey the "laws" of the landowners whom I am surrounded by, even though they're not "the government". This may sound like a nitpick, since surely I could find some landlord or business owner who would tolerate my presence and not do me harm--but imagine yourself suddenly transported to some nation whose very culture you find threatening. You would be surrounded by private owners who might think nothing of taking you hostage and chopping your hand off because you touched the wrong thing. But, hey, you were on their property, and you broke their rules. Why didn't you just go somewhere else? (Because, from your perspective, all of the property owners there are batshit crazy.)

I'll try to be the devil's advocate here. Let's say there are no minimum wage laws. And the market is always pushing the prices lower. This will drive the wages of people with the least bargaining power to a limit between an unacceptable minimum and an amount determined at the moment when there are no unemployed unqualified people left. But market gets more efficient and things get cheaper, etc.

When there are minimum wage laws (assuming they are omnipresent and omnipotent), they bring lower limits to prices for existing products (besides the limit to what can be produced/served). You pay more for the same product and in return, the minimum wage earner can have a good standard of life. It's not automatic unemployment. But you have more unemployment, law enforcement overhead and inefficiency.

My view is, ideally, if you don't have bargaining power, get some, or stay poor. If there is a culture formed around this, you won't have unqualified people. Only, it doesn't work like that IRL. For starters, employers are also irrational people. There may be cultural and racial barriers of entry for any and all jobs. Consumers/clients are also very near-sighted. You will have periods of exploitation and poverty whenever false beliefs are spread among the population. That's why we have so many systems in place to make the society less responsive. You need a bottom-up cultural structure in place to be able to do without minimum-wage laws and such. Such wise societies might have lived in the past or might exist even now though.