[Discussion] What is the argument against raising minimum wage?

[Koto Amatsuyomi]

I explain why this is not possible in my posts above.

If you wish to make the argument of: "I am stupid and therefor need things explained in five sentences or less" then you can just be stupid and believe that you can vote yourself into wealth.

If you wish to actually understand the problem, its causes, and what is practical as a solution for it - then you are going to have to read more than five sentences.

The choice is yours, but the tendency of fools to be empowered in this nation is precisely why I will be starting a new one in the coming years.

l0l where bro xD

 

[Aim64C]

l0l where bro xD

In parts of the Ozarks, most probably.

I'm working on a Constitution that would form its basis.

There will be three options in the coming years. Participate in the revolution to control America. Become the subject of those who fight to control America (IE - passive people). Or form a new nation with a society that has built a consensus upon its laws and conduct, then focus on a defense of regional borders.

I've considered the options carefully. The revolution will be incapable of creating a free society. It will, effectively, turn into a purge of liberal progressives and an ideological cleansing in an attempt to return to the principles of the Constitution (that the liberals outright reject as being the direction the nation needs to go). There is no avoiding this. It is coming, and it will claim the lives of tens of millions.

Not that the liberals are completely innocent in this. It is their institutions that have contracted racially motivated groups like the New Black Panthers to act as intermediaries with local police - effectively creating a federal police force diametrically opposed to the enforcement of local and state laws. This is, effectively, a Coup d'état and will soon manifest as racially motivated riots that are allowed to expand and destroy large swaths of property.

The war will begin the first time one of them expands outside of the ghettos and crosses into a "white district" that acts in self-defense and fires upon the mob. This will trigger an avalanche effect that will rip through most of the cities in the U.S.

The media will attempt to spin the issue as being an oppression of blacks and the effort to use them as slaves (or something along those lines). There may even be an attempt to induct the U.N. into the issue. In either case, because of the "white privilege" argument that has been adopted by a number of liberals - there will be a considerable number of non-blacks who rush to the defense of groups like the New Black Panthers and Nation of Islam. This will drag multiple other issues into the fray - including the fundamental differing view on how the country is supposed to operate (limited versus unlimited government; constrained versus unconstrained humanity).

Once this begins - it will not end with a simple destruction of the current federal government. You can hold a vote - but the liberals will just vote for the same groups of people (or the conservatives - depends upon your perspective). Thus, since we've already started shooting at each other to solve problems - may as well continue shooting at the people who are seen as being the source of the problem.

Thus, the revolution has no definite end. It will continue to cycle and recycle itself as groups begin to sub-divide along various issues; mostly being in disagreement as to "how free is free-enough?" This process will continue for several years - possibly even a few decades.

The only real alternative is a new nation that doesn't attempt to control the old nation and simply establishes itself as being precisely what it is. People are free to join it of their own volition because they agree with the principles it sets forth.

That is the only model under which the limits of defending the nation's ideology can be clearly defined.

America is dead. It's gone. No matter what happens over the next 20 years, it is not possible for the United States of America to return to the Constitution. Nor will any group who is successful at subduing opposition be able to instate any kind of free nation.

Thus, a separate nation is the only solution where a free people can flourish.

 

[Koto Amatsuyomi]

In parts of the Ozarks, most probably.

I'm working on a Constitution that would form its basis.

There will be three options in the coming years. Participate in the revolution to control America. Become the subject of those who fight to control America (IE - passive people). Or form a new nation with a society that has built a consensus upon its laws and conduct, then focus on a defense of regional borders.

I've considered the options carefully. The revolution will be incapable of creating a free society. It will, effectively, turn into a purge of liberal progressives and an ideological cleansing in an attempt to return to the principles of the Constitution (that the liberals outright reject as being the direction the nation needs to go). There is no avoiding this. It is coming, and it will claim the lives of tens of millions.

Not that the liberals are completely innocent in this. It is their institutions that have contracted racially motivated groups like the New Black Panthers to act as intermediaries with local police - effectively creating a federal police force diametrically opposed to the enforcement of local and state laws. This is, effectively, a Coup d'état and will soon manifest as racially motivated riots that are allowed to expand and destroy large swaths of property.

The war will begin the first time one of them expands outside of the ghettos and crosses into a "white district" that acts in self-defense and fires upon the mob. This will trigger an avalanche effect that will rip through most of the cities in the U.S.

The media will attempt to spin the issue as being an oppression of blacks and the effort to use them as slaves (or something along those lines). There may even be an attempt to induct the U.N. into the issue. In either case, because of the "white privilege" argument that has been adopted by a number of liberals - there will be a considerable number of non-blacks who rush to the defense of groups like the New Black Panthers and Nation of Islam. This will drag multiple other issues into the fray - including the fundamental differing view on how the country is supposed to operate (limited versus unlimited government; constrained versus unconstrained humanity).

