Minimum wage through Libertarian's Eyes

>Minimum wage: The proper minimum wage is "zero". Anything more causes false pressures on the market which hurt business and unskilled workers trying to enter the job market. No one would accept or continue in a job which pays less than they are willing to work for. The market will self-correct if left alone.

How can a position be so naive? This is the 2008 Libertarian party candidate's position on minimum wage. Hay guys shall we open some sweatshots in Amerikkka?

Bitch.
You must be one of those Capitalist Libertarians. You guys do know that you are derided and hated by the rest of the Libertarians. Do us a favor, don't preface your lower-class hating bullshit with saying you are a libertarian you dickshit wanktard cockbreath. Us Libertarian Socialists don't stand for this kind of shit, fash.

>>2

This is the 2008 Libertarian party candidate's position on minimum wage.This is the 2008 Libertarian party candidate's position on minimum wage.This is the 2008 Libertarian party candidate's position on minimum wage.

Looks like no reply.
I win.

>>4
lol fail

Mnn. damn never mind.
I guess I still win.
Death to Capitalism, aye Comrade?
You didnt state that you dont agree, so I naturally assumed you were promoting these things.

Libertari-Ocracy=Phail

>>6
>How can a position be so naive?

kinda looks like disagreement

The "Hay guys shall we open some sweatshots in Amerikkka?"
Threw me off...they are actually for that, as long as it benefits that elusive thing "the economy" lulz

>>6
He didn't state he disagrees, but he also didn't state he was a libertarian... in fact, he was making fun of the official libertarian platform and you missed that, because your eyes are full of fail.  Your brain is made of poo and doom.

hell, i want any job, even minimum wage. but they won't even give me that.

Power...
of...
Anon...
Overwhelming!

KILL
DESTROY
DIE

internet libertarians have the worst political viewpoints

I guess the major problem with that statement is that it doesn't matter what people are WILLING to work for. It matters if they can live reasonably well on what they earn. If you have a corporate dictatorship where the average citizen can't find a job for more than 3 dollars an hour or something and a few fatcats are raking in all the cash, how can this be good?

>>1
Why is it any worse than people buying goods manufactured in sweatshops in Vietnam? Because you can't see it happenning and don't have to drive past these people's shanty towns on the way to work? Worse for us superior people perhaps, but I believe excluding sweatshops from the US so they all exist in illegal immigrant camps, Mexico and Vietnam is worse because it is uneconomical to have to transport something that could be manufactured at home and because it shields us from the truth.

At least in America these workers will have free speech and can form unions instead of having their face beaten into the soil with the butt of an a47 as occurs in South Vietnam, but does not occur in South Korea.

ak47*

>but I believe excluding sweatshops from the US so they all exist in illegal immigrant camps, Mexico and Vietnam is worse because it is uneconomical to have to transport something that could be manufactured at home and because it shields us from the truth.

>At least in America these workers will have free speech and can form unions instead of having their face beaten into the soil with the butt of an a47 as occurs in South Vietnam

You fail to realize one thing: Sweatshops are not magically "excluded" from the US due to some fairy dust. The REASON why there are no longer sweatshops in the US is precisely BECAUSE in America the workers got free speech and formed unions and such. You can't put sweatshops back into the US while it still exists as it is today. All you can do to equalize the state of the world is give the people in Vietnam the ability to rise up against their oppressors as well to demand fair working conditions, not to drag the US back down into sweatshopland.

>>17
No. It's because they vote in a minimum wage driving industry to countries where it is legal so they can sell the sweat shop goods back to us. If the entire world had free speech and a number of established unions in each region minimum wage would have to be lowerred to create jobs, even in a welfare state, because so many would be unemployed taxpayers would not be able to pay for all their unemployment benefits.

>>18
Well then I guess the only option is to keep oppressing sweatshop nations so we here in Amerika can get our goods and keep our high wage jobs. FUCK YEAH.

I hope we can get a libertarian elected in 2008 so that America can be one of the impoverished sweatshop nations. Then we can be living the libertarian dream!

