national minimum wage LAWS. good or bad?

[myrkul]

whether or not you own an object but whether or not you have dominion over that object.

These are the same thing.

i disagree. Ownership implies legitimacy of means of acquisition. Exercising dominion over an object implies no such legitimacy. Of course in my original statement i was using these ideas interchangeably for lack of a better term and because this philosophical distinction wasnt relievent at the time.

Ownership is legitimate dominion. If you own something, you by definition have dominion over it. You seem to be saying that a market needs only the dominion, not the legitimacy, in order to function. This is false. If legitimacy is not a qualification to trade, then you end up with illegitimately gained items being traded equally with legitimately gained ones, invalidating the legitimacy of the legit goods. In other words, if stolen goods are not classed separately from - and lesser than - legit goods, you ruin the value of the effort of gaining something legitimately, when you can just steal it. A free market requires that property rights - ownership - be respected in order to work properly.

[Anon136]

whether or not you own an object but whether or not you have dominion over that object.

These are the same thing.

i disagree. Ownership implies legitimacy of means of acquisition. Exercising dominion over an object implies no such legitimacy. Of course in my original statement i was using these ideas interchangeably for lack of a better term and because this philosophical distinction wasnt relievent at the time.

Ownership is legitimate dominion. If you own something, you by definition have dominion over it. You seem to be saying that a market needs only the dominion, not the legitimacy, in order to function. This is false. If legitimacy is not a qualification to trade, then you end up with illegitimately gained items being traded equally with legitimately gained ones, invalidating the legitimacy of the legit goods. In other words, if stolen goods are not classed separately from - and lesser than - legit goods, you ruin the value of the effort of gaining something legitimately, when you can just steal it. A free market requires that property rights - ownership - be respected in order to work properly.

sure a market can function with illegitimately acquired goods. Americans basically stole everything they have from the natives and we built very robust markets out of that stolen property.

also "If you own something, you by definition have dominion over it." that isnt true at all. If someone steals my property from me it is still my property but i no longer have any capacity to exercise dominion over it.

[myrkul]

sure a market can function with illegitimately acquired goods. Americans basically stole everything they have from the natives and we built very robust markets out of that stolen property.

Ah - but only because the "property rights" of the thief were respected. If no property rights are respected, then you end up with a cut-throat, steal and be stolen from market, where violence is the rule, not the exception. This is the anarchy that statists fear and hold up as boogey-man, not the anarchy we seek.

also "If you own something, you by definition have dominion over it." that isnt true at all. If someone steals my property from me it is still my property but i no longer have any capacity to exercise dominion over it.

On the contrary. You can go take it back, by force if need be.

[Anon136]

Ah - but only because the "property rights" of the thief were respected. If no property rights are respected, then you end up with a cut-throat, steal and be stolen from market, where violence is the rule, not the exception. This is the anarchy that statists fear and hold up as boogey-man, not the anarchy we seek.

granted

On the contrary. You can go take it back, by force if need be.

In my theoretical example lets say you dont know who the thief is or where your property has been taken and you have no means to regain the property. It would still be your property but it wouldn't make any sense to say you had dominion over it since you would have no capacity to dictate the terms of its use.

[myrkul]

In my theoretical example lets say you dont know who the thief is or where your property has been taken and you have no means to regain the property. It would still be your property but it wouldn't make any sense to say you had dominion over it since you would have no capacity to dictate the terms of its use.

Which is why stealing is wrong - it separates ownership and dominion.

[Rassah]

Why not arrive at it by just using mutually agreed upon contracts? In a small enough society, there is no need for a legal body to oversee your market. Contracts are signed and agreed upon, and if broken, enforced by whoever has more power, or pays a third party to exhert power.

Epic fail. Thank you though for putting your foot in your mouth and showing your true colors: Money and power rule all. Forget justice and truth.

Do the judges and police officers in your country work for free?

[myrkul]

Why not arrive at it by just using mutually agreed upon contracts? In a small enough society, there is no need for a legal body to oversee your market. Contracts are signed and agreed upon, and if broken, enforced by whoever has more power, or pays a third party to exhert power.

Epic fail. Thank you though for putting your foot in your mouth and showing your true colors: Money and power rule all. Forget justice and truth.

Do the judges and police officers in your country work for free?

Of course not. They take their money by force, the truth and justice way.

[FirstAscent]

Why not arrive at it by just using mutually agreed upon contracts? In a small enough society, there is no need for a legal body to oversee your market. Contracts are signed and agreed upon, and if broken, enforced by whoever has more power, or pays a third party to exhert power.

Epic fail. Thank you though for putting your foot in your mouth and showing your true colors: Money and power rule all. Forget justice and truth.

Do the judges and police officers in your country work for free?

Having trouble seeing the obvious? I guess so.

[FirstAscent]

whether or not you own an object but whether or not you have dominion over that object.

