Would killing the minimum wage help?

[JoelKatz]

Congratulations. You've missed the entire point of my argument whilst spotting why I wasn't complaining about the existence of wealth disparity in general.

It seems the entire point changes fairly regularly.

The issue here is not that the ditch digger has more money than the CEO, but that the poor have to justify their money in the eyes of the market in a way that the rich don't. If a ditch digger fails to dig efficiently they'd get the sack, but there's no way of sacking the wealthy if they enrich themselves at the expense of real progress - the only way they can lose their wealth is through gross incompetence.

How can a ditch digger lose money that's in his bank account? And even the wealthiest person can be fired.

CEOs are actually a good example. They can run company after company into the ground through bad management and still leave each job with lots of money, because the other board members that appoint them are also members of the CEO class and in on the take. You've got an entire group of people enriching themselves at the expenses of driving others down.

The same is true for a ditch digger. Generally, no matter how bad a job he does, he still gets paid for his time. He can work for company after company getting paid for however long it takes them to figure out he's a lousy ditch digger.

[Babylon]

I think the incompatibility arises from how each ideology defines property. Canarchy advocates for extremely strong property rights. I'm not to sure about Sanarchy, it seems that they vary from weak property rights to no property rights. Nonetheless, this has the effect of completely changing how each society will function. One is where control is defined by 'capital' and the other is based somewhat on 'public opinion'. If I own all the capital then I can do whatever I want with it. Compared with; if I misuse my capital, others can take it from me despite having no prior 'right' to it.

An interesting consequence in the various views of property rights (in Sanarchy) is that the end result of some versions of Sanarchy is very similer to what a Canarchist would want. All versions of Canarchy allow groups to from socialised communes if they buy the property first. Only a number of Sanarchists, I think a minority, would allow capitalists to do the same. That number would allow communes, if they democratically voted, to form a hirachal system with uneven division of resources, with money, investment, savings, hiring other people and so on.

A typical Ancap would expect the capitalist communes to outcompete and eventually become the majority anyway. Creating the same result which he originally wanted.

This also means that, from a Sanarchist point of view Canarchy would evolve into Sanarchy because the socialist communes would outcompete the capitalist organizations around them.  The issue is the redistribution of wealth that has been acquired through force, without this a Canarchist society would rather quickly evolve into feudalism.

[Babylon]

Congratulations. You've missed the entire point of my argument whilst spotting why I wasn't complaining about the existence of wealth disparity in general.

It seems the entire point changes fairly regularly.

The issue here is not that the ditch digger has more money than the CEO, but that the poor have to justify their money in the eyes of the market in a way that the rich don't. If a ditch digger fails to dig efficiently they'd get the sack, but there's no way of sacking the wealthy if they enrich themselves at the expense of real progress - the only way they can lose their wealth is through gross incompetence.

How can a ditch digger lose money that's in his bank account? And even the wealthiest person can be fired.

CEOs are actually a good example. They can run company after company into the ground through bad management and still leave each job with lots of money, because the other board members that appoint them are also members of the CEO class and in on the take. You've got an entire group of people enriching themselves at the expenses of driving others down.

The same is true for a ditch digger. Generally, no matter how bad a job he does, he still gets paid for his time. He can work for company after company getting paid for however long it takes them to figure out he's a lousy ditch digger.

A wealthy person who makes his money from investments cannot be fired.  His capital can be confiscated but that is a different matter entirely.

[myrkul]

A wealthy person who makes his money from investments cannot be fired.  His capital can be confiscated but that is a different matter entirely.

If he makes bad investments, his capital is gonna run out fast. If he makes good investments (the companies he finances make profits) he is helping people to help people. I fail to see the problem here.

[lemonginger]

The issue is the redistribution of wealth that has been acquired through force, without this a Canarchist society would rather quickly evolve into feudalism.

Yes, that is why asking how existing wealth should be dealt with is one of my litmus tests for whether or not I think that an anarcho-capitalist is serious about building a better world, or whether they are just arguing for an intensification of the status quo.

