The Minimum Wage = Bad

Via Bureaucrash.

posted by disinter
  • Dave

    I’m familiar with why minimum wage is bad, but this video didn’t go into that. They explained the introduction very well of what it really means to interfere, but they didn’t go into economic reasons why that would also be negative for the individuals. Anyone that doesn’t know the reason why would think this video is trying to just say that interference is bad even if a wage could be improved. That is not what the video is trying to get at though. It needs to explain that employers will have less jobs and people will have no job instead of a low paying job. Even that is debatable depending on how the market reacts to the demand of employees for higher wages. But Libertarianism is all about trusting the free market.

  • disinter

    Dave – I think the goal was to put it as simply as possible in order to avoid turning off those that do not understand basic economics. What is easy to understand to you, is mumbo-jumbo to average joe.

  • Stephen VanDyke

    It doesn’t explain the problem properly. I’ll defer to our most esteemed economist Bill Peirce who is concise:

    The problem is that the State has no power to create better jobs. All the State can do is to forbid people to work for less than the legal minimum.

    [...] From an economic perspective, minimum wage laws are ineffective in alleviating poverty because they push some people out of low wage jobs into unemployment.

  • louise

    very boring…cut off 2 mins into it

  • undercover_anarchist

    This argument is never going to win a single vote.

    I’d prefer a gold standard commercial.

  • http://www.reformthelp.org Nick Wilson

    I’m with UA. It’s important from an economic perspective, but it should be an issue in the very back of our agenda.

    Maintaining the status quo $5.15/hr minimum wage is economically better than increasing it, and it’s more politically savvy than supporting a ban. Like so many welfare state programs, it’s easier to add than cut.

    The rapid effects of change are a factor. Mr. Pierce ignores the fact that the corporations primarily set the salaries – while the job market is a big factor, those with capital can bend the market. Those who are working for minimum wage now may be forced to either take a pay cut or quit, leading to an immediate race to the bottom wage. Corporations will immediately cut as far as they can get away with. This isn’t healthy for the poor or the economy.

    Right now, leaving the wage at $5.15 will keep the economic impact of minimum wage laws reducing every year while avoiding an immediate race to see how low workers will limbo until quality goes down.

  • John Doe

    Corporations are creations of the state and are not natural persons. Corporations have no rights, only privileges; corporations are subject to government regulations.

    Natural persons (humans) have rights and are not controlled by government because they created the government.

    Regulations on corporations, such as minimus wage laws, are legitimate, but not always effective.

  • Devious David

    I think that the video effectively persues one facet of the argument. There could just as well be five or six more. Maybe they’ll make a series and we can put them on the air after election season? I’d like to start working on or at least helping finance such projects in the future. We need to do more outside of election season. MUCH MUCH more. And single issues are a great way to start.

  • undercover_anarchist

    Let’s get real: The $5.15 minimum wage is so low that there effectively is no minimum wage. It’s a non-issue.

  • Jabial

    Where are we here, at a communist party forum? I can’t believe I read this by american libertarian people. Go to France where I live and where minimum wage laws have make it a months lasting search for unskilled labor to find a job, and created unemployment for millions of people.

    You really think companies set the salaries? Then, why aren’t we all paid minimum wage? The reality is that mimimum wage creates unemployment by preventing many unskilled people to work, and that puts pressure on the work market, lowering wages for all. Loot at French wage grid.

    Now, you say you care about the poor. Is it a non-issue for people unemployed because of it? Don’t they have a right to chose for themselves? Don’t they have a right to use their capacity to get a little better life?

    Then, you say that companies have no right. What of the right to associate? People can’t get together to do something now? It’s a creation of the state? Why is the state constantly fighting with them then? Bullshit!

  • undercover_anarchist

    France is not the US.

    A) At some level, the minimum wage causes unemployment. For example, a $20/hour mimimum wage would certainly cause unemployment. But would a $1/hour minimum wage? Of course not. Does a $5.15 minimum wage cause unemployment? I’m sure there are a handful of businesses who would take on more people if they could find them to work for less than $5.15, but the numbers are minimal. And even if they weren’t, is this even helpful to the economy?