Once this begins - it will not end with a simple destruction of the current federal government. You can hold a vote - but the liberals will just vote for the same groups of people (or the conservatives - depends upon your perspective). Thus, since we've already started shooting at each other to solve problems - may as well continue shooting at the people who are seen as being the source of the problem.

Thus, the revolution has no definite end. It will continue to cycle and recycle itself as groups begin to sub-divide along various issues; mostly being in disagreement as to "how free is free-enough?" This process will continue for several years - possibly even a few decades.

The only real alternative is a new nation that doesn't attempt to control the old nation and simply establishes itself as being precisely what it is. People are free to join it of their own volition because they agree with the principles it sets forth.

That is the only model under which the limits of defending the nation's ideology can be clearly defined.

America is dead. It's gone. No matter what happens over the next 20 years, it is not possible for the United States of America to return to the Constitution. Nor will any group who is successful at subduing opposition be able to instate any kind of free nation.

Thus, a separate nation is the only solution where a free people can flourish.

Whoa intreating well it seems you have a lot of work to do. GL with all this O_O
Ozarks looks nice this time of year.

 

[EnderWolf1013]

Fast food-wise, I think you're lucky that you are getting paid at all, those people that complain about that shit are idiots.

 

[Multiply]

In parts of the Ozarks, most probably.

I'm working on a Constitution that would form its basis.

There will be three options in the coming years. Participate in the revolution to control America. Become the subject of those who fight to control America (IE - passive people). Or form a new nation with a society that has built a consensus upon its laws and conduct, then focus on a defense of regional borders.

So you just plan on stealing US land? I'll let the authorities know

Spoiler

I've considered the options carefully. The revolution will be incapable of creating a free society. It will, effectively, turn into a purge of liberal progressives and an ideological cleansing in an attempt to return to the principles of the Constitution (that the liberals outright reject as being the direction the nation needs to go). There is no avoiding this. It is coming, and it will claim the lives of tens of millions.

Not that the liberals are completely innocent in this. It is their institutions that have contracted racially motivated groups like the New Black Panthers to act as intermediaries with local police - effectively creating a federal police force diametrically opposed to the enforcement of local and state laws. This is, effectively, a Coup d'état and will soon manifest as racially motivated riots that are allowed to expand and destroy large swaths of property.

The war will begin the first time one of them expands outside of the ghettos and crosses into a "white district" that acts in self-defense and fires upon the mob. This will trigger an avalanche effect that will rip through most of the cities in the U.S.

The media will attempt to spin the issue as being an oppression of blacks and the effort to use them as slaves (or something along those lines). There may even be an attempt to induct the U.N. into the issue. In either case, because of the "white privilege" argument that has been adopted by a number of liberals - there will be a considerable number of non-blacks who rush to the defense of groups like the New Black Panthers and Nation of Islam. This will drag multiple other issues into the fray - including the fundamental differing view on how the country is supposed to operate (limited versus unlimited government; constrained versus unconstrained humanity).

Once this begins - it will not end with a simple destruction of the current federal government. You can hold a vote - but the liberals will just vote for the same groups of people (or the conservatives - depends upon your perspective). Thus, since we've already started shooting at each other to solve problems - may as well continue shooting at the people who are seen as being the source of the problem.

Thus, the revolution has no definite end. It will continue to cycle and recycle itself as groups begin to sub-divide along various issues; mostly being in disagreement as to "how free is free-enough?" This process will continue for several years - possibly even a few decades.

The only real alternative is a new nation that doesn't attempt to control the old nation and simply establishes itself as being precisely what it is. People are free to join it of their own volition because they agree with the principles it sets forth.

That is the only model under which the limits of defending the nation's ideology can be clearly defined.

America is dead. It's gone. No matter what happens over the next 20 years, it is not possible for the United States of America to return to the Constitution. Nor will any group who is successful at subduing opposition be able to instate any kind of free nation.

Thus, a separate nation is the only solution where a free people can flourish.

Sounds like a lot of speculation. I don't think it will happen, just like Obama will not become a dictator or be the start of some dictatorship.

 

[Aim64C]

So you just plan on stealing US land? I'll let the authorities know

No.

What would happen is that a Constitution would be drafted, circulated, and voted upon. Once that was settled, the petition to declare independence would be put up for a vote within a legally recognized territory (such as the county). This would declare independence from the nation and from the state, establishing political authority as designated within the Constitution.

