Minimum Wage Laws

[rkwright]

[quote name='King's Rook's Pawn' date='27 October 2009 - 10:28 PM' timestamp='1256700531' post='1992528']
Not if the fetus is a human being with rights of its own. That's why the idea that abortion is just something between the woman and her doctor is fallacious. There is another party involved: the fetus. So abortion is an act of aggression. However, this does not apply the employer and the employee because there is no third party who's rights are being infringed upon.

Only actions that violate other peoples' rights should be [i]legal[/i] offenses. Otherwise, they are matters for the confessional booth, not the jail cell.
[/quote]

Once again this logic is faulty and a bit dangerous. No action is truly a private action as all actions have an effect on society as a whole.

Secondly, there are plently of times when two people who consent to something not involving a third party should be held legally responsible. Just because a person consents to whatever they are consenting to, does not mean that their dignity has not been violated. We should oppose this.

It speaks a lot about a society who says we are going to uphold the freedom to contract over the dignity of the person.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='27 October 2009 - 11:54 PM' timestamp='1256705669' post='1992585']
Killing all homeless and disabled people might be good for the economy. We could consider *not* killing all homeless and disabled people as bad for the economy but morally required of us.

I kind of feel bad even thinking that. Wow.
[/quote]

Exactly, its because the economy is not a proper end in and of itself. I think this is exactly what Benedict's recent encylical is speaking about. We cannot hold the economy above the dignity of the person.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i think i address King's main concerns. i admit it does close out some business and deny some jobs. but on balance it's better. think about what's the norm, by far... you go to mcdonald's and work your way up. mcdonald's is doing just fine. (just an example, it's not just mcdonald's). the benefits it gives to by far a mass proportion of young people etc, is worth the costs.
plus when it's all said and done, they can just make an exception ot the wage laws... somethin like "if you only make X amount as am employer, or this employee could only create X amount for you.. then you can pay less". trying to keep it simple, while realizing the harm of too many laws etc.

[Nihil Obstat]

Here's a general question which is related to the topic:

does an employer have the right to refuse employment to someone who needs it?

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='28 October 2009 - 03:04 PM' timestamp='1256753085' post='1992812']
Here's a general question which is related to the topic:

does an employer have the right to refuse employment to someone who needs it?
[/quote]Depends upon the reason. If it is not beneficial to the company, then of course it's right.

Edited October 28, 2009 by Anomaly

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='28 October 2009 - 12:04 PM' timestamp='1256753085' post='1992812']
Here's a general question which is related to the topic:

does an employer have the right to refuse employment to someone who needs it?
[/quote]

heheh, should probably read Goodkind's "Faith of the Fallen" again , see how that worked out.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='28 October 2009 - 01:21 PM' timestamp='1256754072' post='1992823']
heheh, should probably read Goodkind's "Faith of the Fallen" again , see how that worked out.
[/quote]
We all know Objectivists are a bunch of raving lunatics.

[dairygirl4u2c]

you do have a right to not hire people. one could extend from this, a certain right to not pay the minimum wage either - it's not the private employers responsibility to ensure bootstraps etc, it's society's, one could argue.
as long as society takes its responsibility seriously, which is a big if, then sure that could work. society helps out where the employer doesnt pay enough etc. but society is too volitile, too fickel, probably won't, and i do think the employer is at least partially responsbility for lookin after his employee's well being at least when they by far can but otherwise wouldn't- which is the case by far in the system that we have today, the mcdonalidization of america etc.

[King's Rook's Pawn]

[quote name='rkwright' date='28 October 2009 - 10:26 AM' timestamp='1256736399' post='1992675']
Once again this logic is faulty and a bit dangerous. No action is truly a private action as all actions have an effect on society as a whole.[/quote]

My point was that the fetus's rights are being violated. That's the key. Illegality should only apply to violations of rights, which I would describe trespasses against the natural authority of each individual over their own mind, their own body, and their own legitimately obtained property. A private decision between two people might "affect society" in some indirect sense, but that doesn't mean it violates another person's rights.

