Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[LeftLibertarian2] Economic ignorance of leftists and statists

Expand Messages
  • jeo1@verizon.net
    For anyone endorsing a mandatory minimum wage- I am sure that you paid at least the hourly minimum wage for anyone who mowed your lawn, shoveled your snow,
    Message 1 of 24 , May 16, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      For anyone endorsing a mandatory minimum wage-  I am sure that you paid at least the hourly minimum wage for anyone who mowed your lawn, shoveled your snow, babysat your kids, delivered your paper etc.
       
      Otherwise, you are hypocrites of the first order.


      May 16, 2010 01:57:01 PM, LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com wrote:
      >
      >

      "The issue of whether employment is exploitation doesn't depend on whether
      >there is equal bargaining power between the employer and employee, it depends on
      >whether it is a voluntary relationship."
      >
      >And the issue of how voluntary an employment relationship is leads one to look
      >at the bargaining power of each party, for it is that power that determines the
      >degree to which the choice to work is meaningful, hence whether it is even voluntary
      >to begin with. This isn't a black and white world as you must know. Incidentally,
      >the importance of the context of a decision is the main point against the tacit
      >consent theory of State legitimacy. Strange that it would not be taken into account
      >when considering tacit consent to be employed.
      >
      >

      2010/5/11 <jeo1@...>
      >
      >
       

      Unequal bargaining power is a legal term of art in contract law. 
       
      In contract law there is a broader doctrine of unconscionability.  For instance,
      >if a court finds a contract, or a portion of it, to be "unconscionable",
      >it may void or strike it. 
       
      Unequal bargaining power can be an element in determining if something is unconscionable,
      >but it's not enough by itself.  It has to be combined with egregiously unfair
      >or fraudulent or misleading terms.
       
      Now employment, with or without a formal contract, is a voluntary relationship. 
      >The employer, for example, a corporation doing business overseas, is always "bigger"
      >than a single employee, as it's a company or business of varying size, and with
      >other employees and management, ownership, officers, what have you.  And the busines
      >may have more sophistication or resources than the individual employee, so in that
      >sense yes, there is unequal bargaining power.
       
      But the employment relationships Dan is speaking about do not involve the legal
      >question of whether to enforce a contract, so the term here is being misused.  It doesn't
      >apply to this question. 
       
      Unless the employee is being forced to work or being defrauded (for example, being
      >cheated out of wages owed) it is still a free, relatively informed choice that the
      >employee has to continue working. 
       
      Granted, the employee may not have (what we might consider) good, practical
      >alternatives, but that is not due to fraud or coercion on the part of the company. 
      >If the terms of employment are fair and reasonable in the employees view, given
      >costs of living etc in the geographical area, the employee will continue working. 
      >If not, he won't.
      >
      >
      >May 11, 2010 10:37:56 AM, LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
      >wrote:
      >

      >>
      >>

      Well, now, there's no reason that has to be true.  One could understand economics
      >
      >>but hold a value system that puts other goals ahead of prosperity, especially
      >on
      >>the margin.  Actually, it's odd to me - why do people who understand
      >economics
      > >so well fall into a diamond/water fallacy when discussing prosperity? 
      >But, in any
      >>event, I do remember some Austrians who happened to hold that Israel should
      >be run
      >>as a socialist country since it is illegitimate and they want to see it collapse. 
      >
      > >Certainly statist, and certainly not ignorant of economics.
      >>
      >>Now, at times leftists talk in a way that indicates they don't understand
      >
      >>economics, but so do rightists at times.  No need to paint with a broad brush.
      > >
      >>On the major issue, why shouldn't exploitation depend on equal bargaining
      >
      >>power?  Doing it by definition seems to miss the substantive question.
      >>
      >>

      On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 11:00 AM, <jeo1@...> wrote:
      >>
      >>
       

      Correct. 
       
      I don't agree with Dan Clore on #3 either.  The issue of whether employment
      >
      >>is exploitation doesn't depend on whether there is equal bargaining power
      >between
      >>the employer and employee, it depends on whether it is a voluntary relationship.
       