    B) If anything, a slightly higher minimum wage may spur welfare recipients into the workforce. Why take a pay cut to flip burgers?

    You are the fucking commie, Jabial. Corporations are creatures of the state. They have no rights. You and I and 100 other people can pool our wealth – but when we apply for STATE PROTECTION in the form of a corporate charter, we are essentially becoming the state.

    Fucking college drop out “economists.” READ A BOOK OR SHUT THE FUCK UP.

  • undercover_anarchist

    And for God’s sake – people who are unemployed are much better off than people who are working for $200 a week.

  • http://www.DownsizeDC.org/ Alex Peak

    Huge rhetorical problem: the government does not have the “right” to do anything. It assumes the authority to do so, but “right” can only ever be held by people and their non-coercive establishments.

    undercover_anarchist writes, “I’d prefer a gold standard commercial.” That wouldn’t be a bad idea, except it might be difficult to explain it in less than a minute. I explained the gold standard to some libertarian friends just the other day, and I must have taken at least four minutes, if not more.

    Mr. Doe writes, “Corporations are creations of the state and are not natural persons. Corporations have no rights, only privileges; corporations are subject to government regulations.”

    Businesses are the creation of all the people who voluntarily join to make them work. All people naturally possess a right to free speech, both when they are by themselves, and when they are in a group or business.

    [To be continued...]

  • http://www.DownsizeDC.org/ Alex Peak

    “Regulations on corporations, such as minimus wage laws, are legitimate,…”

    So, according to this logic, the mass of the people created government, and government has the legitimate withority to tell private individuals acting voluntarily with one another in a manner that hurts no one else that they must stop their voluntary actions.

    In other words, it is legitamite for the mass of the people to place a gun against the head of my employer and force him to pay me more, or force me into unemployement.

    In other words, might makes legitamacy.

    I disagree with your entire premise. When you break it down, you see it’s still people initiating acts of coercion against other people. I do not want to live in a society where force and the initiation thereof is viewed as legitamite, whether enacted by one person, by a group, by the entire mass of people, or by some oligarchy calling themselves the representatives of the mass of the people.

    Yours,
    Alex Peak

  • undercover_anarchist

    The gold standard is a 16th centruy anachronism, much like communism is a 20th century one.

    Corporations are creatures of the state. Perhaps it is incorrect to say that the government has the “right” to regulate them, but if it does not, then it doesn’t have the “right” to create them in the first place.

    YOU ARE WRONG.

    The terms “business” and “corporation” are not interchangable.

  • http://www.ReformTheLP.org Nick Wilson

    “You really think companies set the salaries? Then, why aren’t we all paid minimum wage?”

    No one is is proposing France-style minimum wage laws. We would indeed be on the wrong forum. But the reality is that it is basically impossible for a family of four to live on the current American minimum wage, and the buying power decreases every year as inflation rises. Most of the damage of minimum wage laws has already been done, and now the market has adapted. If they increase again damage will again occur. But if they are cut immediately, there will be a race to the wage bottom. Thus I would argue that the best solution is the status quo, and MW will be gradually de-emphasized over time because of inflation.

    “If anything, a slightly higher minimum wage may spur welfare recipients into the workforce.”

    But probably not. They won’t enter the workforce until there are jobs available – and the reality is that increasing minimum wage will cost jobs.

  • http://www.ReformTheLP.org Nick Wilson

    Corporate personhood is debateable – while the Libertarians could make strong outreach to the Left by opposing corporate personhood, it’s completely unrealistic both politically and economically.

    If there was no corporate personhood, the CEO who ordered toxic waste to be dumped in the river would be sued until he had nothing left. This would be great. At the same time, I could see such a shift being catastrophic for our economy – investors might now be liable for the actions of their companies, thus the Stock Market would collapse.

    I think some aspects of corporate personhood could change – like more direct responsibility for direct decisions and ending corporate welfare, but I don’t agree with the economics of the Greens’ approach and I don’t think it’s politically viable to even posit.

