Re: Effects of raising minimum wages in USA


"Nospam" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4450356.ofQI0WY4qW@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Michal Gancarski wrote:

The funniest thing here is that during the discussion you have advocated
violence and seizure of someone's property in almost every post and it
was
me who have kept on opposing it.

This is a lie. You use circular logic. You assume by default that
taxation
is violence then you try to demonstrate that .... taxation is violence.

No, it is not. Taxation is a mutual agreement betwen the society and you.

You don't like it ? Perfect, stop paying taxes but at the same moment you
have to:
- stop using the roads and any form of public assets
- stop interacting with other people taking advantage of society
- doing business of any kind in the society
- not using any money since they are a thing of the society

I've got a better idea. I'll pay for it *when* I use it. A toll road suits
me
just fine. Pay-per-use is just about the fairest model there is for taxes.
You
don't use the service, you don't pay.

Why should I pay SS. It likely won't be there when I need it.
Why should I pay for Medicare. I'm privately insured.
Why should I pay for welfare? I don't use it.
I'll pay the FAA a small fee on every airline ticket I buy.
I'll pay the FCC a percentage of my phone bill, or my ISP bill, or on every
radio or T.V. I purchase -- my usage.
If I happen to have a fire, and the local fire dept. comes to put it out,
then send me a bill. I'll pay it.

If you use a service, you pay. You don't pay -- you don't get the
service. Anything else is robbery. You're taking money out of my
pocket, for services I don't use, and giving those services to someone
who didn't earn the money to pay.

Allowances will have to be made for items that don't fall under
this model (for example military -- I don't expect anyone will give
me personal use of, say, a fully battle loaded M1-Abrams -- no
matter how much I'm willing to pay)

There are, however, a *huge* number of government services that
will fall quite nicely into a pay-per-use model.


The only way you can achieve this is today's world will be either to go
into
mountains and live alone into a cave.
Alternatively, you can stop paying taxes and go to jail to fulfill the
libertarian dream.

Now you are trying to ascribe violence to
people "like me", apparently knowing nothing about me and, what is more
grotesque than funny, not seeing obvious contradiction between violence
and prosperity. So no, it is not people "like me" who trigger the
violence
since people "like me" hate it and oppose it every time they have an
occasion to do so.

People like you advocate a society where you drive a majority toward
desperation. And there is only a certain amount a desperation a human can
handle before being ready to take desperate actions. When enough people
are
ready to take desperate actions you got a revolution. This means
violence.

Therefore, your type of society steamed from pathological greed and from a
completely lack of understanding about how a society works force other
people to use violence as a single way of survival.

Of course, in your mind you would like to have everybody ready to die by
starvation for you. And if they are forced to use violence against you to
survive, you hate this. Then you claim: "I hate violence".
Words are cheap, especially for a libertarian advocating slavery and
economic coercion.


It is exactly people "like you" blabbering about
"social justice" and "common (or greater) good" who use force against
others.

This is a lie. Taxes are a mutual contract betwen individual and society.
Jail is an option to stay there and not pay taxes.

They are no such thing. A "mutual contract" *requires* an uncoerced
willingness to participate and fulfill the terms of the contract. I ain't
a willing participant. I am being coerced via threat of fines and prison
sentence by the first party in the contract -- the IRS.

If you feel coerced in your employment "contract" -- that is due to
pressures from ouside, third parties. You've got bills to pay, but they're
between you and the bill collecter. The employer has no part in this
and can not control your personal issues.

See the difference? With the taxes, one of the parties in the "contract"
is the force, the coersion. With an employment agreement, the coersion
is your personal problem and is being brought about by circumstances and
parties not directly involved in the execution of the contract.

One stinks to high heaven of "conflict of interest", the other does
not. I'll leave it up to you to figure out which.

In my system of values violence is only a last resort, a passive
way to defend property against violence of others

The wealth produced by a worker it is his property.

No. It's. Not. The worker *agreed*, voluntarily, to take a portion
of that wealth as his wage, and leave the remainder with the employer.


Therefore, if the
business owner want to get part of it then the worker is entitled to use
violence against the business owner.

Not when it's an informed, voluntary decision on the workers part to give
it up in the first place when he accepted the job offer.

You advocate this ?

You are a moron.

whereas in your perfect Keynesian demand-side paradise, forceful
confiscation is an active means of shaping relations between adults.

No, just expect everyone to pay his fair share.

See above. My fair share is what I use. Pay-per-use is the *only*
"fair" way to go.

Libertarians want to be able
to loot from others freely but never pay their fair share.

So please, do not tell me about triggering violence.


Remember Russia 1917. This is your dream world.
Well, beside Somalia :-)




.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: So called bet - matua
    ... he comes up with threats of violence. ... Well I did offer to pay, but hey, if you are such a wanker and want to ... You fucking blow in, I bet you're from fucking St Marys or Blacktown you ...
    (rec.sport.rugby.union)
  • Re: So called bet - matua
    ... he comes up with threats of violence. ... Well I did offer to pay, but hey, if you are such a wanker and want to ... You fucking blow in, I bet you're from fucking St Marys or Blacktown you ... keep up this threat of violence and name calling. ...
    (rec.sport.rugby.union)
  • Re: A COMPLETELY NEW Economic System COMING SOON WORLDWIDE
    ... > And suppose they don't want to pay. ... Aha! ... Now we see the violence ... > inherent in the system Oi! ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: gun use - cant find post
    ... club family members to death, to commit armed robbery, to commit school ... in violence, or condone it in any way. ... How can you rightfully ask another human being to risk his life to protect ... value, but his is only worth the $30,000 salary we pay him? ...
    (rec.pets.dogs.behavior)
  • Re: Quiet conspiracy of society against male teachers, head of Government body claims
    ... The unjustly suspicious attitude of society is to blame for the lack ... of male staff in primary schools, according to the head of the ... teachers of the youngest primary school pupils is male, ... carry out domestic violence are men and lesbian women. ...
    (uk.legal)