      Dan C. is repeating left wing economic talking points.  Leftists and statists,
      >
      >>whether by choice or ignorance, don't understand basic economics.   Sorry,
      >just
      >>a fact.
      >>
      >>
      >>May 11, 2010 08:46:14 AM, LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
      >
      > >wrote:
      >>

      >>>
      >>>

      Just to take on one of your criticisms, yes, minimum wage laws only lead to
      >
      >>
      >>>unemployment if the minimum is set above the market rate. However, if
      >they
      >>
      >>>are set below or at the market rate, all else being the same, they would
      >
      > >have no
      >> >impact. But why do people support or pass minimum wage laws in the first
      >
      >>place?
      >>>No doubt, some do as a knee-jerk reaction, for cheap publicity (i.e.,
      >makes
      >>them
      >>>look good in the eyes of many), for moral reasons, and so forth. But
      >the
      > >usual reason
      >> >offered is that it will make workers better off and NOT increase unemployment.
      >
      >>If
      >>>they are set at or below the market rate, then they really don't
      >make
      >>workers better
      > >>off -- even if they have no impact on unemployment. (And how do legislators
      >
      >>passing
      >> >these laws know what the market rate is? How would anyone know this
      >for
      >>a future
      >>>time when the laws will take effect? This can only truly be known after
      >the
      > >fact
      >>>and under conditions where the various parties on the market are free
      >to
      >>contract.
      >> >Once government force enters the equation, we no longer have a market
      >rate.)
      And such studies as I've seen tend to not show so much no increase in unemployment
      >
      >>
      >>>as an increase that doesn't match the increase in the wage. I recall
      >
      >>one from several
      >>>years back that pointed out, IIRC, that a minimum wage increase of 1%
      >only
      > >increase
      >> >unemployment by 0.4% -- or something along those lines. I don't
      >recall
      >>if this study
      >>>took into account that the impact of such an increase might not be immediate
      >
      >>and
      > >>might be mitigated by other factors. (Add to this, it depends on how
      >unemployment
      >>
      >> >is counted. Is it people looking for work? If a minimum wage law also
      >happens
      >>with,
      >>>say, some increase in the dole, then what happens? People no longer employable
      >
      > >at
      >>>the new wage might prefer the dole. What about teenagers who might be
      >price
      >>out
      >> >of the market, but aren't likely to, say, collect the dole or show
      >
      >>up on unemployment
      > >>rolls?)
      Regards,
      Dan
      >>>

      >>>
      From: Dan Clore
      >>>To: LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
      > > >Sent: Tue, May 11, 2010 5:29:39 AM
      >>>Subject: [LeftLibertarian2] Economic Endarkenment
      >>>


      >>>On Facebook Brad Spangler linked to a poll that purportedly shows that
      >
      >>>liberals and progressives are less economically "enlightened"
      >thant
      >>
      >>>conservatives and libertarians:
      > >>
      >>>
      >target="_blank">
      >>target="_blank">http://www.yaliberty.org/posts/new-paper-suggests-self-described-progressives-are-economically-illiterate
      > > >
      >>>But looking at the thing, I find the claim quite questionable after
      >>>reading the report on the poll. It asked eight questions, with answers
      >
      >>>that betray a lack of economic "enlightenment" . But there
      >are
      > >serious
      >> >problems with some of their questions. For example, one of them is
      >>>"Minimum wage laws increase unemployment. " The "enlightened"
      >
      >>answer is
      >>>agreement, of course. And they certainly would if they were high enough,
      >
      > >
      >> >as the authors note. But in the real world, empirical studies haven't
      >
      >>
      >>>shown minimum wage laws increasing unemployment. For the simple reason
      >
      >>>that the wage isn't made high enough to do so. So it seems to me
      >pretty
      > >
      >> >reasonable to disagree on this question, since real minimum wage laws
      >
      >>>are what really matter.
      >>>
      >>>Several of the others strike me as similar, where government action
      >>>might have the bad effect named but doesn't necessarily, and so similar
      >
      > >
      >> >arguments would apply.
      >>>
      >>>One of them -- "A company with the largest market share is a monopoly"
      >
      >>
      >>>-- includes a word with a somewhat different meaning in ecoomic jargon
      >
      > >>than in common use, and the answer hinges on how it is interpreted.
      >
      >> >(Though I believe the grammar requires "has" a monopoly.)
      >>>
      >>>Finally, we have "Third-world workers working for American companies
      >
      > >
      >>>overseas are being exploited". The economically "enlightened"
      >
      >>position
      >> >is to disagree. But if you can't consider taking advantage of the
      >
      >>>situation of (say) dispossessed peasants to make them work in unsafe
      >
      > >>sweatshops for bare subsistence wages exploitation, what could you
      >
      >> >consider exploitation? The bargaining power of a multinational
      >>>corporation and a third-world peasant aren't all that equal in the
      >first
      > >
      >>>place--
      >>>
      >>>They seem to really have meant something like "*All* third-world
      >workers
      >>
      >> >working for American companies overseas are being exploited". It's
      >
      > >
      >>>certainly the case that *some* third-world workers working overseas for
      >
      >>>American companies are being exploited -- every once in a while there's
      >
      >>
      >> >a scandal about human trafficking and so on. So as worded, I think that
      >
      > >
      >>>this one is definitely true.
      >>>
      >>>--
      >>>Dan Clore
      >>>
      >>>New book: _Weird Words: A Lovecraftian Lexicon_:
      >>>
      http://tinyurl.
      >
      > >
      >> >com/yd3bxkw
      >>>My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
      >>>
      http://www.amazon.
      >
      >>
      > >>com/gp/product/ B0035LTS0O