These are the same thing.

i disagree. Ownership implies legitimacy of means of acquisition. Exercising dominion over an object implies no such legitimacy. Of course in my original statement i was using these ideas interchangeably for lack of a better term and because this philosophical distinction wasnt relievent at the time.

Ownership is legitimate dominion. If you own something, you by definition have dominion over it. You seem to be saying that a market needs only the dominion, not the legitimacy, in order to function. This is false. If legitimacy is not a qualification to trade, then you end up with illegitimately gained items being traded equally with legitimately gained ones, invalidating the legitimacy of the legit goods. In other words, if stolen goods are not classed separately from - and lesser than - legit goods, you ruin the value of the effort of gaining something legitimately, when you can just steal it. A free market requires that property rights - ownership - be respected in order to work properly.

Your argument doesn't sound very solid. Let me understand. Goods are made from natural resources. They were ultimately come by through homesteading the land they came from, right? Those would have been (in the case of North America) the first Americans, right? They laid claim by hunting and agriculture, correct? Therefore, if others (let's say Europeans) 'homesteaded' on such lands (by use of guns and power), then according to your logic, all goods which ultimately originated from the Europeans manufacturing from resources on American soil are illegitimate.

It seems that it's really power that determines ownership. And Rassah even admits it. At least governments try and allow that power to be available to everyone equally more so than private defense agencies where it's very clear who will win.

[myrkul]

Goods are made from natural resources. They were ultimately come by through homesteading the land they came from, right? Those would have been (in the case of North America) the first Americans, right? They laid claim by hunting and agriculture, correct? Therefore, if others (let's say Europeans) 'homesteaded' on such lands (by use of guns and power), then according to your logic, all goods which ultimately originated from the Europeans manufacturing from resources on American soil are illegitimate.

"All" might be a little excessive, certainly there were some legitimate transfers, or homesteading of unclaimed lands. But at this point, it's nearly impossible to determine which were which, especially after several generations of good faith legitimate transfers.

[FirstAscent]

Goods are made from natural resources. They were ultimately come by through homesteading the land they came from, right? Those would have been (in the case of North America) the first Americans, right? They laid claim by hunting and agriculture, correct? Therefore, if others (let's say Europeans) 'homesteaded' on such lands (by use of guns and power), then according to your logic, all goods which ultimately originated from the Europeans manufacturing from resources on American soil are illegitimate.

"All" might be a little excessive, certainly there were some legitimate transfers, or homesteading of unclaimed lands. But at this point, it's nearly impossible to determine which were which, especially after several generations of good faith legitimate transfers.

That's the best you can do? In actuality, it was the U.S. government which laid claim to the lands, using power to grab the land, homestead it, or whatever. If you wish to wave your hands and sweep it all underneath the rug (which you are clearly doing), then fine. By doing so, you are left with the realization that you are a tenant of the U.S. government, and ownership of a parcel of land by you and/or a right to squat on their land is under the provision that you pay taxes. By being said tenant, then you play by their rules, just like I should play by your rules in your house. One of those rules might be a minimum wage rule, as designated by a state, which is also granted rights by the federal government.

If you disagree with this analysis, then I suggest you rephrase your last comment to factor in the realities of the world, which includes power as being the ultimate arbiter. This is in fact what you argue for in your AnCap society.

[myrkul]

Goods are made from natural resources. They were ultimately come by through homesteading the land they came from, right? Those would have been (in the case of North America) the first Americans, right? They laid claim by hunting and agriculture, correct? Therefore, if others (let's say Europeans) 'homesteaded' on such lands (by use of guns and power), then according to your logic, all goods which ultimately originated from the Europeans manufacturing from resources on American soil are illegitimate.

"All" might be a little excessive, certainly there were some legitimate transfers, or homesteading of unclaimed lands. But at this point, it's nearly impossible to determine which were which, especially after several generations of good faith legitimate transfers.

That's the best you can do? In actuality, it was the U.S. government which laid claim to the lands, using power to grab the land, homestead it, or whatever. If you wish to wave your hands and sweep it all underneath the rug (which you are clearly doing), then fine. By doing so, you are left with the realization that you are a tenant of the U.S. government, and ownership of a parcel of land by you and/or a right to squat on their land is under the provision that you pay taxes. By being said tenant, then you play by their rules, just like I should play by your rules in your house. One of those rules might be a minimum wage rule, as designated by a state, which is also granted rights by the federal government.

If you disagree with this analysis, then I suggest you rephrase your last comment to factor in the realities of the world, which includes power as being the ultimate arbiter. This is in fact what you argue for in your AnCap society.

You make an assumption: that the government is a legitimate entity. It's not. Therefore, any transfers made by the US Government are by definition not legitimate. I am no more a tenant of the US Government than a person living in the territory of the mafia is a tenant of them. If you're interested in justice, you should be advocating returning government lands to the natives, since that is a very easily traced illegitimate transfer.