  • Graham

    Not every corporation is public or large. There are many 1-man corps. A lot of it is about small businesses doing what they can within the system to reduce taxes, increase benefits,etc. I am actually a 100% owner of 1 corporation and 50% of another, does that make me a BAD Libertarian?

  • http://www.ilovephysics.com Chris Moore

    “But if they are cut immediately, there will be a race to the wage bottom.”

    I doubt it. There are very few jobs out there now that actually pay the minimum wage. The market value for unskilled labor is generally greater than $5.15/hour, and eliminating that as a minimum would not necessarily affect the current market rate.

    Besides, if the rate for labor did decrease, then so would the price of products and services.

    I can understand how eliminating income taxes overnight would cause a great many problems in the short term. But eliminating the minimum wage overnight would probably result in very few even noticing.

  • R. E. Lee

    Is there any reason, in a libertarian society, why a corporation must be a “creature of the state?” If I, and 100 friends, want to pool our capital, form a business, and
    claim limited liability, then it’s your choice whether or not to do business with us. This bashing of corporations per se is unseemingly by libertarians who pretend to revere free association and contracts.

  • http://www.originaldrugmanualforkids.com JT Barrie

    Anarchist said it best about government protectionism for corporations – especially utilities, health care providers, insurers and banks. They are the government! There is a big difference. When an employer refuses to hire, they make a choice. When a consumer refuses to hire a government regulated professional [accountant, doctor, tax preparer, realtor] they do so because they are priced out of the market. When government requires government services [mandatory insurance requirement, mandatory filing fees etc] people who can’t afford these government services are SOL. Those professional government providers are still highly paid. The free market doesn’t work in these fields. The number of government workers is regulated. People can’t enter these fields to drive down wages – unless there are specific openings and those are limited. They can for most other jobs. Why have one system for the wealthy and another for the rest of us?

  • Derrick

    Minimum wage hurts the very poorest people the most – those who are in homeless shelters, struggling to find a way back into society.

    I once worked at a store near such a shelter. My boss paid a homeless guy a couple bucks to pick up the litter in the (small) parking lot every day. He did a good job for a fair wage. My boss was helping the guy out, but probably violating umpteen labor laws. Sad state of affairs.

  • Derrick

    Bureaucrash good. This video not so good. It’s a bit simplistic, even for its intended audience. And, it only just barely advances a moral argument, and doesn’t touch at all on the practical arguments against the min. wage.

    Also, they should throw in the word “voluntary” a time or two. I have found that that word resonates with lefties.

  • LeoTolstoy

    it doesn’t really matter what the minimum wage is becuase all increases in wages quickly gets capitalized into higher land prices.

    have you EVER seen a locale that has falling land/housing prices and rising labor rates?

    this is why the original laissez-faire classical liberals (the French Physiocrats) called for moving all taxation off of labor and capital and instead collecting the economic rent that accrues to landowners.

  • Tom Bryant

    The other side of the coin, which confuses some folks, is inflation. Minimum wage must create unemployment and price inflation to offset the unproductive portion of the artificial salary hike. That’s the reason why Wendy’s has a dollar menu instead of a fifty cent menu, and why if minimum wage would increase to say $10/hr, the dollar menu would become a $2 menu. This is why minimum wage is never “good enough”. You can double someone’s wages, but if prices double, they are still in the same boat.

    The jobs that are paid minimum wage are not supposed to support a middle class lifestyle for a family of four. The productivity of the job must be reflected in compensation, and the laws of economic will always prevail.

  • TerryP

    UA, One thing that I have observed is that if a person has to get to name calling to advance their arguement then they have just about lost that arguement because they can’t come up with anything better. Once they get to swearing then they have lost the arguement. They have defintely gotten to the point that they can no longer advance an argument. They have lost.

    Swearing at someone will not advance your arguement. It reinforces that you have lost. If you can keep out the name calling and swearing you may actually have a chance at changing someones mind. Do you think Jabial will change his mind after living through a high minimum wage and getting swore at. I doubt it. He is more likely to get defensive and become even more ingrained in his beliefs. If you want to advance your argument, keep calm, and put forth ideas without name calling and swearing.

