Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: "Propertarians" and Statists
There was a time, early in my academic career, when I felt vaguely guilty about disregarding loony instructions from the administration (example: a rule that no class lecture may contain more than three main points, lest student comprehension be unduly taxed), thinking that I might be violating a contractual obligation. But I got over it. I figured that what I contracted to do was to teach philosophy, and that these additional directives, unmentioned in the contract, conflicted with my primary job, and so I actually had greater contractual grounds for ignoring them than for following them.
--- On Fri, 8/1/08, MikeHolmesTX@... <MikeHolmesTX@...> wrote:
From: MikeHolmesTX@... <MikeHolmesTX@...>
Subject: Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: "Propertarians" and Statists
Date: Friday, August 1, 2008, 11:29 AM
In a message dated 8/1/2008 10:00:24 AM Central Daylight Time, berserkrl@yahoo. com writes:
The fact that my chair "would never relay to us with a straight face the gobbedegook that the administration sends down" is itself not a bad argument for tenure (though tenure might not be necessary in a freer market).
Many years ago when I had a modest management position in a firm, I too ignored or otherwise downplayed the idiotic dictates upper management were demanding.
Of course tenure would have made that easier. I think part of any managers job is to filter out the lunacy of superiors. Those on the lowest rungs have the most work of that kind to do, and less security in doing it.
Minimum wage is a “countervailing privilege” designed to keep the proles happy.
Then, they will stop protesting the privileges that are screwing them and turn their attention to the countervailing privilege. Soon, the “important” question is just how much the minimum wage should be.
> --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
> <berserkrl@...> wrote:quasibill wrote:
>> But okay, here's a substantive topic other than land where I
>> disagree with Kevin: I take it that Kevin thinks that, as things
>> stand, repealing minimum wage laws would be worse than keeping
>> them. Now I do agree with Kevin that whether repealing regulation
>> X counts as genuine move toward freedom or not often depends on
>> whether regulation Y is repealed at the same time (for example, if
>> a business is on the receiving end of both state- granted
>> privileges and state-imposed regulations, repealing the regulations
>> while leaving the privileges in place is not necessarily a move
>> toward freedom, since what's being deregulated is to some extent,
>> tanks to the privileges, an arm of the state); but I just don't see
>> how that consideration applies to the case of minimum wage.
> I followed that exchange between Kevin and Charles and rememberFor reference, the discussion on minimum wage laws began here:
> coming to the conclusion (IIRC) that Charles had the slightly better
> end of it, but that it wasn't so clear that I thought Kevin was
> categorically wrong. Perhaps it's just an instance where there is no
> good answer, given the fundamentally distorted nature of the current
And also continued onto my blog here:
For what it's worth, I think that Kevin and I largely or perhaps
entirely agree on questions of strategic priorities (e.g., what policies
to attack first, hardest, and most often). The disagreement, to the
extent that there is one, has to do with the moral question of
gradualism vs. immediatism; i.e., what you ought to do or to say in the
(unlikely) circumstances that you were somehow given the opportunity to,
say, repeal all minimum wage laws immediately, while everything else
would remain the same. I don't think this affects anything by way of
real-world strategy, because I think there's no reason to expect such a
situation would ever arise, but it may affect some things about, say,
one's choice of arguments, and the rhetorical stance that one takes when
talking with people who get things only half right, for example
"Progressive" reformists or Catoid pro-capitalist libetarians.