      >> >Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
      >>>http://tinyurl.
      >
      >>
      >>>com/292yz9

      > >>News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
      >>>http://groups.
      >
      >>
      >> >yahoo.com/ group/smygo

      >>>
      > >>Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
      >>>immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
      >>>-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"


      >>>


      >

      >>


      >

      >

    • Scott Bieser
      To use a concrete example: Consider Smith, who faces only two practical, ethical alternatives: 1) starvation; or 2) accepting a physically grueling and
      Message 2 of 24 , May 16, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        To use a concrete example:

        Consider Smith, who faces only two practical, ethical alternatives: 1)
        starvation; or 2) accepting a physically grueling and dangerous job for
        a sadistic employer that pays just barely enough to prevent starvation.

        Now consider Jones, who has a dozen choices of employment at well-paying
        jobs for humane bosses, or could also start his own business.

        In this case, Smith has virtually zero bargaining power whereas Jones
        has considerable bargaining power.

        The contention is whether if Jones takes that horrible job, rather than
        starve, then the employment relationship is not really voluntary,
        because the alternative is death.

        The related contention is whether Jones' predicament creates a moral
        claim against his employer, to the extent the employer should be
        compelled by force of arms to offer better wages and working conditions,
        beyond what Jones could otherwise negotiate freely.

        I would say there is a third consideration, and that is whether the
        employer, by unethical actions directly or indirectly on his own part,
        has created the predicament that Jones faces (for example by colluding
        with a government to eliminate competing employers). Or, whether Jones'
        predicament was caused by some unrelated third party's action (for
        example, state regulations making self-employment impossible).



        jeo1@... wrote:
        >
        >
        > So are they better off being unemployed? I don't follow.
        >
        >
        > May 16, 2010 01:57:01 PM, LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com wrote:
        >
        > >
        > >
        >
        > "The issue of whether employment is exploitation doesn't depend on
        > whether
        > >there is equal bargaining power between the employer and employee,
        > it depends on
        > >whether it is a voluntary relationship."
        > >
        > >And the issue of how voluntary an employment relationship is leads
        > one to look
        > >at the bargaining power of each party, for it is that power that
        > determines the
        > >degree to which the choice to work is meaningful, hence whether it
        > is even voluntary
        > >to begin with. This isn't a black and white world as you must know.
        > Incidentally,
        > >the importance of the context of a decision is the main point
        > against the tacit
        > >consent theory of State legitimacy. Strange that it would not be
        > taken into account
        > >when considering tacit consent to be employed.
        > >
        > >
        >
        >
        --
        -- Scott Bieser
        Illustrator, Cartoonist, Designer
        View my on-line graphic novels and web-comics at
        http://www.bigheadpress.com
        Buy my Kindle Comic "The Last Sonofabitch of Klepton"
        at http://www.amazon.com/The-Last-Sonofabitch-of-Klepton/dp/B001YQF0LI
      • jeo1@verizon.net
        ... To use a concrete example: Consider Smith, who faces only two practical, ethical alternatives: 1) starvation; or 2) accepting a physically grueling
        Message 3 of 24 , May 16, 2010
        • 0 Attachment

          What are real life examples of "sadistic" employers?