Impoverished sweatshops are heading for America no matter who you vote into office for 2008.  Even if by some miracle the Libertarian candidate was voted into the Presidency, the Congress will be nearly solid, 99% controlled by the corporations.  You won't be able to stop the Hypercapitalists who are merely on Step #12 of a 200-step program to turn the USA into an actual Third World nation.

I would rather live under a dictator than a Libertarian government.

At least the dictator doesn't shriek about freedom while turning you into a slave.

You might be onto something, #22.  At least in a dictatorship, you'd have lots of allies in the populace when you go gunning for the dictator and his cronies ... unlike in a Libertarian government, where upon the least infraction every yuppie will turn your ass in for a reward no matter how small.

The #1 key component to working libertarian governments is envy. Don't believe me? In such a supposedly free government, how would this state justify expanding its own power? By pointing at other more successful countries and saying "Hey...we should have that, but these new tax laws don't give us enough to do that, hmm..."
Well, what do you think the answer would be? Yep, that's right, swipe a page from democrats.
Now they see that humans in their new country are *gasp* dividing themselves into cliques. Again. Oh my what a surprise? The only answer? Yep, swipe a page from Republicans and imprison all those boatrockers. After all, who needs to rock the boat when you have Liberty granted by the Libertarian Party? Hurhurhur.
It's just a harebrained populist movement like the South American commies. Got some good philosophical heads though, now if only they would invent something that would actually work.

>>2
your eyes are full of fail.  Your brain is made of poo and doom.
>>2
your eyes are full of fail.  Your brain is made of poo and doom.
>>2
your eyes are full of fail.  Your brain is made of poo and doom.
>>2
your eyes are full of fail.  Your brain is made of poo and doom.
>>2
your eyes are full of fail.  Your brain is made of poo and doom.

The minuimum wage increases unemployment, because companies have to hire fewer workers in order to pay the required wage to the workers they already have. Since you can't just magic up wealth out of nowhere - you can only move it from one place to another - you have to decide if you want high employment and low wages, or low employment and high wages.

>>23
You'd quickly change your mind.
>>24
The libertarian state would expand it's power only be upholding liberty and justice. The better job it does the more popular the politicians who contributed. Libertarianism wasn't derived from set in stone theories like marxist derived ideologies (communism, anarchism, socialism etc..), it is open to criticism and new theories as any other science is.

>>27

whose liberty and justice? fucktard.

>>27
Gee, you'd think that that would be how our system would currently work, wouldn't you? Couldn't a politician get an easy win in his upcoming politician by "upholding liberty and justice"? And yet, we don't see this great purge of senators who support internment camps, the Patriot Act, etc.

How would things be different in a "libertarian state"?

ITT: People who don't understand economics.

minimum wage does not necessarily mean more unemployment. this is well known

Australia's minimum wage is the equivalent of $9 US. There's no massive unemployment. Everyone gets to participate in the economy, because everybody has some disposable income. Since the government can get so much in income tax from a well-employed workforce, those who can't find jobs are kept from starving to death or being homeless by a generous welfare system.

I know this makes all the libertarians and objectivists uncomfortable, but their system actually does work.

The interesting thing about Australia's welfare system is that they have policies in place that make it difficult to be NEET.

This completely ruins any arguments against welfare due to "lazy bums just want to leech off me." Anybody arguing from this position is flaunting their ignorance (go travel a bit, huh?).

>>33
Since I live with America's not-quite-generous $5.15 minimum wage, I'm not really able to travel that much yet, but I'll say this: the worst case scenario of a welfare system is having lazy bums not working, which drives up wages for those who do work (and still adding to the economy with all the stuff they buy with welfare money). The best case scenario of an objectivist dog-eat-dog system with no welfare system is having people starving to death on the street, desperate for someone to wander into the wrong alley to get robbed and murdered so that they can finally have a meal.

You all don't know basic economics.

First off, Minimum Wage creates Inflation.

Second off, Minimum Wage puts a toll on small business.

Thirdly, no minimum wage brings down the cost of goods sold in the country, because if it takes less money to manufacture the good, it takes less money to sell the good.

The price of the dollar goes UP, but the price of the product goes down.

Remember when it cost a quarter to buy a loaf of bread? I bet you don't.