  • LeoTolstoy

    also big business are actually FOR a minimum wages because it raises the barrier to entry for competition.

  • bac

    In practice, minimum wage plays a small part in the hiring process. Minimum wage could be $1 per hour but this will not cause employers to hire if the work load does not warrant the new hires. The number of employees a business will take on depends on the work load and the economy. If the economy is good and mminimum wage is low but three people are able to keep up with the work load, why hire? Employers do not hire just because they can. They hire when they have the money to do so and the work load demands it.

    Another aspect is the supply of workers for a particular job. With a small supply of workers, employers will be paying more for wages, while a huge supply of workers, employees will earn less. Minimum wage only becomes a concern when there are many workers applying for the same job.

  • Julian

    Raising minimum wages fuels the underground economy, therefore attracting more illegal aliens to fill the jobs at below minimum wage that cannot be done economically. Examples are common laborers on construction sites and agricultural workers.

    It is a bogus system of artificially setting a standard of living that fails to me met every time.

    Raise minimum wage, attract more illegals. What dumb asses we have for politicians making promises they know are crap and voters agreeing to be bought off with promises that are bogus.

    I am beginning to hate all politician control freaks. They are liars and narcissists. I have no faith in voters either. I cannot believe so many vote knowing they are giving up their freedoms for some sort of nonexistent security and safety.

  • Artus Register

    Many small business owners have a number of menial tasks they would love to pay some kid a couple dollars an hour to do. But when the state forces them to pay an additional $3.15 an hour, and then match the Socialist Security “contribution” the state pirates take by force, the prospective employer would now have to pay out well over twice what he wanted to.
    In this situation he is much more likely to just perform the tasks himself, taking away time better spent producing. It is hard to imagine minimum wage laws doing anything but destroying jobs, reducing productivity and damaging the economy as a whole.
    That said, the video may be an effective tool for people who have never thought about the issue, but something will a little more detail and the production value to hold viewer’s interest for an additional minute would likely work better. But at least it’s something we can argue and swear about. :P

  • Artus Register

    Julian,

    With such a confessed hatred of the “control freaks” as well as those who vote them into office, you sound like you are getting closer to the minarchist/anarchist line.
    I’m not trying to bait you into an argument–I’ve been wondering myself lately not if government has a legitimate function (I believe it does), but whether it is even worth dreaming that it can ever be expected to only wield a moral, counter-violent power.
    In the current manifestation of my libertarianism, I long for the Menckenian state “that barely escapes being no government at all.”

  • undercover_anarchist

    TerryP: Sorry to offend your delicate sensibilities, m’aam. I’m just tired of dealing with people who are divorced from reality.

  • TerryP

    UA, you didn’t offend my sensibilities. I just think it is a very poor way of trying to convince people that libertarianism is the way to go. In fact it is counter-productive. Heck we almost lost Michelle from this blog because she was offended by something far less than being swore at. I just suggest that you choose you words a little more wisely if you want to win over any potential coverts to libertarianism. I don’t mind a little name-calling or even swearing but when you direct it at someone personally, how do you think they will react? Do you think they will listen to a word you just said? Doubtful. You just made them dig in a little more against your side of the issue. I am trying to get more people to come over to the libertarian way of thinking not push them away.

    And as far as being divorced from reality, he is actually living the reality with very high minimum wages in France, so he may actually know a little bit about this issue, not saying that he is right.

  • http://bureaucrash.com JA$ON

    Thanks for all the feedback – both positive and negative – it’s the only way Bureaucrash is going to get better at selling freedom. Also, thanks for the link love. Alex’s point about government having the “right” to do anything is on target.

    The next project at the crash is a series of Mac vs. PC parody ads about the Democrats vs. the GOP. I’m hoping that some of you may want to help come up with ideas for this. Here is a sample script:

    —–

    Democrat: Hello I’m a Democrat

    GOP: And I’m with the GOP

    Democrat: I’m looking forward to getting elected so I can raise taxes!

    GOP: Taxes hurt voters. Elected me so that we can borrow the money!

    Democrat: Then our children will have to pay for what we spend today.