This claims the district as being independent and gives the people within it grounds to enforce and defend borders as need arises. Though I suspect that it would not take long to become a phenomena throughout the region and even the State, since the Constitution I've been working on is mostly a restructuring of the Federal system and could be easily adopted by any State level institution.

It is a strategy purposely designed to minimize conflict and keep it contained to a dispute over sovereign rights as opposed to a militant collapse of the government.

Of course, I expect that there is certainly the potential for a military response. Obviously, there are risks.

However, there are few people who have the knowledge to start with components and build systems to rival the capabilities of modern military equipment. While realistically limited in exactly -how- sophisticated certain systems can become, we live in an era where the civilian market is actually ahead of the military application. Way ahead, actually, and the ability to develop pre-market technologies/systems in small lab setups ("garage" setups) has never been greater.

With enough support and the development of the right connections, there's really not much that can't be defended against.

More realistically, any deployment of military force would scale against the presented force. The military, itself, would fracture into loyalist and rebellion lines if there were ever a first strike campaign led against an organized, democratic separatist movement such as what I describe - one rooted in a process of law and order as opposed to one rooted in the process of retaliation and conquest.

As for: "So you are still stealing the State's land!?"

The answer is that the State didn't own the land. In most cases, it is private land, or that delegated to the authority of local councils that have decided to declare independence from the State. Even in the case of something like U.S. Territory - the process of becoming a State, as recognized within the Constitution, essentially turns over U.S. territory to the State, forfeiting federal 'ownership' of the land and yielding it to the independently sovereign State that has been established upon it.

To argue otherwise is to insist that the land in California belongs to Missouri as much as it does to both California and Massachusetts.

Sounds like a lot of speculation. I don't think it will happen, just like Obama will not become a dictator or be the start of some dictatorship.

Like I said - Obama will, in all likelihood, be assassinated by a devout liberal progressive who is upset that he hasn't become a dictator and put people like me in an interment camp for standing in the way of 'progress.'

As for starting a dictatorship, he already has. You just view the world through the lenses of 'progress.' Obama is, for the most part, doing what you want him to do and can therefor not find any fault with him. He's "trying to do right" and therefor his clear actions that overstep his authority and ignore the Constitution are to be overlooked.

 

[Ldude]

This country will not persevere through the many problems it has. If you think raising the minimum wage is going to solve your problems, don't be shocked when your fulfilled and exhausted desires produce an even more dissatisfying life.
The problem does not just originate with the federal reserve and the like. This industry of theft was created for a reason, and even if it is destroyed, something like it might happen again. Society will hit a dead end that necessitates something like debt. There is a deeper problem. If I were a pessimist, I might say that humans will naturally seek out power and subjugation of some lower class, but I don't think the divide between wealthy and poor is a natural occurrence. It is the product of civilization.

And what does history tell us? Intelligent humans lived for a long time as hunter-gatherers living off the land. I'm not gonna go full Zerzan and say anarcho-primitivism is the clear answer-- but it is appealing.



I don't really think returning to that lifestyle is fully possible at this point, even if it theoretically would be better. At least it isn't possible right now. But like the library of Alexandria, I expect many of the symbols of our progressivism to disappear. Maybe not in the next decade, but it will happen.

 

[Floydical]

Someone explain to me in max 5 sentences what the argument against raising the minimum wage is.

Raising minimum wage will inevitably cause businesses to raise the prices of food to compensate for the increased wages they are giving out. That defeats the purpose of the wage increase. Minimum wage is already super low anyway. Do you think raising it by a dollar per hour will really do anything? No because that person or family still requires additional jobs just to put bread on the table.

 

[Yubel]

Raising minimum wage will inevitably cause businesses to raise the prices of food to compensate for the increased wages they are giving out. That defeats the purpose of the wage increase. Minimum wage is already super low anyway. Do you think raising it by a dollar per hour will really do anything? No because that person or family still requires additional jobs just to put bread on the table.

I see, now it all makes sense, thanks.

 

[Aim64C]

This country will not persevere through the many problems it has. If you think raising the minimum wage is going to solve your problems, don't be shocked when your fulfilled and exhausted desires produce an even more dissatisfying life.
The problem does not just originate with the federal reserve and the like. This industry of theft was created for a reason, and even if it is destroyed, something like it might happen again. Society will hit a dead end that necessitates something like debt. There is a deeper problem. If I were a pessimist, I might say that humans will naturally seek out power and subjugation of some lower class, but I don't think the divide between wealthy and poor is a natural occurrence. It is the product of civilization.

The problem is the belief that there is some kind of equality between humans.