[myrkul]

The issue is the redistribution of wealth that has been acquired through force, without this a Canarchist society would rather quickly evolve into feudalism.

Yes, that is why asking how existing wealth should be dealt with is one of my litmus tests for whether or not I think that an anarcho-capitalist is serious about building a better world, or whether they are just arguing for an intensification of the status quo.

The only wealth that has been truly acquired by force is government property (one could argue that any business subsidized by government funds was too, but that's not important, as I'll show later). Any government property is immediately up for grabs upon the dissolution of the government, and most likely, immediately homesteaded by those who use it (That should make you happy, lemon). Any property which was subsidised by the government is likewise now wholly owned by those who use it.

Businesses which required government subsidies would quickly fail, giving those resources back to the ones who are best able to use them. (or at least better)

[Littleshop]

What are your thoughts on this?

I'm opposed to the minimum wage, but in reality repealing it would have almost zero effect.  There are relatively few minimum wage jobs as it is, as most unskilled jobs pay more.  Most of the unemployed are unemployed because they have a certain skillset, and will chose to remain on unemployment insurance payments so long as they last rather than take a lower wage job.  If we were to repeal both the minimum wage laws and restrict or repeal unemployment insurance, there might be some measurable effects.  But the truth of the matter is that most of the unemployed can find minimum wage work, but won't because they are accustomed to a higher wage and better working conditions than a minimum wage job.

+1

There are lots of min wage jobs in my area.  People can not live on that wage, and with unemployment payments others that would do it, decide not to.  A repeal would make little difference unless you allowed illegals to work on the books for min wage. 

On the eastern shore of Maryland there are not enough people to pick crops at $10 an hour.

[lemonginger]

The issue is the redistribution of wealth that has been acquired through force, without this a Canarchist society would rather quickly evolve into feudalism.

Yes, that is why asking how existing wealth should be dealt with is one of my litmus tests for whether or not I think that an anarcho-capitalist is serious about building a better world, or whether they are just arguing for an intensification of the status quo.

The only wealth that has been truly acquired by force is government property (one could argue that any business subsidized by government funds was too, but that's not important, as I'll show later). Any government property is immediately up for grabs upon the dissolution of the government, and most likely, immediately homesteaded by those who use it (That should make you happy, lemon). Any property which was subsidised by the government is likewise now wholly owned by those who use it.

Businesses which required government subsidies would quickly fail, giving those resources back to the ones who are best able to use them. (or at least better)

So you essentially don't believe that the current shape of the playing field or how it got there matters at all? Even Rothbard argues that quite a few corporations should be turned over to their workers and universities to their students.

For example, a variety of military-industrial complex corporations (let's say lockheed martin) could no doubt be retooled to make civilian stuff rather than military warplanes, but what of the fact that shareholders and management have made their capital supplying the State with weapons? Now they get rewarded with the ownership of tons of useful capital and they get to keep all their ill-gotten gains?

--

I would argue that if current wealth imbalances are left like they are any attempt at anarcho-capitalism will quickly devolve into a sort of hyper-feudalism. You can't essentially admit that all land/capital was taken illegitimately (by defining current markets as unfree). If the market is to serve as the only/ultimate decision making tool for aggregating choices and preferences, then it makes a huge difference if some people have a lot more of that decision making power.

--

Also,this article is a good examination of different libertarian attitudes towards redistribution

http://mutualist.org/id45.html

[lemonginger]

Also, can some AnCaps tell me if they agree or disagree with Rothbard in this piece?

http://murrayrothbard.com/confiscation-and-the-homestead-principle/

[myrkul]

I would argue that if current wealth imbalances are left like they are any attempt at anarcho-capitalism will quickly devolve into a sort of hyper-feudalism. You can't essentially admit that all land/capital was taken illegitimately (by defining current markets as unfree). If the market is to serve as the only/ultimate decision making tool for aggregating choices and preferences, then it makes a huge difference if some people have a lot more of that decision making power.

