Jump to content

Is it time Federalize/Nationalize Minimum Wage?


whowhere

  

21 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Well, that's what I thought too. No matter how you set up the rules, you're favouring one group - one way of living - over another. You're helping vested interests, or nouveau riche, or lazy poor people - and making a pronouncement over what is better.

I suppose anarchy is the purest way to run a government, but most Libertarians want a police force (paid through a flat tax) that will protect their riches.

Basing decisions upon morality doesn't necessarily mean favoring any particular group. A complete lack of government that does not do anything to any group whatsoever still represents a particular moral decision on the part of a society. Namely they have decided that governance is immoral and thus there should be no government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 318
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Haven't I heard the idea of removing minimum wage will give people motivation to improve themselves ? That's a kind of morality too - that people should have an incentive to work out of poverty. That people who work hard should be rewarded. That's a value and a moral too isn't it ?

You may have heard that, but IMV it is not hte justification of why the minimium wage should be removed. The government should not be intervening to motivate people to work or disincenting them to work. That should be the justification. The observation that no minimium wage gives people additional motivation to work is simply a side-effect of the lack of government intervention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The best answer is that morals are what society agree upon. Admittedly, societies throughout time have insisted their moral codes come from sky gods or whatever, but in general, moral codes are those codes of behavior and conduct that society agrees are to be kept. The government, as simply an instrument of society, can hardly be immune to the society's general moral framework. The protections in modern liberal democracies are simply that we've all agreed to limit the moral code, not that we've decided there isn't one.

If I take your definition that morals are what society agrees upon, I would say that society universally agrees on very little. The most baseline universal agreement, is that we own our own bodies and the fruits thereof, which is the basis of libertarianism. As you go up in more specifc values (ie morality) there is less and less universal agreement. You are left in a position where you have to define morality as the values of the majority which the minority may not agree with. If you define a the morality of the government as the morality of the majority, and requirem them to pass laws according to that morality, inevitably you will have opression of the minority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I take your definition that morals are what society agrees upon, I would say that society universally agrees on very little. The most baseline universal agreement, is that we own our own bodies and the fruits thereof, which is the basis of libertarianism. As you go up in more specifc values (ie morality) there is less and less universal agreement. You are left in a position where you have to define morality as the values of the majority which the minority may not agree with. If you define a the morality of the government as the morality of the majority, and requirem them to pass laws according to that morality, inevitably you will have opression of the minority.

Fair enough, but isn't the idea that we own our labour, that such a thing as property exists, a moral too ? The idea of ownership of land, for example, isn't universally accepted nor is it even a right that's guaranteed in the constitution for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough, but isn't the idea that we own our labour, that such a thing as property exists, a moral too ? The idea of ownership of land, for example, isn't universally accepted nor is it even a right that's guaranteed in the constitution for example.

OK. I'll accept that it is a moral, but I submit that it is the most basic and universally accepted one. It may not have always been accepted, and thus slavery was seen as acceptable, but as society stands today, I would say that it is a universally accepted one. Don't you agree?

Land ownership may not be universally accepted or guaranteed and that is fine. If society couldn't come to a universal agreement that land should be owned, it still doesn't preclude me from owning my own labour and the fruits therof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that moral is fundamental in our society at all. Rather the prevalent view seems to be that we own a part of the products of our own labour, and that the government has the right to take a substantial portion thereof to use it as it sees fit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

use it as it sees fit.

No, this is a mistake that so many libertarians and conservatives make. The government (when working well - and generally our's does) uses the funds that they take the way we see fit. They take enough (if they're being fiscally prudent) to implement our agenda. People seem to forget this. What government does is a reflection of who we are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that moral is fundamental in our society at all. Rather the prevalent view seems to be that we own a part of the products of our own labour, and that the government has the right to take a substantial portion thereof to use it as it sees fit.

That may be a an opinion, however I would dispute that that is a universal consensus. The government has the power to collect whatever is collectable. It can decide that it wants some part of your wages and takes it. It can decide that it wants some part of your wealth, and confiscates it. It decides that it wants a payoff in order to let you consume, so it takes a slice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, this is a mistake that so many libertarians and conservatives make. The government (when working well - and generally our's does) uses the funds that they take the way we see fit. They take enough (if they're being fiscally prudent) to implement our agenda. People seem to forget this. What government does is a reflection of who we are.

B.S. The "we" you refer to is not the will of all of society it is only the majority. In the case of recent governments, not even that. The minority may hardly think that the governemnt is a reflection of who they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

B.S. The "we" you refer to is not the will of all of society it is only the majority.

Yes, that's correct, society can't be held back by a few nimbys.

In the case of recent governments, not even that. The minority may hardly think that the governemnt is a reflection of who they are.

Recent governments in fact are better reflections of the people. More than one party representing a majority of people who voted has to vote for the government's agenda for it to pass. This is the way we've organized ourselves as a society, and so it is a reflection of us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a small business owner and this is a joke. I can't afford to pay a kid that much money. Minimum wage is a entry level payment ,it it is not intended to be a career.I will be cutting hours and working even more, I guess working 7 days a week is not enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, that's correct, society can't be held back by a few nimbys.