Of course, drawing lines on a map doesn't grant ownership, so even those people who homesteaded land claimed by, and granted to them by, the US Government aren't tenants, they're the ones who legitimately earned, and so own, that land. (Unless, of course, they had to kill some natives to get the land, which makes the transfer illegitimate, but again, since that was so far in the past, and both the original - native - owners and the people who took the land from them are long gone, it's effectively impossible to track it all down.)

[Rassah]

Why not arrive at it by just using mutually agreed upon contracts? In a small enough society, there is no need for a legal body to oversee your market. Contracts are signed and agreed upon, and if broken, enforced by whoever has more power, or pays a third party to exhert power.

Epic fail. Thank you though for putting your foot in your mouth and showing your true colors: Money and power rule all. Forget justice and truth.

Do the judges and police officers in your country work for free?

Having trouble seeing the obvious? I guess so.

So do you. You missed that paid third party that enforces contracts could be paid by the party that broke the deal. That's how it would likely work: Want to deal voluntarily? Agree for both parties to sign the contract, and pay the third party to keep both of us in line.

[Rassah]

It seems that it's really power that determines ownership. And Rassah even admits it. At least governments try and allow that power to be available to everyone equally more so than private defense agencies where it's very clear who will win.

The difference is that if power is supported by voluntary means, such as me paying for security, for protection, or even to attack someone, that's still voluntary. And if I want to do something with my own stuff, on my own property, that power will not interfere with me, since I never paid or asked it to. In the government's case, that power is decided on by either everyone collectively, or by a few who think they know better how everyone should run their lives. I could have had that power exerted against me, against my will, and in the privacy of my own home, as little as 30 years ago, just because of the gender of the person I'm in love with.

[Rassah]

One of those rules might be a minimum wage rule, as designated by a state, which is also granted rights by the federal government.

... another one of those rules might be a rule that gives you special privilege, or takes away all your rights entirely, based on your skin color. Yet another rule may grant, or take away, your right to own land or take out loans, based on whether you have a penis. Of course all these rules were right, just, and ethical, because they were written in law, which is where rights come from. And since rights come from law, those rights, or lack of rights, are absolute. You can't just change a law that you don't agree with. You have no right to!  

Btw, it's been a year, and you still haven't explained: if rights come from laws, how, or even why, did black people ever get them in this country, if they had no legal right to rights, and the law is what dictates rights and ethics?

[myrkul]

It seems that it's really power that determines ownership. And Rassah even admits it. At least governments try and allow that power to be available to everyone equally more so than private defense agencies where it's very clear who will win.

The difference is that if power is supported by voluntary means, such as me paying for security, for protection, or even to attack someone, that's still voluntary.

...eeehh... I don't know about attacking someone. Unless, of course, the person has agreed to be attacked. Otherwise that's voluntary only on one side of the equation, which is to say, not voluntary.

[FirstAscent]

Rassah, stop confusing ethics with law. Ethics influence law. We live in an evolving society which is becoming more sensitive to ethics everyday, and laws are influenced by them over time. Please stop pontificating as if your imagined and desired society actually sounds like an inviting place to live. It really does not. It actually sounds rather scary and backwards.

As for you knowing better - honestly, you don't. Only someone who is an expert in many fields (geology, ecology, biology, structural building codes, hydrology, etc.) would really know best. That's why we have regulations. You're free to revisit the FYGM thread and demonstrate that you do know better, but I see you abandoned it.

[myrkul]

It really does not. It actually sounds rather scary and backwards.

Yes, I imagine personal responsibility would seem rather scary to someone like yourself.

As for you knowing better - honestly, you don't. Only someone who is an expert in many fields (geology, ecology, biology, structural building codes, hydrology, etc.) would really know best. That's why we have regulations.

And those regulations are enacted by those polymath experts, right? Oh... right. They're enacted by idiots, whose sole skill lies in getting elected, who don't even read the bills they pass.

[farlack]

Is this thread even about minimum wage anymore?
My input if so is minimum wage has to be there.

Take walmart for example if they paid all their employees $80 more each week, it would cost them an extra 8,736,000,000 granted they made 15 billion last year, but that's more than half of profits. Would hurt the economy more I think.

[Anon136]

Is this thread even about minimum wage anymore?
My input if so is minimum wage has to be there.

Take walmart for example if they paid all their employees $80 more each week, it would cost them an extra 8,736,000,000 granted they made 15 billion last year, but that's more than half of profits. Would hurt the economy more I think.

i would love to get back to the topic! Do you believe that companies can chose to pay a wage that is below market price and still attract employees? Do you believe that employees deserve higher than a market wage? If the answer to either question is yes than why?

before you reply check out this very short 3 minute video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siW0YAAfX6I) to save me the trouble of outlining the basics of the anti-minimumwage position.