          May 16, 2010 11:29:16 PM, LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com wrote:
          >
          >

          To use a concrete example:
          >
          > Consider Smith, who faces only two practical, ethical alternatives: 1)
          > starvation; or 2) accepting a physically grueling and dangerous job for
          > a sadistic employer that pays just barely enough to prevent starvation.
          >
          > Now consider Jones, who has a dozen choices of employment at well-paying
          > jobs for humane bosses, or could also start his own business.
          >
          > In this case, Smith has virtually zero bargaining power whereas Jones
          > has considerable bargaining power.
          >
          > The contention is whether if Jones takes that horrible job, rather than
          > starve, then the employment relationship is not really voluntary,
          > because the alternative is death.
          >
          > The related contention is whether Jones' predicament creates a moral
          > claim against his employer, to the extent the employer should be
          > compelled by force of arms to offer better wages and working conditions,
          > beyond what Jones could otherwise negotiate freely.
          >
          > I would say there is a third consideration, and that is whether the
          > employer, by unethical actions directly or indirectly on his own part,
          > has created the predicament that Jones faces (for example by colluding
          > with a government to eliminate competing employers). Or, whether Jones'
          > predicament was caused by some unrelated third party's action (for
          > example, state regulations making self-employment impossible).
          >
          > jeo1@... wrote:
          > >
          > >
          > > So are they better off being unemployed? I don't follow.
          > >
          > >
          > > May 16, 2010 01:57:01 PM, LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com wrote:
          > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > "The issue of whether employment is exploitation doesn't depend
          >on
          > > whether
          > > >there is equal bargaining power between the employer and employee,
          > > it depends on
          > > >whether it is a voluntary relationship."
          > > >
          > > >And the issue of how voluntary an employment relationship is leads
          > > one to look
          > > >at the bargaining power of each party, for it is that power that
          > > determines the
          > > >degree to which the choice to work is meaningful, hence whether
          >it
          > > is even voluntary
          > > >to begin with. This isn't a black and white world as you must
          >know.
          > > Incidentally,
          > > >the importance of the context of a decision is the main point
          > > against the tacit
          > > >consent theory of State legitimacy. Strange that it would not
          >be
          > > taken into account
          > > >when considering tacit consent to be employed.
          > > >
          > > >
          > >
          > >
          > --
          > -- Scott Bieser
          > Illustrator, Cartoonist, Designer
          > View my on-line graphic novels and web-comics at
          > http://www.bigheadpress.com
          > Buy my Kindle Comic "The Last Sonofabitch of Klepton"
          > at http://www.amazon.com/The-Last-Sonofabitch-of-Klepton/dp/B001YQF0LI
          >

        • Marja Erwin
          ... Do we really need to discuss these? There are different grades of sadism, from stupid power games to rape and murder. For health reasons, I ve been
          Message 4 of 24 , May 16, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            On May 17, 2010, at 12:44 AM, jeo1@... wrote:

            > What are real life examples of "sadistic" employers?

            Do we really need to discuss these? There are different grades of sadism, from stupid power games to rape and murder. For health reasons, I've been virtually unemployable my whole life. I've had to deal with stupid power games, such as lugging heavy goods across a newly waxed floor, and verbal abuse, but so far I have not faced work-related physical violence.

            That said, power imbalances frequently lead to aggression. Differences in bargaining power are thick libertarian issues, sharing grounds thickness and strategic thickness, inter alia.
          • quasibill@yahoo.com
            That said, power imbalances frequently lead to aggression. I d argue that they always do, with the scope of the resulting aggression correlated positively to
            Message 5 of 24 , May 17, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              "That said, power imbalances frequently lead to aggression."

              I'd argue that they always do, with the scope of the resulting aggression correlated positively to the size of the originating power imbalance.

              Even if you reject Acton's proclamation, you have http://www.prisonexp.org/ as empirical evidence of the corrosiveness of power imbalances. They not only harm the person at the business end, but they also harm the people who wield them.

              Even if the boss is a benign tyrant now, her psyche is being warped and deformed by the power imbalance.

              --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Marja Erwin <merwin@...> wrote:
              >
              > On May 17, 2010, at 12:44 AM, jeo1@... wrote:
              >
              > > What are real life examples of "sadistic" employers?
              >
              > Do we really need to discuss these? There are different grades of sadism, from stupid power games to rape and murder. For health reasons, I've been virtually unemployable my whole life. I've had to deal with stupid power games, such as lugging heavy goods across a newly waxed floor, and verbal abuse, but so far I have not faced work-related physical violence.
              >
              > That said, power imbalances frequently lead to aggression. Differences in bargaining power are thick libertarian issues, sharing grounds thickness and strategic thickness, inter alia.
              >
            • Donald Meinshausen
              The wealthier and more importantly the more technologically advanced and free a society becomes the less likely bullshit games are carried off. this is one
              Message 6 of 24 , May 17, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                The wealthier and more importantly the more technologically advanced and free a society becomes the less likely bullshit games are carried off. this is one reason that such work is now going off shore and immigrants come to this country. Talk to older people and you find that in many ways authoritarianism is going down except for relationships with the state. The economic downturn is hurting this positive trend. 