Recent governments in fact are better reflections of the people. More than one party representing a majority of people who voted has to vote for the government's agenda for it to pass. This is the way we've organized ourselves as a society, and so it is a reflection of us.

Yeah rigtht. I'm sure that if we had a dictatoral government too, that would be refelection of "us" because in your view, "This is the way we've organized ourselves as a society"

Smallc, with your attitude I'm surprised you have any issue at all with any policy regardless of how contemptable. Afterall, in your justification, a policy is passed by a government and a government is a reflection of "us" so that must mean that the policy is ok. right?

Edited by Renegade
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, there are certain things that we've also decided to protect ourselves from through the creation of a Constitution. We don't have a dictatorship, so the point your trying to make is irrelevant.

What you mean is that you have missed the point.

Both government and the Constitution are artifical constructs created by man and are imperfect. They have good intentions, but good intentions and bad implementation go hand in hand. Your contention is that all government policies represent "us". It is a presumptionus "us" because it only represents sufficient of "us" to allow the government to assume power. A blanket statement such as you have made that the government acts at our behest is naive at best.

Again, do you have any issue with any government policy? Why should you, afterall according to you it is "our" will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you mean is that you have missed the point.

Both government and the Constitution are artifical constructs created by man and are imperfect. They have good intentions, but good intentions and bad implementation go hand in hand. Your contention is that all government policies represent "us".

Oh no, it's obvious that it's you that doesn't understand the point. If there is a policy that we don't like, the rules we have put in place will not allow it. If there aren't already rules, we'll create new ones. If there is a policy we don't like, we oppose it. If enough of us oppose it, it doesn't happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh no, it's obvious that it's you that doesn't understand the point. If there is a policy that we don't like, the rules we have put in place will not allow it. If there aren't already rules, we'll create new ones. If there is a policy we don't like, we oppose it. If enough of us oppose it, it doesn't happen.

You seem to be agreeing to what I'm saying. The majority have the power of tyranny over the minority. Please tell me how the rules should change to prevent that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem to be agreeing to what I'm saying. The majority have the power of tyranny over the minority. Please tell me how the rules should change to prevent that?

The minority is protected by the rights that have been granted to them and everyone. There is no way, in a democratic system, to not have the majority influencing, well, the majority of policy. What exactly should be fixed, and how?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The minority is protected by the rights that have been granted to them and everyone.

Right the right of the miniorrity is protected by the whim of the majority. That is great assurance to the minority.

There is no way, in a democratic system, to not have the majority influencing, well, the majority of policy.

Actually in a demoracy, a majority can get their way, not the majority of the time, but ALL of the time. The minority can get screwed 100% of the time.

This is really the weak point of a democracy.

What exactly should be fixed, and how?

Well there are a lot of minority rights we can discuss which need "fixing". In the context of what we are discussing, it is the right to income and right to wealth. None of these are protected by existing rules. The current rules will allow the government acting on behalf of the majority to confiscate income and wealth of the minority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right the right of the miniorrity is protected by the whim of the majority. That is great assurance to the minority.

We also have courts and rights that are near impossible to remove. The majority can barely touch those, if at all.

Actually in a demoracy, a majority can get their way, not the majority of the time, but ALL of the time.

No, there are certain things that can't be removed.

The minority can get screwed 100% of the time. This is really the weak point of a democracy.

So you don't like democracy then?

Well there are a lot of minority rights we can discuss which need "fixing". In the context of what we are discussing, it is the right to income and right to wealth.

Everyone has that right under our current system. Taxation doesn't prevent people from becoming wealthy.

None of these are protected by existing rules. The current rules will allow the government acting on behalf of the majority to confiscate income and wealth of the minority.

What the government does is not confiscation, it's taxation, and it's perfectly legitimate. The rights of others (such as the right to life) often require that you not be entitled to all of your money that you were able to earn in this society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That may be a an opinion, however I would dispute that that is a universal consensus. The government has the power to collect whatever is collectable. It can decide that it wants some part of your wages and takes it. It can decide that it wants some part of your wealth, and confiscates it. It decides that it wants a payoff in order to let you consume, so it takes a slice.

Exactly, this is my view of it as well, but my statement nevertheless appears to be the accepted point of view. There is not a significant voice out there arguing that taxes are immoral.

No, this is a mistake that so many libertarians and conservatives make. The government (when working well - and generally our's does) uses the funds that they take the way we see fit. They take enough (if they're being fiscally prudent) to implement our agenda. People seem to forget this. What government does is a reflection of who we are.

No, this would only be the case in a direct democracy. The government is made up of elected representatives, and they decide what decisions are made, not the people. The representatives can make whatever decisions they want, even in direct contradiction to the will of their constituents, if they don't mind the impact it will have on the next election. Many times representatives also vote along party lines rather than in line with what their constituents might want.