Who has more decision making power? 1 man with 5 billion dollars, or 6 billion people, each with 1 dollar?

That billionaire has to please those billions of people if he wants to keep (or increase) his fortune.

Keep in mind that during the sort of shake-up that would surround a transition to AnCap (or anything, really), fortunes are made and lost very rapidly. It's extremely unlikely that the balance of monetary or even material distribution would be the same.

Also, can some AnCaps tell me if they agree or disagree with Rothbard in this piece?

http://murrayrothbard.com/confiscation-and-the-homestead-principle/

That's actually what I based my opinion of 'public property should go to those who use it' on. For the most part, when I say subsidized industries, I mean those like the railways, which can't support themselves. For industries like Lockheed-martin, Yes, they did supply weapons to the Gov't. But when you like to make jet planes, who's going to pay you the most to make jet planes?

[lemonginger]

Who has more decision making power? 1 man with 5 billion dollars, or 6 billion people, each with 1 dollar?

Really?

[lemonginger]

That's actually what I based my opinion of 'public property should go to those who use it' on. For the most part, when I say subsidized industries, I mean those like the railways, which can't support themselves. For industries like Lockheed-martin, Yes, they did supply weapons to the Gov't. But when you like to make jet planes, who's going to pay you the most to make jet planes?

Are you sure? Yours sounds a lot more like a Van Mises - "just privatize and let the market sort it out since it's such a mess and we can't possibly sort it out any better than that" On the contrary - Rothbard in that article:

What of the myriad of corporations which are integral parts of the military-industrial complex, which not only get over half or sometimes virtually all their revenue from the government but also participate in mass murder? What are their credentials to “private” property? Surely less than zero. As eager lobbyists for these contracts and subsidies, as co-founders of the garrison state, they deserve confiscation and reversion of their property to the genuine private sector as rapidly as possible. To say that their “private” property must be respected is to say that the property stolen by the horse thief and the murdered must be “respected”.

(seems directly counter to your oh well, who else where they going to sell to argument)

The percentage of its sales coming from napalm is undoubtedly small, so that on a percentage basis the company may not seem very guilty; but napalm is and can only be an instrument of mass murder, and therefore Dow Chemical is heavily up to its neck in being an accessory and hence a co-partner in the mass murder in Vietnam. No percentage of sales, however small, can absolve its guilt.

(seems to argue that companies that are even doing tiny business in things like chemical weapons should be wholly forfeit or subject to massive sanctions under a libertarian property scheme)

One of the tragic aspects of the emancipation of the serfs in Russia in 1861 was that while the serfs gained their personal freedom, the land–their means of production and of life, their land was retained under the ownership of their feudal masters. The land should have gone to the serfs themselves, for under the homestead principle they had tilled the land and deserved its title. Furthermore, the serfs were entitled to a host of reparations from their masters for the centuries of oppression and exploitation.

(then he goes on to argue for *shock* reparations to be paid to all descendents of slaves

(He also argues for an intermediate step of, right now, nationalizing all companies that get over 50% of their revenue from the public)

[myrkul]

That's actually what I based my opinion of 'public property should go to those who use it' on. For the most part, when I say subsidized industries, I mean those like the railways, which can't support themselves. For industries like Lockheed-martin, Yes, they did supply weapons to the Gov't. But when you like to make jet planes, who's going to pay you the most to make jet planes?

Are you sure? Yours sounds a lot more like a Van Mises - "just privatize and let the market sort it out since it's such a mess and we can't possibly sort it out any better than that"

(He also argues for an intermediate step of, right now, nationalizing all companies that get over 50% of their revenue from the public)

I guess I'm more Mises than Rothbard,then... I'd be in favor of drawing a strict line between public and private, and then letting the workers have the public stuff, and let the market sort the private.

As to culpability for things like Agent Orange, and Napalm, and the MOAB, I'm not much one for punishing old wrongs. It's better to move on, I think. Especially with wounds as old as slavery.