    GOP: Better than taxing the people that vote for us.

    Crasher: Why don’t you stop spending so much?!? [Walks off screen without realizing that the Democrat and GOP pick pocketed him]

    Democrat and GOP [Show their stolen money]

    —–

    Thanks!

  • http://betweenthelinks.com Dan

    This isn’t going to be effective at convincing anybody because the minimum wage law is so low that Mr. “Employee” would be retarded for accepting a wage under it. I’m not getting into the rights or wrongs of the min. wage — just the ineffectiveness of this video. You can’t forget that Americans are programmed into believing economic regulation is good at some levels. This commercial will only reinforce that idea for some people. Why, for instance, does Ms. “Employer” want to pay someone less than $5.15 an hour? That’s right, it’s because businesses are evil and must be regulated in order to stop them from paying dirt for honest work.

  • paulie cannoli

    Is there any reason, in a libertarian society, why a corporation must be a “creature of the state?” If I, and 100 friends, want to pool our capital, form a business, and
    claim limited liability, then it’s your choice whether or not to do business with us. This bashing of corporations per se is unseemingly by libertarians who pretend to revere free association and contracts.

    In a free society, how can you claim full limited liability? You could, perhaps, claim limited liability with your clients, shareholders and employees, provided
    they sign such a waiver. But how would you claim limited liability from pollution or other harm you cause to non-clients or competitors, for instance?

  • Julian

    Artus Register

    I disagree with the far left libertarians (who are really anarchists) on two issues:

    1. War on terror – The more of our enemies we kill and the quicker and more efficiently, the better.
    2. Illegal aliens and open borders – Send them all back and use the military for their proper role, securing the borders (self defense). I will support pulling our troops out of all other contries if we secure our borders which includes securing it against illegals, terrorists and weapons of war coming through our ports of entry.

    I am told to be a perfect libertarian, I must be antiwar (not ever). I do believe the smaller the government, the better. I am also for individual freedom, not some design of collective rights of minorities or majorities at the expense of others.

    Paulie Cannoli believes because of my above stands that I am a neocon, Republican, Nazi, Fascist, dictator, and definitely not a libertarian. She is an Anarchist commenting on a libertarian site.

  • Andy

    “I am told to be a perfect libertarian, I must be antiwar (not ever).”

    I’d say anti-war of aggression is a better way to put it.

    I’m not a pacifist but I am opposed to wars of aggression.

    I consider the wars in Iraq and Afganistan to be wars of aggression. Iraq did not attack us. The government claims that terrorists were in Afganistan but even if you believe the government’s story (which I believe is a big lie) the way the invasion of Afganistan was carried out was not justified. The proper response (if one believes the government’s story) would have been to issue a Letter Of Marque And Reprisal and to send hit squads after the alleged terrorists, NOT a conventional military invasion.

    I do not support the “War On Terror” because all of the evidence says that it is based on lies. The only war that I’d support right now would be a revolution against our own corrupt government.

  • paulie cannoli

    Julianne,

    As you already know I do have balls and a cock, but you are still not allowed to suck them.

    1. War on terror – The more of our enemies we kill and the quicker and more efficiently, the better.

    This pre-supposes who “our enemies” are.

    Even if we agree on who they are, this excused all sorts of attrocities commited in the name of killing “our enemies”.

    At what point do you become worse than that which you fight?

    My view is that the regime has long passed this point.

    Illegal aliens and open borders – Send them all back and use the military for their proper role, securing the borders (self defense).

    This supposes that “aliens” have attacked you by crossing your regime’s border. In order for this to be true, this means that your regijme is at least part owner of all the property in the country.

    If it isn’t, then they have not aggressed against you by crossing the border, and it is up to each individual property owner to decide who…

  • paulie cannoli

    (…39….)

    …to allow on their land.

    On the other hand if it is communally (even partially) owned property through the government, the government has the rights of property owners, which include banning drugs, banning guns, levying taxes (rent), etc.

    You have this right on your own property.