Hold it just a second, #35.  It employers decrease employment due to the imposition of a minimum wage (and continue to decrease it as the MW increases), then how do we achieve inflation?  It seems sensible to me in response to MW changes, that EITHER we have inflation and some holding of the same wage levels, OR we have increased unemployment and no inflation due to payroll demands.

I'm glad we have a minimum wage in this nation (USA), since we have every right to regulate capital, but we should be very careful where we set the MW since is a gross imposition upon capitalists.  Rights are responsibilities are LINKED, and those who exert those rights have to pay strict attention to the RESTRAINT that the responsibilities imply.  Specifically, when we tell employers that without regard to their business details, they must pay at least $5.15 (or whatever) per hour to employees, we have to be sure we understand how that affects their (note well: THEIR) businesses.  There are businesses in the USA that are harmed by even such a modest wage, which is why waitstaff are under another regulatory wage (about $2.13 around these parts -- the margin of which is made up in tips).

The fact remains, we are not living in some pussy fantasy world, some people have to clean up dead bodies, wipe old people's shitty urine soaked asses (technically we could just euthanise them when dementia has reached the point where they can no longer be considerred human but you guys would just cry so hard it would be depressing) and beat all those ethnic minorities who think crime is honourable.

#37, what do you think about the economic minorities who also think that (white-collar) crime is honorable?

>>38
The same as you. The difference is I think the same about ethnic minorities (and other groups with a similiar mentality) who think crime is honourable. To save on costs we need only beat the grand theft autos and drug dealers, they in turn will relieve their frustration on the white collar criminals in jail.

Brilliant, #39.  As it is, the white-collar criminals make it to jail at a tiny fraction of the rate that the blue-collars criminals do.  The blues end up bluer, so to speak.  We've turned prisons into Common Crime Training School enough, don't you think?  At least restructure the fucking prisons to have more solitary confinement!

>>40
"Tiny fraction of the rate"? There are less white collar criminals than blue collar criminals because there are less white collar criminals, if there were an equal number of white collar and blue collar convicts then it would be unusual, not the way it is. Unless you have statistics and multiple case studies which support that white collar criminals tend to get off lightly then you can't be taken seriously. Isolation and institutionalisation leads to madness, you don't need a psychologist to tell you that.

#41, any common reading of the financial news would reveal that there's a lot more white-collar crime happening than ever reaches court, much less jail.  You're only indulging in "it is because it is" logic, which doesn't actually examine WHY something is.  Most law enforcement is geared towards nabbing blue-collar crimes; unsurprisingly, that system fills the jails with blue-collar criminals.

I'm sure you know -- as such a savvy study in social trends -- that when financial criminals are ever addressed, settlements abound, and in that kind of "enforcement" environment, surely you've heard the phrase "... without admitting guilt".  White-collar criminals largely either evade detection or they evade prosecution or they evade jail.

I wonder what the racial and social makeup of our jails would look like if we swapped the enforcement regimes?  When some nigger holds up a liquor store, instead of being summarily convicted and jailed, he could instead show up to the prosecutor's office some years later (on his own recognizance), sign a "Memorandum of Understanding", whereby he may or may not admit to the material facts of the matter, but he still promises not to do it again ... and if he does (largely dependent upon being caught) then he'll face ... a FINE!

As for the banker who commits fraud in commercial lending under this change of enforcement?  Well, the cops barge in, beat him, haul him to the floor and cuff him (sometimes not reading him his rights, but no one cares about that anyway), then drag him out and stick him in a cell for 2-4 weeks until the grand jury determines a crime has been committed (and the facts of the case are clear:  yes, by his signature on the forms, he did commit fraud in commercial lending), and then after 4-8 more weeks (note: still in jail), he ends up in court and after deliberating for 15 minutes the jury finds him guilty as fuck.  A few weeks later the judge (in clear disgust or bored resignation) sentences him to 8 years in medium security, where he can qualify for parole in 5.

Tell me again this system isn't fucking RIGGED 'GAINST DA NIG.

(Apologies to Dave Chappelle for blatantly ripping off one of his skits.)