                On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 12:44 AM, <jeo1@...> wrote:
                 


                What are real life examples of "sadistic" employers?

                May 16, 2010 11:29:16 PM, LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com wrote:

                >
                >

                To use a concrete example:
                >
                > Consider Smith, who faces only two practical, ethical alternatives: 1)
                > starvation; or 2) accepting a physically grueling and dangerous job for
                > a sadistic employer that pays just barely enough to prevent starvation.
                >
                > Now consider Jones, who has a dozen choices of employment at well-paying
                > jobs for humane bosses, or could also start his own business.
                >
                > In this case, Smith has virtually zero bargaining power whereas Jones
                > has considerable bargaining power.
                >
                > The contention is whether if Jones takes that horrible job, rather than
                > starve, then the employment relationship is not really voluntary,
                > because the alternative is death.
                >
                > The related contention is whether Jones' predicament creates a moral
                > claim against his employer, to the extent the employer should be
                > compelled by force of arms to offer better wages and working conditions,
                > beyond what Jones could otherwise negotiate freely.
                >
                > I would say there is a third consideration, and that is whether the
                > employer, by unethical actions directly or indirectly on his own part,
                > has created the predicament that Jones faces (for example by colluding
                > with a government to eliminate competing employers). Or, whether Jones'
                > predicament was caused by some unrelated third party's action (for
                > example, state regulations making self-employment impossible).
                >
                > jeo1@... wrote:
                > >
                > >
                > > So are they better off being unemployed? I don't follow.
                > >
                > >
                > > May 16, 2010 01:57:01 PM, LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com wrote:
                > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > >
                > > "The issue of whether employment is exploitation doesn't depend
                >on
                > > whether
                > > >there is equal bargaining power between the employer and employee,
                > > it depends on
                > > >whether it is a voluntary relationship."
                > > >
                > > >And the issue of how voluntary an employment relationship is leads
                > > one to look
                > > >at the bargaining power of each party, for it is that power that
                > > determines the
                > > >degree to which the choice to work is meaningful, hence whether
                >it
                > > is even voluntary
                > > >to begin with. This isn't a black and white world as you must
                >know.
                > > Incidentally,
                > > >the importance of the context of a decision is the main point
                > > against the tacit
                > > >consent theory of State legitimacy. Strange that it would not
                >be
                > > taken into account
                > > >when considering tacit consent to be employed.
                > > >
                > > >
                > >
                > >
                > --
                > -- Scott Bieser
                > Illustrator, Cartoonist, Designer
                > View my on-line graphic novels and web-comics at
                > http://www.bigheadpress.com
                > Buy my Kindle Comic "The Last Sonofabitch of Klepton"
                > at http://www.amazon.com/The-Last-Sonofabitch-of-Klepton/dp/B001YQF0LI
                >


              • jeo1@verizon.net
                ... That said, power imbalances frequently lead to aggression. I d argue that they always do, with the scope of the resulting aggression correlated
                Message 7 of 24 , May 17, 2010
                • 0 Attachment

                  What is your solution to power imbalances, other than taxing and regulating people (if that is your solution).

                  May 17, 2010 10:46:17 AM, LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com wrote:
                  >
                  >

                  "That said, power imbalances frequently lead to aggression."
                  >
                  > I'd argue that they always do, with the scope of the resulting aggression correlated
                  >positively to the size of the originating power imbalance.
                  >
                  > Even if you reject Acton's proclamation, you have http://www.prisonexp.org/ as empirical evidence of the corrosiveness of power imbalances. They not only
                  >harm the person at the business end, but they also harm the people who wield them.
                  >
                  > Even if the boss is a benign tyrant now, her psyche is being warped and deformed
                  >by the power imbalance.
                  >
                  > --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Marja Erwin wrote:
                  > >
                  > > On May 17, 2010, at 12:44 AM, jeo1@... wrote:
                  > >
                  > > > What are real life examples of "sadistic" employers?
                  > >
                  > > Do we really need to discuss these? There are different grades of sadism,
                  >from stupid power games to rape and murder. For health reasons, I've been virtually
                  >unemployable my whole life. I've had to deal with stupid power games, such as lugging
                  >heavy goods across a newly waxed floor, and verbal abuse, but so far I have not
                  >faced work-related physical violence.
                  > >
                  > > That said, power imbalances frequently lead to aggression. Differences
                  >in bargaining power are thick libertarian issues, sharing grounds thickness and
                  >strategic thickness, inter alia.
                  > >
                  >
                  >

