It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
So why not have a 100 dollar an hour minimum wage?
I guess government is just evil for not forcing business to pay us all a million dollars a year right?
Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
You'll have to explain "passive violence" to me.
Does that mean the employer threatens to shoot his employees family if he doesn't agree to work for below minimum wage?
The State is the only one engaging in violence here.
Voluntary contracts are just that - voluntary.
edit on 21-1-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)
Everyone would not be buying everything - because NO FREAKING BUSINESS WOULD BE ABLE TO AFFORD HIRING ANYONE. Businesses don't have printing presses in their basements that allow them to magically produce money out of thin air unless they are the Federal Reserve.
Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by Neo_Serf
'Pretty much the same folks who interfere with the purely voluntary transactions between a prostitute and her or his clients, and those between a drug dealer and his clients, a bookie and his, etc, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.'
Right, the same folks who claim a monopoly of violence and kidnap and inprision millions of people worldwide for all of these victimless crimes. You think its just great to attack people when they have harmed no one. Check.
'It is in the balance of power and balance of outcomes that the issue lies.'
Right. And ultimate power lies in the hands of those who claim the right to initiate force against others. And they derive their powers ultimately from the consent of people like you, who see nothing wrong with using violence to enforce their preferences on others.
'Sure I can hire kids to do dangerous work voluntarily for literally candy money. Doesn't mean I have a "right" to do so.'
Straw man. Of course you do not. Kids are not of sound mind and thus cannot enter into contract with adults who are, just as someone who is insane cannot voluntarily enter into contract. To trick kids into potentially harmful situations for candy, or anything else for that matter, would indeed be the definition of the initiation of force.
'If one party has vastly more options than the other, and stand to benefit far more from the transaction, then the agreement isn't exactly :voluntary". If you offer me the choice fast death, slow death, or minimal survival as my only options, choosing minimal survival isn't a "voluntary" choice in the sense you mean it.'
Again another straw man. The party offering a variety of ways to die is still offering death and thus they are initiating force. Power is irrelevant in this equation if the less powerful party can simply walk away from the transaction. But this is impossible in the case of the government that enforces your short sighted whims as it claims ownership over all parties within its geographical boundries and simply cannot be walked away from.
'It is, however a better voluntary choice than simply finding a way to steal from you and live better, perhaps. Better for you, at least.'
What? Do you understand what it is to make a voluntary transaction? Stealing, aka the initiation of force, is the exact *opposite* of voluntary between two parties. Voluntary refers to consentual exchange between two parties.
'What if I show up with my two violence-prone cousins and "ask" you for a pay increase? You'd "voluntarily" give it to me if the choice offered you was give me a pay raise or get your legs broken, right?'
Again it seems youre being 'voluntarily' obtuse because you seem to be a reasonably smart fellow so it seems youve chosen not to use the word 'voluntary' properly. Threatening people with violence is the exact opposite of voluntary, and this is precisely why it is evil. If you think threatening people for money has any place in a moral system, you must also believe rape = love and profit = theft. Which is silly and of course cannot stand.
'The "choices" most employers offer are similar: condemn yourself to a hard-scrabble life of almost having enough or die.'
This is spectacularly untrue but lets say its not for the sake of arguement. You said 'most' employers - simply dont work for their hard scrabbling company and go work for an employer who values you. Or if you think you can do it better, start your own business and be the model for high employment standards! But dont put a gun to my neck because you somehow dont think youve being given what you feel you are 'owed'.
'I support a living wage.'
You support high unemployemnt, wealth descruction and the initiation of force to back it up.
'I also support a wealth cap: no one needs more than a billion dollars.'
You support the violent theft of rightfully earned (in this case rightfully, its not wrong to take back your stolen bike) resources that you somehow believe you have the right to. On what moral grounds do you lay claim to others private property? Leaving aside the absolutely disasterous consequences of inflicting such a scheme on your fellow humans, why exactly do you think you have any right what so ever to the property of someone else? What should happen to someone who doesnt want to give in to your arbitrary demands? Kidnapped? Thrown into rape rooms? If they resist, must they be murdered?
So in your world of demented and non universal morality, (any morality that is not applied universally is simply and excuse to aggress) the crime for sucessfully trading in a voluntary fashion with others is punishable by death? Gawd man you support such unspeakable evil and you dont even seem to know it. I appologize for coming off as aggressive but i tend to get that way when people propose violence against me and my fellow man.
'Become a billionaire, then retire and enjoy life in a manner than doesn't involve screwing over everyone else to make yourself a bit smugger than your psycho rivals.edit on 25-1-2011 by apacheman because: (no reason given)