    How is your military funded? It is not voluntarily supported. This also is a violation of liberty.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian

    http://isil.org/resources/introduction.swf

    I am a neocon, Republican, Nazi, Fascist, dictator, and definitely not a libertarian.

    Thanks for finally admitting it.

    Anarchist commenting on a libertarian site.

    I’m both a libertarian and an anarchist.

    And you are neither.

  • Andy

    “This supposes that “aliens” have attacked you by crossing your regime’s border.”

    If the alien in question recieves tax supported benifits I’d call that an attack. I know that they can’t recieve benifits without the willful aid of people within our own government but this still doesn’t excuse it.

  • paulie cannoli

    If the alien in question recieves tax supported benifits I’d call that an attack.

    In most cases they do not.

    And plenty of American-born citizens and legal immigrants receive welfare.

    Welfare is a separate issue from immigration, and has nothing to do with the substance of my criticism of JVD’s point.

  • Andy

    Yeah, minimum wage is bad, but Arnold Schwarzenegger doesn’t think so, or at least doesn’t give a damn.

    Govenor Arnold Schwarzenegger Signs Bill To Increases California’s Minimum Wage
    http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/060912/20060912006421.html?.v=1

  • paulie cannoli
  • paulie cannoli

    And what kind of “liberators” take away people’s guns, as the Amerikan regime is doing in Iraq?

    The same kind of “liberators” take away people’s guns, as the Amerikan regime is doing in New Orleans.

    An earlier generation of red state fascists:

    http://www.assumption.edu/dept/history/HI14Net/Hitler_Stalin_pact.html

  • paulie cannoli

    I wonder why Julian supports an occupation which is taking people’s guns away?

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/peirce/peirce73.html

  • Julian

    Paulie Cannolli

    I bet my gun is bigger and better than yours. Want to compare? I don’t believe in a minute you even have a gun. You talk a big talk but doubt if you walk it.

    Since you are a proudly admitted convicted felon, do you own a gun? Let’s see if you put your actions where your motor mouth is. Do you own a firearm? You are a chicken shit anarchist to admit if you did because you are afraid of being arrested if you do so and admit it. You value your freedom as a convicted felon as much as the next convicted felon does so you will hide the truth.

    How I wish dueling was still legal. You would be on my hit list if it were.

    What’s up with all those bullshit links you always post? Don’t you have a real life or do you spend all your time on the internet marginalizing yourself? You want a link? Go to:

    http://www.pauliecannolithehesheisanidiotandretard.com

  • matt

    If I believed in coercion, which of course I don’t, I’d try to sentence most of you guys to a night of economic detention/study hall over at mises.org. Honestly, 47 posts in, and no-one’s mentioned the correlation between minimum wage laws and the inflation that raises cost of living and hurts the poor most? Instead, I get treated to: France, Iraq, Communists, dueling, “corporation vs. person” arguments, and the least interesting ad hominems ever.

    Let’s forget “advancing the cause” for a minute. Let’s talk educated self-interest. Some of you would apparently rather argue than benefit from free analysis of how markets work. Some of you seem oblivious to the concepts behind free enterprise. The smart man wins. Be that person. Study Austrian economics. That makes sense, this discussion thread does not.

  • Andy

    “I’ll bet my gun is bigger and better than yours. Want to compare?”

    This is sounds perverted!

  • http://www.mainstreamlibertarian.com Eric Dondero

    Andy’s foreign policy:

    Someone flys jet planes into your major US landmarks, killing 3,000 of your fellow countrymen.

    Send “The Dog” and other Worldwide Championship Wrestling guys wearing camoflouge and orange spandex halfway across the globe to “hunt them down” and “bring ‘em home” to go on trial. Pay them $25 million each for their trouble.

    After all, Bin Laden and crew will be scared shitless to see these “Mercenrary guys” coming over the hills. Forget the US Military. Send in the Mercs!!

  • matt

    Bin Laden is a human being. Any human being would freak out if a meth-addled Dog the bounty hunter was after him. The 9-11 victim’s families would probably love to put together a large enough bounty to get Dog and his scarier, less famous, Navy seal cousin into the action. No state involvement. Everyone’s happy except the Military-Industrial complex and Eric D.