                • jeo1@verizon.net
                  ... On May 17, 2010, at 12:44 AM, jeo1@verizon.net wrote: What are real life examples of sadistic employers? Do we really need to discuss these?
                  Message 8 of 24 , May 17, 2010
                  • 0 Attachment
                    People can be sadistic and bossy, no question.  I was talking about employers as organizations.  That was the context we were discussing in Scott's response.


                    May 17, 2010 12:23:13 AM, LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com wrote:
                    >
                    >

                    On May 17, 2010, at 12:44 AM, jeo1@... wrote:
                    >
                    > > What are real life examples of "sadistic" employers?
                    >
                    > Do we really need to discuss these? There are different grades of sadism, from
                    >stupid power games to rape and murder. For health reasons, I've been virtually unemployable
                    >my whole life. I've had to deal with stupid power games, such as lugging heavy goods
                    >across a newly waxed floor, and verbal abuse, but so far I have not faced work-related
                    >physical violence.
                    >
                    > That said, power imbalances frequently lead to aggression. Differences in bargaining
                    >power are thick libertarian issues, sharing grounds thickness and strategic thickness,
                    >inter alia.

                  • Marja Erwin
                    ... My solution is anarchism. Is that so hard to imagine?
                    Message 9 of 24 , May 17, 2010
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On May 17, 2010, at 2:51 PM, jeo1@... wrote:

                      > What is your solution to power imbalances, other than taxing and regulating people (if that is your solution).

                      My solution is anarchism. Is that so hard to imagine?
                    • jeo1@verizon.net
                      Not at all, my comment was to quasibill. Or semi-bill. ... On May 17, 2010, at 2:51 PM, jeo1@verizon.net wrote: What is your solution to power
                      Message 10 of 24 , May 17, 2010
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Not at all, my comment was to quasibill.  Or semi-bill.
                         
                        But we won't have minimum wage laws in Anarchia.  Might have general standards, norms etc as to payment, but not mandatory coercive minimums as Dan Clore seemed to be supporting.


                        May 17, 2010 01:57:21 PM, LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com wrote:
                        >
                        >

                        On May 17, 2010, at 2:51 PM, jeo1@... wrote:
                        >
                        > > What is your solution to power imbalances, other than taxing and regulating
                        >people (if that is your solution).
                        >
                        > My solution is anarchism. Is that so hard to imagine?
                        >
                        >

                      • Dan
                        But does Dan Clore support minimum wage laws? Or was he merely saying that someone was making a sweeping generalization here? I m confused... Regards, Dan
                        Message 11 of 24 , May 17, 2010
                        • 0 Attachment
                          But does Dan Clore support minimum wage laws? Or was he merely saying that someone was making a sweeping generalization here? I'm confused...
                           
                          Regards,
                           
                          Dan

                          From: "jeo1@..." <jeo1@...>
                          To: LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
                          Sent: Mon, May 17, 2010 4:21:59 PM
                          Subject: [LeftLibertarian2] Economic ignorance of leftists and statists
                           

                          Not at all, my comment was to quasibill.  Or semi-bill.
                           
                          But we won't have minimum wage laws in Anarchia.  Might have general standards, norms etc as to payment, but not mandatory coercive minimums as Dan Clore seemed to be supporting.


                          May 17, 2010 01:57:21 PM, LeftLibertarian2@ yahoogroups. com wrote:
                          >
                          >

                          On May 17, 2010, at 2:51 PM, jeo1@verizon. net wrote:
                          >
                          > > What is your solution to power imbalances, other than taxing and regulating
                          >people (if that is your solution).
                          >
                          > My solution is anarchism. Is that so hard to imagine?
                          >
                          >


                        • jeo1@verizon.net
                          I don t know if he does. Dan C. can respond if he chooses. That is why I wrote that he seemed to be supporting . ... But does Dan Clore support minimum wage
                          Message 12 of 24 , May 17, 2010
                          • 0 Attachment
                            I don't know if he does.  Dan C. can respond if he chooses.  That is why I wrote that he "seemed to be supporting".
                             