The minority is protected by the rights that have been granted to them and everyone. There is no way, in a democratic system, to not have the majority influencing, well, the majority of policy. What exactly should be fixed, and how?

This applies to minorities in terms of ethnic and religious groups. Not necessarily to minorities of opinion on certain issues. When the government decides that certain new "rights" should be created, that then applies to the whole society. Some people might prefer that these "rights" did not exist, and that the costs associated with providing these "rights" weren't taken out of their pocket. The reason I put the term "rights" in quotes is because people now tend to define things as rights which are not rights at all. We frequently hear terms in the media like "right to health care" or "right to a living wage" or "right to a good job" or "right to food and shelter", or whatever else. These are not rights, these are services or economic circumstances. They are created through the productive output of other individuals and thus cannot necessarily always be provided to everyone. The only things that can be "rights" are things that a human inherently has, such as their life and liberty and the products of their labour. Things that are produced by the labour of others cannot be "rights". The creation of such new "rights" often happens only through impinging upon the three more fundamental rights I mentioned.

Edited by Bonam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We also have courts and rights that are near impossible to remove. The majority can barely touch those, if at all.

We have some. We don't have everything we should be entitled to. And while I accept that it is near impossible to remove, it is also near impossible to add.

So you don't like democracy then?

I'd like it fine if I was the majority because I'd get to bully the minority. I'd like it less if I'm the minority being bullied.

Everyone has that right under our current system. Taxation doesn't prevent people from becoming wealthy.

If a robber steals only half your money is it still robbery since you still have some money?

What the government does is not confiscation, it's taxation, and it's perfectly legitimate. The rights of others (such as the right to life) often require that you not be entitled to all of your money that you were able to earn in this society.

Renaming theft to call it taxation doesn't make it "perfectly legitimate". Neither does justfing theft on the basis that someone else needs it.

BTW, where do you draw upon this definition of "right to life" as a one in which a person has a right to have other's provide him with support for his life?

Edited by Renegade
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a robber steals only half your money is it still robbery since you still have some money?

Again, that is a completely different situation. No one is stealing from you. People within a society are taxed to provide for the good of the society. The money isn't taken and used for purposes that aren't sanctioned by the society. We are privileged to live in this country. With that privilege, comes responsibility. Taxation is part of the responsibility. It is giving back to the society that has allowed us to do so well.

Renaming theft to call it taxation doesn't make it "perfectly legitimate". Neither does justfing theft on the basis that someone else needs it.

If that's what I was doing, you would have a point, but you don't.

BTW, where do you draw upon this definition of "right to life" as a one in which a person has a right to have other's provide him with support for his life?

If he needs those supports (no matter the reason) then yes. We have to provide the right to life as best we can (and there are limits), but living like that isn't much, and because most people want more, they are willing to work for things....and they will also get taxed, to provide for the society that has provided for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, that is a completely different situation. No one is stealing from you. People within a society are taxed to provide for the good of the society. The money isn't taken and used for purposes that aren't sanctioned by the society. We are privileged to live in this country. With that privilege, comes responsibility. Taxation is part of the responsibility. It is giving back to the society that has allowed us to do so well.

Sorry but the products of one's labour belong to the individual who produced them, not to "society". For those products to change hands morally, that transfer must have the sanction not of society, but of the individual whose products are being taken. If no individuals did any work, then nothing would be produced, society or no, hence the paramount role of the individual. Just because a bunch of your neighbours got together and voted that you should give them half of everything you make, doesn't make it right.

If he needs those supports (no matter the reason) then yes. We have to provide the right to life as best we can (and there are limits), but living like that isn't much, and because most people want more, they are willing to work for things....and they will also get taxed, to provide for the society that has provided for them.

The right to life means your right to not have the government deprive you of your life where otherwise you would live. Just as the right to liberty means the right not to have your liberty taken away (thus making you a slave) and the right to property meaning not having your property confiscated (rather than the right to have property given to you). These are "negative rights", in that they define what the government cannot take from you, rather than what the government must give you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry but the products of one's labour belong to the individual who produced them, not to "society". For those products to change hands morally, that transfer must have the sanction not of society, but of the individual whose products are being taken.

That's a moral judgement on your part, and it's one that most of society doesn't share. People are very much allowed to become wealthy within this society, but they do owe this society something.

If no individuals did any work, then nothing would be produced, society or no, hence the paramount role of the individual. Just because a bunch of your neighbours got together and voted that you should give them half of everything you make, doesn't make it right.

It doesn't make it wrong either. We don't live in a situation where there is no one working, and we never will.

The right to life means your right to not have the government deprive you of your life where otherwise you would live. Just as the right to liberty means the right not to have your liberty taken away (thus making you a slave) and the right to property meaning not having your property confiscated (rather than the right to have property given to you). These are "negative rights", in that they define what the government cannot take from you, rather than what the government must give you.

The Supreme Court would disagree with you in part. There re both negative and positive rights in the Charter. In fact though, the very first that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is written disagrees with you. Section 1, says:

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Edit: the rest is retracted. I admit I was wrong for that part.

Edited by Smallc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...