[lemonginger]

I guess I'm more Mises than Rothbard,then... I'd be in favor of drawing a strict line between public and private, and then letting the workers have the public stuff, and let the market sort the private.

As to culpability for things like Agent Orange, and Napalm, and the MOAB, I'm not much one for punishing old wrongs. It's better to move on, I think. Especially with wounds as old as slavery.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt as I give von Mises in this situation because I think that you both tend to believe that giant and evil corporations are so much only emergent in state-corporate (dare I say fascist) socioeconomic systems that a true free market would make mincemeat of them very quickly. I'm obviously much more circumspect in that regard and think that the argument kinda stinks of saying well, first we'll steal all the land and capital and THEN we'll say okay, from here on out, this will be a free market. (ie; I think you are arguing it because you honestly believe such a market, would, regardless of starting point quickly improve the wellbeing of a lot of people. I think that such a market, in absence of redsitribution, has the potential to become an even more unshakable oligarchy thna we have now)

Regardless, I've said before and I'll say again that it would give me more confidence if anarcho-capitalists knew their OWN theorists and knew that many of them advocated things like turning companies over to their workers, slave reparations, etc.

--

I wonder though, if a free market will reach optimal outcomes so quickly in a true free market, why not just turn all companies over to their workers, turn all land over to its users (as much as such a thing is possible - ie; make that the default attitude, rather than a leave things as they are attitude unless some egregious recent breach of property can be irrefutably demonstated) -- ie; make it so new property claims have the burden of proof since we call all agree nearly everything is inextricably bound up in a violent and coercive socioeconomic system at the moment.

[myrkul]

I wonder though, if a free market will reach optimal outcomes so quickly in a true free market, why not just turn all companies over to their workers, turn all land over to its users (as much as such a thing is possible - ie; make that the default attitude, rather than a leave things as they are attitude unless some egregious recent breach of property can be irrefutably demonstated) -- ie; make it so new property claims have the burden of proof since we call all agree nearly everything is inextricably bound up in a violent and coercive socioeconomic system at the moment.

The problem with that is that you're taking honestly earned capital away from people in order to make sure that you also catch the bad guys... throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I'm more a fan of the 'let a hundred guilty men go free, than punish a single innocent one' school.

[grantbdev]

Would unemployment go down? Absolutely.

Should we get rid of it? Hell no.

I'm convinced that overseas sweatshop labor's days are limited. Revolutions are going to happen all over Asia and the people are going to demand a better living. Especially when all those Chinese university graduates realize what communism actually is and what they are doing. Instead of getting rid of our minimum wage, we should be pushing for other countries such as China and India to have a good minimum wage. You should be able to live when you work and are contributing to society.

[MoonShadow]

Would unemployment go down? Absolutely.

Should we get rid of it? Hell no.

I'm convinced that overseas sweatshop labor's days are limited. Revolutions are going to happen all over Asia and the people are going to demand a better living. Especially when all those Chinese university graduates realize what communism actually is and what they are doing. Instead of getting rid of our minimum wage, we should be pushing for other countries such as China and India to have a good minimum wage. You should be able to live when you work and are contributing to society.

I'm sure that you have no concept of just how many ways this is wrong.

[grantbdev]

I'm sure that you have no concept of just how many ways this is wrong.

Explain. What's wrong at least being able to live on what you work for?

[BBanzai]

As old?  We are yet slaves.

[MoonShadow]

I'm sure that you have no concept of just how many ways this is wrong.

Explain. What's wrong at least being able to live on what you work for?

I can't explain it to you, because you would first have to understand why it's not a realistic expectation that the United States or Europe has either the right or the ability to compel the people of other nations to accept our concept of a 'living wage' or anything else.  You are a self-admitted socialist; which, by definition, requires the use of force (or credible threats of force) upon those who dissent in order to achieve the common goals of socialism to any effective degree.  There is no such thing as a voluntary state, but a voluntary socialist state is impossible by it's own definitions.