                            He was, at least, defending them, if not 'supporting' them. Or, taking to task what he deemed unfair or inaccurate free market criticisms of them by talking about unequal bargaining power etc.


                            May 17, 2010 03:57:15 PM, LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com wrote:
                            >
                            >

                            But does Dan Clore support minimum wage laws? Or was he merely saying that someone
                            >was making a sweeping generalization here? I'm confused...
                            Regards,
                            Dan

                            >
                            From: "jeo1@..."
                            >To: LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
                            >Sent: Mon, May 17, 2010 4:21:59 PM
                            >Subject: [LeftLibertarian2] Economic ignorance of leftists and statists
                            >

                            Not at all, my comment was to quasibill. Or semi-bill.
                            But we won't have minimum wage laws in Anarchia. Might have general standards,
                            >norms etc as to payment, but not mandatory coercive minimums as Dan Clore seemed
                            >to be supporting.
                            >
                            >
                            >May 17, 2010 01:57:21 PM, LeftLibertarian2@ yahoogroups. com wrote:
                            >

                            >>
                            >>

                            On May 17, 2010, at 2:51 PM,
                            >target="_blank" class=" parsedEmail parsedEmail parsedEmail">jeo1@verizon. net
                            wrote:
                            >>
                            >> > What is your solution to power imbalances, other than taxing and regulating
                            >
                            >>people (if that is your solution).
                            >>
                            >> My solution is anarchism. Is that so hard to imagine?
                            >>
                            >>


                            >

                          • Dan Clore
                            Dan Clore was merely pointing out that the claim on the survey, Minimum wage laws increase unemployment , does not have a clear true or false answer, because
                            Message 13 of 24 , May 17, 2010
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Dan Clore was merely pointing out that the claim on the survey, "Minimum
                              wage laws increase unemployment", does not have a clear true or false
                              answer, because it depends on the level of the minimum wage. The survey
                              writers claim that labeling it false reveals a lack of "economic
                              enlightenment" because the claim is true if the minimum wage is high
                              enough (they explicitly refer to the "basic logic" of the claim by
                              mentioning a minimum wage raised to $20 -- but the claim as given makes
                              no mention of this "basic logic"). Empirical studies reveal that the
                              actual minimum wage laws enacted in the real world do not increase
                              unemployment. So someone could legitimately answer "disagree" with the
                              claim, having the real world in mind instead of hypotheticals.

                              That's all matters of fact. I didn't engage in advocacy for or against
                              minimum wage laws. (They obviously wouldn't exist in Anarchia, but could
                              be considered a partial fix to existing state-corporate capitalism. It's
                              probably best for libertarians to ignore the issue and go after the
                              really harmful actions of the state-capitalist elite instead. Also, in
                              organizing voluntary counter-institutions to the state and capitalism,
                              such as worker cooperatives.)

                              Dan wrote:
                              >
                              > But does Dan Clore support minimum wage laws? Or was he merely saying
                              > that someone was making a sweeping generalization here? I'm
                              > confused...
                              >
                              > Regards,
                              >
                              > Dan
                              >
                              > *From:* "jeo1@..." <jeo1@...> *To:*
                              > LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Mon, May 17, 2010 4:21:59 PM
                              > *Subject:* [LeftLibertarian2] Economic ignorance of leftists and
                              > statists
                              >
                              > Not at all, my comment was to quasibill. Or semi-bill.
                              >
                              > But we won't have minimum wage laws in Anarchia. Might have general
                              > standards, norms etc as to payment, but not mandatory coercive
                              > minimums as Dan Clore seemed to be supporting.
                              >
                              > May 17, 2010 01:57:21 PM, LeftLibertarian2@ yahoogroups. com wrote:
                              >
                              > On May 17, 2010, at 2:51 PM, jeo1@verizon. net
                              > <mailto:jeo1%40verizon.net> wrote:
                              >>
                              >>> What is your solution to power imbalances, other than taxing
                              > and regulating
                              >> people (if that is your solution).
                              >>
                              >> My solution is anarchism. Is that so hard to imagine?