Even if we go back to pre-civilization, a human who liked to sit in the shade and nap would never have the kind of resources that someone who is continuously exploring and working will have. There is nothing unnatural or fundamentally problematic with inequality in terms of 'wealth' and 'possessions.'

Further, human beings who were more apt to socialize and to trade with others were more likely to have what they wanted, when they wanted it, while those who were constantly puzzling over the cause-effect mechanisms of the world would be more likely to create or develop something that others wanted.

Human beings should be allowed equal opportunity, yes - but to expect equal outcomes is just not going to happen in any environment where human beings are free. And even in very restricted systems, outcomes will not be uniform.

It is, also, true that humans will trend toward dominance/subjugation - or at least some of them will. This is true in many social animals. This is not a product of civilization - it is simply a concept of human nature.

At, perhaps, its most noticeable level is in intimate partnerships. Many of the fundamental feelings, instincts, and behaviors amount to a perception of ownership within a relationship/marriage. Even in very permissive arrangements, the overall behavior implies a mutual ownership of the other person (or at least portions of their time, interests, decisions, etc). It is often the case that certain decisions are dominated more by one partner or the other - but the overall thought-pattern when seeing/thinking of the other person is "mine."

Of course, all things in moderation. Allowing that type of thought to be taken to its logical extremes becomes abusive and destructive.

And what does history tell us? Intelligent humans lived for a long time as hunter-gatherers living off the land. I'm not gonna go full Zerzan and say anarcho-primitivism is the clear answer-- but it is appealing.

I believe that the best 'government' system we could possibly have is an elimination of governments and simply have various businesses and corporate entities assuming the various functions. They would inherently gravitate toward standards of trade such as gold and silver simply from the concept of self-interest.

If you are an insurance company and your business depends upon your ability to satisfy your contract agreements with customers, you are going to want to be paid in something that isn't going to inflate and explode (like central bank notes tend to do). You're going to want something that is going to have reliable and relatively straight-forward value that will be widely accepted. The Central Union Bank (or whatever) may have simple checkbook currency circulating in a region - but why would a company in Japan be at all willing to accept these as payment for an insurance claim - where would that company go to spend such things?

Natural economies don't like fiat currency.

I don't believe there is a single function of government that private businesses can't handle (and handle more cost-effectively). Security will be managed and contracted by insurance companies. Disputes will be handled by contract mediators and, in extreme cases, bounty hunters (when violating the contract is considered worth the personal expense of placing a bounty worth the attention of hunters).

To believe that there will not be people who choose crime, that there will not be people who choose to defraud, etc would just be ignorant. People do not choose these things because of society, governments, etc - they choose these things because they realize that it is a means to an end. They realize they can club someone over the head to take what they have. In fact, it has often been argued that the very reason for creating society was as a sort of mutual interest in denying such people easy profit.

However, for such an 'anarchist' system to work - people have to be unwilling to grant a government arbitrary authority. That is relatively unlikely, since humans are often fascinated with ant colonies and believe that we would be well served to imitate them (but we're not 'wrong' because we get to vote for our queen... enlightenment, you see). The argument for central planning is often readily accepted because humans are arrogant enough to believe that we are capable of having enough knowledge and intelligence to optimally plan society.

As such, governments will be very difficult to prevent - and, if one believes in freedom, somewhat hypocritical to prevent from forming (although it could be argued that the development of a government inherently leads to a process of enslavement and preventing it is, therefor, justified... that demands enough arrogance to believe one can know the fate of every attempt to create a government that could ever be made).

As such, a limited and restricted government would be the most ideal platform that would seem plausible at the moment. Although even that requires a population to not yield to the temptation to hand more power over to governing institutions.

I don't really think returning to that lifestyle is fully possible at this point, even if it theoretically would be better. At least it isn't possible right now. But like the library of Alexandria, I expect many of the symbols of our progressivism to disappear. Maybe not in the next decade, but it will happen.

There is an elegant simplicity to living off of the land.

That said, many of our own lives would be in jeopardy if the systems that make it possible to support our lives were to be abandoned. Factory Farming is incredibly powerful and allows less than 1% of the population to produce food in abundance for everyone (including other nations). Power distribution in the form of electric and gas lines allow us to remain productive during harsh winters, make it possible to cook and prepare foods that are next to impossible in a hunter-gatherer environment, etc.

Further - you will always have people like me. Place me in a post-apocalyptic environment, and I am building all kinds of crazy stuff out of supplies from hardware stores, parts warehouses, electronics, etc. While others are clubbing each other over the head to be the first to the berry bush, I've got an automated hydroponic setup with an integrated CAD-CAM workshop complete with apprentices who get to hear long stories about "before."

Take away distractions like the internet, and my idle curiosities re-build substantial chunks of the society lost.