  • paulie cannoli

    Julia(n),

    Thanks for admitting you want to see my cock, er, gun, but I already told you – I don’t want you playing with my gun, and I don’t care how big yours is, I don’t want to play with yours either. Can’t you just accept it and move on? Take heart, the right man is out there for you. Incidentally, most guys who talk a lot about how big theirs is are probably overcompensating – ladies (and gay guys), am I right?

    Just in case you were talking about real guns; it’s none of your business whether I have any or not.

    Don’t worry Julian, you’re still my favorite peanut brained whipping boy. Now go play with your big gun, you macho, macho, macho man, you.

    Eric’s foreign policy:

    Someone flys jet planes into your major US landmarks, killing 3,000 of your fellow countrymen.

    You support the political party responsible for the attacks, give them dictatorial powers at home and hundreds of billions of dollars to invade and occupy foreign countries unrelated to the attack.

  • LeoTolstoy

    Eric wrote:

    “Someone flys jet planes into your major US landmarks, killing 3,000 of your fellow countrymen”

    the “someones” were mostly Saudis…what then should have been handled by law enforcement (my job as president is to protect the US citizens…how about upholding the constitution?) was used as a pretense (war on terror) to occupy a middle eastern country for the benefit of our strategic oil interets and other allies (Israel).

    the reason why there was no exit strategy is because we have no plans on leaving without massive military bases there.

    the reason why we are hated is not because of our freedoms but because of our actions.

  • Andy

    “Andy’s foreign policy:

    Someone flys jet planes into your major US landmarks, killing 3,000 of your fellow countrymen.

    Send “The Dog” and other Worldwide Championship Wrestling guys wearing camoflouge and orange spandex halfway across the globe to “hunt them down” and “bring ”˜em home” to go on trial. Pay them $25 million each for their trouble.

    After all, Bin Laden and crew will be scared shitless to see these “Mercenrary guys” coming over the hills. Forget the US Military. Send in the Mercs!!”

    My foreign policy is to cut off all foreign aid and to keep our military out of foreign entanglements. The US Regime has been getting involved in the internal affairs of countries in the Middle East (and other parts of the world for that matter) for decades so it should be no wonder that our government has created enemies.

    As for my comment about a Letter of Marque And Reprisal, this is straight for the US Constitution. This was put in for the purpose of going after

  • Andy

    pirates or other outlaws who could be considered terrorists. I’m merely suggesting that our government actually obey the Constitution. And speaking of the Constitution, Congress is supposed to issue a Declaration Of War before our military can engage in acts of war. Where were the Declarations Of War against Iraq and Afganistan?

    Having said all of this, the first thing that should have happened after 9/11 SHOULD HAVE BEEN A REAL INVESTIGATION. However, there was no real investigation, the Bush administration (who are a bunch of known and proven liars) just CLAIMED that Osama bin Laden and al Quada were behind the attacks and so our military was rushed off to wage conventional wars (without a constitutional declaration from Congress) against Afganistan (and note that the plans to invade Afganistan were in place BEFORE 9/11 happened) and Iraq (which had ZERO connection to 9/11, even if you believe the Bush regime’s story) without any REAL evidence. I’ve been studying the

  • Andy

    attack since shortly after it happened and all of the evidence that I’ve seen points to the attack being an inside job. I believe that there is enough evidence to convict elements within our government (including President Bush and Vice President Cheney) for treason as they are the REAL culprits behind the 9/11 attack.

    I support going after the terrorists, it just so happens that the terrorists that I’m talking about are sitting in the White House, the CIA, and the Pentagon.

  • Andy

    US Government Informed Other Nations Of Its Plan To Invade Afganistan Months Before 9/11
    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/preplanned.html

  • Andy

    Bush Planned Iraq ‘Regime Change’ Before Becoming President
    http://www.sundayherald.com/27735

  • undercover_anarchist

    Bin Laden supports a $10/ hour minimum wage.

  • paulie

    LOL

    But does he ever have to pay up since his workers blow themselves up?