                              --
                              Dan Clore

                              New book: _Weird Words: A Lovecraftian Lexicon_:
                              http://tinyurl.com/yd3bxkw
                              My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
                              http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0035LTS0O
                              Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
                              http://tinyurl.com/292yz9
                              News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
                              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo

                              Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
                              immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
                              -- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
                            • xipetotec56
                              ... Nobody in this discussion has endorsed a mandatory minimum wage law. -C
                              Message 14 of 24 , May 17, 2010
                              • 0 Attachment
                                JEO on 5/16/2010:

                                > For anyone endorsing a mandatory minimum wage-

                                Nobody in this discussion has endorsed a mandatory minimum wage law.

                                -C
                              • xipetotec56
                                ... Criminy. Did you just get here or something? It s Karaoke night on LeftLibertarian2. Everybody sing along: o/~ ... -C
                                Message 15 of 24 , May 17, 2010
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  JEO on 5/17/2010:

                                  > What is your solution to power imbalances, other than taxing and
                                  > regulating people (if that is your solution).

                                  Criminy. Did you just get here or something?

                                  It's Karaoke night on LeftLibertarian2. Everybody sing along: o/~

                                  > When the union's inspiration through the workers' blood shall run,
                                  > There can be no power greater anywhere beneath the sun;
                                  > Yet what force on earth is weaker than the feeble strength of one,
                                  > But the union makes us strong.
                                  >
                                  > CHORUS:
                                  > Solidarity forever,
                                  > Solidarity forever,
                                  > Solidarity forever,
                                  > For the union makes us strong.
                                  >
                                  > Is there aught we hold in common with the greedy parasite,
                                  > Who would lash us into serfdom and would crush us with his might?
                                  > Is there anything left to us but to organize and fight?
                                  > For the union makes us strong.
                                  >
                                  > Chorus
                                  >
                                  > [...]
                                  >
                                  > They have taken untold millions that they never toiled to earn,
                                  > But without our brain and muscle not a single wheel can turn.
                                  > We can break their haughty power, gain our freedom when we learn
                                  > That the union makes us strong.
                                  >
                                  > Chorus
                                  >
                                  > In our hands is placed a power greater than their hoarded gold,
                                  > Greater than the might of armies, magnified a thousand-fold.
                                  > We can bring to birth a new world from the ashes of the old
                                  > For the union makes us strong.
                                  >
                                  > CHORUS:
                                  > Solidarity forever,
                                  > Solidarity forever,
                                  > Solidarity forever,
                                  > For the union makes us strong.
                                  >
                                  > --Ralph Chaplin, 1915

                                  -C
                                • quasibill@yahoo.com
                                  No, taxing and regulating would require a power imbalance, so there is no way they could be used in decreasing the effects of power imbalances society-wide...
                                  Message 16 of 24 , May 18, 2010
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    No, taxing and regulating would require a power imbalance, so there is no way they could be used in decreasing the effects of power imbalances society-wide...
                                  • jeo1@verizon.net
                                    Message 17 of 24 , May 18, 2010
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Agreed, now we are getting somewhere.


                                      May 18, 2010 05:41:49 AM, LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com wrote:
                                      >
                                      >


                                      > No, taxing and regulating would require a power imbalance, so there is no way
                                      >they could be used in decreasing the effects of power imbalances society-wide...
                                      >
                                      >

                                    • Jay P Hailey
                                      ... Well, yeah, actually. If you read enough of the archives of LL2 - you ll see that not everyone s idea of Anarchy is the same. Which flavor you like, and
                                      Message 18 of 24 , May 20, 2010
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        > My solution is anarchism. Is that so hard to imagine?


                                        Well, yeah, actually. If you read enough of the archives of LL2 - you'll
                                        see that not everyone's idea of Anarchy is the same.

                                        Which flavor you like, and how it would work is a big topic if discussion.
                                        Look at issues like land ownership - some of us think that legitimate
                                        private property rules work fine for ppieces of land. Others think that
                                        this leads to tyranny - and so ppropose various other means of allocating
                                        land.

                                        My preference is Anarchy - have any flavor you want, so long as you are not
                                        coercing anyone else.

                                        But follow the logic of the Georgists versus the Private Property types, and
                                        you have a conflict with each side saying that acting consistently wiith
                                        their beliefs is an iniation of force.

                                        That's a pretty big conflict.

                                        So saying "Anarchy" isn't enough at our level of discussion - it's too
                                        vague and how it might work are unclear.

                                        and if we can't make it clear for ourselves, the intelligent, but deluded
                                        statists are going to have us for lunch.

                                        Jay ~Meow!~
                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.