Actually, that was may example, and you misquoted it. I said “work longer hours FOR NO PAY or I’ll fire you”, which BTW is pretty much what WalMart did awhile back. I’m curious what you think of my other example: Does a Libertarian believe that an employer ought to be able to request sexual favors from his employees, and fire them if they refuse? Would you not consider that coercion? Should it be legal?
Good, 'cuz I didn’t try to.
Oops, that should read “my example”.
You’re contradicting yourself.
Certainly, if both are adults. Why should your Puritanical discombobulations be imposed on everyone else?
You’re funny. Ever thought of doing stand-up?
It’d be easier if you’d move your head.
True. The quote which which started this was:
in which the claim was made that one could support the min wage and reasonably call yourself a libertarian. But Gadarene agreed with your other post, about firing a person if they refuse to work more hours without pay:
I never quoted her as saying that, just agreeing that it was correct.
Yes. And here’s the logic. In a libertarian world, prostitution would be legal. In your scenario, the boss has simply added prostitution to your job description. You don’t have to accept, you can quit.
BTW, even though we’re in the Pit, I apoligize for how snarky some of my post have gotten. I’m actually enjoying this debate with you.
Not really. I put the gun in quotes, because it’s not literally held to people’s heads as they make the choice. But it’s there, nonetheless. Maybe I shouldn’t have put it in quotes, if you think that makes it a contradiction.
Not sure what would constitute a “mainstream social conservative” as distinguished from Pat Robertson.
Bricker can obviously speak for himself. As far as the rest of it-
[ul][li]Religious zealousness - Not sure how you mean this - is “zealousness” different from “fundamentalist”? I am a practicing Christian, and not a fundamentalist. []Role of religion in society/government - also kind of vague. I firmly support the right of citizens to practice their religion, petition the government for redress of grievances, etc. This includes practicing their religion in public, even if it offends others. I also believe religious speech is given special protection by the Constitution. I believe in the separation of church and state, and think the phrase “under God” ought to be optional in the Pledge. []Abortion - I’m pro-choice, if that helps make anything clearer. []Role of government in promoting social norms - not sure at all what you mean here.[] Role of media - I am in favor of freedom of the press. I am certainly in favor of the media exercising a good deal responsibility than they do, but beyond that, I am not sure what exactly you mean.[*] Role of parenting - I am in favor of motherhood. Also fatherhood. Also apple pie.[/ul][/li]
Being raised by a single parent is more often associated with various social pathologies than growing up in a two parent household. This is not the same thing as saying that all children of a single mom are going to be axe-murdering welfare addicts, so do me the favor of not misinterpreting this position.
FWIW, I think of myself as a conservative more than a libertarian, although there is a fair amount of overlap. I believe this is mostly due to the traditional conservative bias towards limited government.
I think my core political principles are the standard
[ul][li]Individual rights []Personal responsibility []Free markets [*]Limited government[/ul]I am also a strict interpretationist for the Constitution, which tends to put me on the same side as the libertarians. [/li]
If anyone wants to debate the difference between conservatives and libertarians, why not start a GD thread, and I will see if I have anything to add.
Regards,
Shodan
In your post #380, it is not in quotes. Look for yourself.
Thank you for acknowledging that - because there’s a big difference between firing someone because they don’t want to work full time, for example, and firing someone because they refused to do something illegal, e.g. work for no pay.
Wow, I guess you and Liberal are actually serious about that. Interesting. I’ll give you credit for being consistent. But again, I have a hard time believing that you speak for all libertarians.
Well, you’re losing me now. Why don’t you explain further what you meant when you said I contradicted myself. I thought it was because one time I put “gun” in quotes, implying that it wasn’t really there. But in fact, the state has only one way of enforcing laws-- by physical force. Anyway, I don’t see the contradiction.
Where does the money come from to pay the differential between min wage salaries, and what the salary would be w/o min wage laws? It doesn’t just fall from the sky…
The min wage is a tax on low-skilled labor. That tax is paid by everone who uses the good or services provided for with min wage labor.
I was pretty clear; don’t know how to be more clear. I’m not gonna get hung up on it.
Preposterous. That’s like saying that laws against robbery are “wealth redistribution”. Where does the money come from that goes into the cashier’s till when I’m prevented from just stealing the merchandise? We don’t call such things “wealth redistribution”. That’s just radical right-wing rhetoric; trying to make moderates sound like communists.
(Oh God - please don’t say robbery would be legal in Libertopia.) :smack:
The money that goes into the cashier’s till comes from customers, who freely enter into agreements to purchase items sold by the cashier.
The difference between that set of transactions and minimum wage is that the employer pays minimum wage at gunpoint, not as the result of a freely-accepted agreement between the employer and employee.
(Obviously, the “gunpoint” is at several removes – but ultimately, if the employer refused to pay minimum wage, he’d be subject to legal process to force him to do so, and that process would be applied by men with guns, who would ultimately use them to compel his compliance - even if there were workers willing to work for the wage he was paying).
All you did was say I contradicted myself. Surely you can be more clear than just making the statement. What is it about those two quotes that is contradictory?
Let’s drop the “that’s just radical right-wing rhetoric” stuff. That isn’t an argument. Legalizing theft is essentially anarchy. The US operated for many years w/o min wage laws. Why did we institute those laws?
What is the purpose of min wage laws if not to give some people more money than they would otherwise have if the laws didn’t exist?
And, btw, saying something is a tax is not the equivalent of saying it’s a communist action. The US practices wealth redistribution in a numnber of ways, thru direct and indirect taxation. That does not make the US a communist country, nor the supporters of such laws communists. Please don’t imply that I think that.
Oh - forgot to address “wealth redistribution”.
If I buy a cherry pie from you, one that you have made from scratch, then in a sense I suppose you could characterize this as a transfer of wealth. But I wouldn’t call it “wealth redistribution” because the phrase suggests an external force applied to effect the transfer of wealth without consent of the parties.
If you buy flour, spices, and cherries and then combine those ingredients to make a pie, you have increased your wealth. That, too, I wouldn’t call “wealth redistribution,” even though the term arguably technically applies.
I would offer the term as applying to a transfer of wealth that is compelled by a third party only.
I don’t see the analogy.
The cash in the till comes from uncoerced transactions. But minimum wage is not a completely uncoerced transaction. The state has, in other words, used its power to set wages for some folks higher than they would in a completely free market. That’s the wealth redistribution, because the state is forcing employers to pay more than their employees are worth.
On preview, I see Bricker and John Mace are here to defend their POV.
Regards,
Shodan
Wow, we’ve really gotten off track here. I think I’ll lay off this thread and see if it dies a natural death over the weekend. IDCAYC: If you want to continue any of the debates we’ve been having, feel free to open a GD thread. I might do one myself next week. I think one of the reasons this board appears to tilt left to so many people is that a lot of posters don’t seem to know what a real social conservative is, and how few there really are on this board…
Ah, sorry. I was one of the “last two” on Gadarene’s list. My apologies for the confusion.
Okay, I wrote a long and detailed post explaining my political philosophy and why it might accurately be characterized as left-libertarianism. I was even planning on making it a “Ask the Left-Libertarian” thread in GD. But I realized that I’m frankly not going to have the time over the next couple of weeks to invest energy in defending my positions, and it would be unfair to y’all for me to dump and run. Let me just say, for now, that my take resembles libertarianism in the same way that behavioral law and economics resembles law and economics.