[quote]Secondly, there are plently of times when two people who consent to something not involving a third party should be held legally responsible. Just because a person consents to whatever they are consenting to, does not mean that their dignity has not been violated. We should oppose this. [/quote]

Just because something is immoral doesn't mean it should be illegal. Illegality should only apply questions of justice, in which one person violates the rights of another person. And when an armed enforcer breaks down the door of an innocent man, points a gun at him, and throws him in a cage, on the basis that he's violating his "dignity," is that not itself violating his dignity? A society of armed vice police throwing people into cages when they don't do what President So-and-So likes is very undignified, turning citizens into slaves.

[quote]It speaks a lot about a society who says we are going to uphold the freedom to contract over the dignity of the person.
[/quote]

It's one and the same; if President So-and-So deigns himself King of Contracts and starts breathing down the neck of people entering into voluntary agreements, he's infantilizing them while setting himself up as an omniscient god-king. If he really respected the dignity of the person, he'd allow every person the freedom to make their own choices, provided they don't violate the rights of another.

[quote]the economy is not a proper end in and of itself.[/quote]

That's true, but the economy can not be disconnected from what it is: the voluntary interactions between individual human beings. In Nihil Obstat's example, there was a clear violation of human rights. But we should not use the fact that "the economy is not a proper end in and of itself" as excuse to impose ourselves into the voluntary interactions of others, thinking that we know better than they do how to make their choices and threatening them with violence if they resist. That's incredibly proud and arrogant, not to mention extremely aggressive.

Edited October 28, 2009 by King's Rook's Pawn

[King's Rook's Pawn]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='28 October 2009 - 03:01 PM' timestamp='1256752908' post='1992810']
i think i address King's main concerns. i admit it does close out some business and deny some jobs. but on balance it's better.[/quote]

I can't imagine why it would be better, even from a practical standpoint, for you and I to use force to deny a person from selecting what they consider to be the best of their options. But my objections are primarily moral. You say "I admit it does close out some business and deny some jobs" like that's not big deal. But is a big deal because what you're basically advocating is that some politicians should send men with guns around the country and throw people in prison in order to close businesses and deny jobs. I can't fathom what economic good you think comes of this, but it's the cruelty and the violence I object to.

[rkwright]

[quote name='King's Rook's Pawn' date='28 October 2009 - 03:57 PM' timestamp='1256763471' post='1992910']
My point was that the fetus's rights are being violated. That's the key. Illegality should only apply to violations of rights, which I would describe trespasses against the natural authority of each individual over their own mind, their own body, and their own legitimately obtained property. A private decision between two people might "affect society" in some indirect sense, but that doesn't mean it violates another person's rights.



Just because something is immoral doesn't mean it should be illegal. Illegality should only apply questions of justice, in which one person violates the rights of another person. And when an armed enforcer breaks down the door of an innocent man, points a gun at him, and throws him in a cage, on the basis that he's violating his "dignity," is that not itself violating his dignity? A society of armed vice police throwing people into cages when they don't do what President So-and-So likes is very undignified, turning citizens into slaves.



It's one and the same; if President So-and-So deigns himself King of Contracts and starts breathing down the neck of people entering into voluntary agreements, he's infantilizing them while setting himself up as an omniscient god-king. If he really respected the dignity of the person, he'd allow every person the freedom to make their own choices, provided they don't violate the rights of another.



That's true, but the economy can not be disconnected from what it is: the voluntary interactions between individual human beings. In Nihil Obstat's example, there was a clear violation of human rights. But we should not use the fact that "the economy is not a proper end in and of itself" as excuse to impose ourselves into the voluntary interactions of others, thinking that we know better than they do how to make their choices and threatening them with violence if they resist. That's incredibly proud and arrogant, not to mention extremely aggressive.
[/quote]

Why if an action is voluntary does it suddenly get some sort of special protection? If two people voluntarily enter a contract for one to kill the other out of mercy, do we "know" better than them? Of course. If two people voluntarily enter a contract for sex, do we know better than them? Yes. Voluntary contracts for drugs... voluntary agreements for marriage, including gay marriage... what about products liability? what if every car manufacturer decided to stop putting seat belts in their cars. Should we respect the voluntary agreements for purchase of those?

If a business decides its going to pay its workers .25 cents an hour because thats what they get in china, do we know better than them?

You've turned this into a relativistic setting, where as long as you enter into the contract voluntarily no one can judge it.