  • Liberty Crusader

    Andy #41, be careful when you relate receiving government “benefits” to attacking innocents (plank out of your eye before removing splinter). When you drive on government roads you are “recieving a benefit” from the government, for better or worse (worse), like it or not (not). Are you attacking someone? Your libertarian arguments are usually good but trying to link these two ideas is very flimsy. We aren’t living in our ideal libertarian society yet so we have to make the best of what we have and at the same time try to abolish the State. Immigrants are people, EXACTLY like you and me, faced with the EXACT same dilemmas regarding what the govt controls. Best bet: stop bashing them for being from elsewhere and start getting them to embrace libertarianism and Abolitionism.

  • undercover_anarchist

    While I do not necessarily agree with Liberty Crusader’s ends, I most certainly agree with the means.

  • http://none David

    What no one has addressed in this entire conversation is the practical effect of a minimum wage increase on the economy. Several states have inacted living wage increases beyond the minimum and in every case those economies have seen economic expansion, not contraction. This makes perfect sense to me mainly because more money paid to workers means they have more to spend. The gloom and doomers of a minimum wage fail to understand that the economy is built around workers and this puts them at a severe power disadvantage (we have to work to earn money), which is why unions were originally formed, etc. Also there is no law or axiom that says that money saved by corporations on labor costs is translated into lower goods cost, it is mostly transfered to corporate profits. Would a $20 min wage wreck the economy? Of course, but $7 or $8 enacted over time would actually improve the economy, as already proven.

    David

  • http://www.lpalabama.org/blog/14 paulie

    What no one has addressed in this entire conversation is the practical effect of a minimum wage increase on the economy. Several states have inacted living wage increases beyond the minimum and in every case those economies have seen economic expansion, not contraction.

    This is despite, not because of, the minimum wage increases.

  • Michael H. Wilson

    There are a number of states with minimum wage laws that require higher pay than in the federal law. So far these states have not seen reductions in employment that can be attributed to their higher wage laws. There may be other factors at play. No one really knows, but it is for certain that the public overwhelmingly supports these laws that raise the minimum wage.
    It might be wise to set this on the backburner for awhile and take on a few dozen other issues first, besides it makes us look mean.
    M.H.W.

  • http://www.lpalabama.org/blog/14 paulie

    I’ll agree with setting it on the backburner, but not that “no one really knows”…it’s very simple economic logic.

  • e

    The most practical solution: first, to raise the minimum wage a bit, since after all it’s at it’s lowest in real terms that it’s ever been. Then tie minimum wage increases to inflation, or some formula to calculate a fair cost of living increase. By most economic models any harm to the markets will return to equilibrium, rational expectation theory certainly would support this idea. That way while there is an initial market interference, the markets can return to stable expectations without unexpected interference, as well as a guarantee to people that the minimum wage will provide a constant guarantee of at least a somewhat livable wage. You might call it a ‘limit’ to free markets or whatever, but inconsistent interference is worse for free markets.

    It’s a compromise that makes sense, and theoretically something that people should more or less agree on. I am however cynical enough to guess that Dems would oppose it, since it would take away a guaranteed vote winner.

  • Jabial

    Well, all this discussion has reinforced my opinion that when we found a libertarian party in France, we will have to say this in the charter :

    - NO COMMIES. If you think companies owners have no rights, you are communist, not libertarian. Go get a commie party card.
    - NO RELIGIOUS WACKOES. If you think getting your own body back is murder, you are a religious fanatic, not a libertarian. Go get a rightist party card instead.
    - NO RACISTS. If you think there is such a thing as strangers that can legitimately be banned from what is nothing else than the historical limit of your oppressor’s power, you are a xenophobe at least. Got get a KKK card instead.

    Libertarian is Libertarian, not a garbage bin for every unmainstream wacko to end up in.

  • http://www.lpalabama.org/blog/14 paulie

    Good luck with your new party Jabial. Y’all need it.

  • undercover_anarchist

    Shareholders of corporations have rights, so long as they are human beings. Not all shareholders are human beings.

    Only individuals have rights. Groups do not have rights. Legal entities, concocted by the state, do not have rights.