[King's Rook's Pawn]

[quote name='rkwright' date='28 October 2009 - 09:20 PM' timestamp='1256775627' post='1992973']
Why if an action is voluntary does it suddenly get some sort of special protection? If two people voluntarily enter a contract for one to kill the other out of mercy, do we "know" better than them? Of course. If two people voluntarily enter a contract for sex, do we know better than them? Yes. Voluntary contracts for drugs... voluntary agreements for marriage, including gay marriage... what about products liability? what if every car manufacturer decided to stop putting seat belts in their cars. Should we respect the voluntary agreements for purchase of those?[/quote]

Immorality [i]does not equal[/i] illegality. We can judge these things as immoral, we can try to persuade people not to engage in them, we can argue that we know better. But we CAN'T put a gun to someone's head and threaten to shoot them or lock them in a cage. That is not a "special protection"; it is the [i]minimal[/i] requirement for justice. We do not have that authority. No human being does. No group of human beings does.

Shall we force everyone to convert, be baptized, attend Mass, and go to confession at the point of a gun? If we don't do so, does that make us "relativists"?

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='King's Rook's Pawn' date='28 October 2009 - 05:05 PM' timestamp='1256763906' post='1992915']
I can't imagine why it would be better, even from a practical standpoint, for you and I to use force to deny a person from selecting what they consider to be the best of their options. But my objections are primarily moral. You say "I admit it does close out some business and deny some jobs" like that's not big deal. But is a big deal because what you're basically advocating is that some politicians should send men with guns around the country and throw people in prison in order to close businesses and deny jobs. I can't fathom what economic good you think comes of this, but it's the cruelty and the violence I object to.
[/quote]

it seems like you're just hung up on making it known that this all equates to cruelty and violence. it's known. that's the way things are with any law, though. it's like.. would you rather have poverty and exploitation? obviously we have differences of opinion on waht would happen if there wre no minimum wage laws. i think history has shown that without it, people not just at the minimum get only that, it's worse than the mere possibility of cruelty and violence to business owners- in actuality people are being made into poverty and exploitation.
in your world, it's better without the minimum, so there's no bones about it.
if it were granted that poverty would exist etc, though you maynot think it exploitation, would you still be on your pedestal about cruelty and violence?

[Nihil Obstat]

Dairy brought to mind I question I'd like to put to you:

In the early stages of the Industrial Revolution, there were very little laws regulating anything in the industrial sector. Common thought is that the system was rampant with abuse in the form of dangerous conditions, unlivable wages, squalid housing complexes, and abuse towards workers, including children workers. How would you respond to those who assert that some government intervention was necessary to ensure a minimum of dignity in this society?

[King's Rook's Pawn]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='29 October 2009 - 12:42 AM' timestamp='1256787727' post='1993130']
it seems like you're just hung up on making it known that this all equates to cruelty and violence. it's known. that's the way things are with any law, though. it's like.. would you rather have poverty and exploitation? obviously we have differences of opinion on waht would happen if there wre no minimum wage laws. i think history has shown that without it, people not just at the minimum get only that, it's worse than the mere possibility of cruelty and violence to business owners- in actuality people are being made into poverty and exploitation.
in your world, it's better without the minimum, so there's no bones about it.
if it were granted that poverty would exist etc, though you maynot think it exploitation, would you still be on your pedestal about cruelty and violence?
[/quote]

Let's forget that term "exploitation." Every time I've heard it used, its intent is obscure whether an activity is aggressive or voluntary. As I've already stated, employment is an act of voluntary trade (labor for money) between two human beings. Therefore, it's not aggressive. So instead you say it's "exploitative." A meaningless term. Let's stop infantilizing other human beings by trying to impose ourselves on their voluntary choices.

As for poverty, price and wage controls create poverty. As I already stated, minimum wage floor cripple the competitive of primarily young, unskilled laborers, preventing them from gaining work experience for later in life. The fruits of aggression are always bad: poverty, war, social disintegration. Let's stop thinking we about good through aggression. We can't bring about anything but pain and misery, trying to herd our fellow human beings around at gunpoint.

And even if you [i]could[/i] bring about something positive through aggression (though you can't), it wouldn't matter because the ends don't justify the means. Nothing justifies injustice.