Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 22 of 32 FirstFirst ... 12 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ... LastLast
Results 421 to 440 of 634
  1. #421
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,107
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    "for the privilege of conducting business in Alabama" is self-explanatory and what you asked for. You don't want to pay the tax?...Take your business elsewhere.
    ahh.. is see.
    So, states can't pass unconst laws at all.

    How did you even find that law google "privilege to do business", and just post any law that uses those words and are not ruled uncons or challenged at all?

    Also, to be clear, I asked for a court ruling/reasoning that shared your approach. The key part being... the courts, for a legal opinion.
    To serve man.

  2. #422
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,638
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post

    How did you even find that law google "privilege to do business", and just post any law that uses those words and are not ruled uncons or challenged at all?
    Of course.

    I took it as common knowledge - that the people are in control of their communities and you can't just come in and do what you want - but of course things may be different in other parts of the country and some people have freedom on the brain and think they can do whatever they want.

    ---------- Post added at 12:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:52 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    If money magically appeared in our pockets and we could exclude transaction costs, you'd have a point. It doesn't and you don't.
    I believe we've been over this and it's a red herring, unless you believe that there should never be any transactions, ever.

    ---------- Post added at 01:13 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:57 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post

    Also, to be clear, I asked for a court ruling/reasoning that shared your approach. The key part being... the courts, for a legal opinion.
    Supreme Court? or what?




    "1.2.2 Objectives
    The Planning Board’s objectives are that:

    a. all sites within Winthrop for which development approval is sought under these Regulations shall be designed and developed in a safe, efficient and aesthetically pleasing manner;

    b. the arrangement of all uses and improvement should reflect the natural capabilities and limitations of the site as well ads the characteristics and limitations of adjacent property;


    c. the development should be visually harmonious as viewed from both within and from the outside site

    1.2.2 Evaluation Criteria
    The following objectives and criteria shall be used in evaluating all development proposals:
    a. insure that the development of additional housing and commercial buildings do not detract from the livability, scale, character or economic value of existing residential neighborhoods and commercial areas;

    b. encourage greater diversity of housing opportunities in Winthrop to meet the needs of a population that is diversified with respect to age, number of persons in household, and income levels;


    c. permit greater flexibility and design freedom in land development;

    d. encourage sensitively planned development by:
    1) promoting a high standard in the design of development sites and of individual buildings;
    2) preserving open space for conservation, outdoor recreation or park purposes;
    3) encouraging the preservation, and minimum disruption, of the existing natural features of land and minimizing impacts on environmentally sensitive areas;
    4) preserving, where applicable, historically or architecturally significant buildings or places;
    5) permitting different types of structures and residential uses to be combined in a planned interrelationship;
    e. facilitate a detailed review, by Town officials and by the public, of developments that either:
    1) have an impact on public facilities and services and on adjoining land, or
    2) are large enough to constitute a self-contained environment;

    f. promote the efficient and economical provision of public facilities such as utilities and streets;

    g. assure that the number of dwelling units or commercial buildings allowed will be compatible with surrounding land uses, and that traffic and public services will not be adversely impacted."



    "aesthetically pleasing manner" !!! I've got a business to run! Who cares what it looks like.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  3. #423
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,107
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    Supreme Court? or what?
    I originally said ANY.

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    "1.2.2 Objectives
    The Planning Board’s objectives are that:
    Quoting laws, does not remove my objection, because my objection is to the reasoning behind those laws.
    Again, no zoning law would be justified by the reasoning "you don't have a right to own property". or "you don't have a right to do with your property as you wish".

    No more than laws against slander mean that you don't have a right to free speech.

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    Of course.

    I took it as common knowledge - that the people are in control of their communities and you can't just come in and do what you want - but of course things may be different in other parts of the country and some people have freedom on the brain and think they can do whatever they want.
    Well, be surprised no more. No one is advocating anarchy here. You did seem to forward a kind of tyranny from the gov where the gov issues rights.
    That is the assumption you have to support. Not that laws exist. we all know they do.


    Quote Originally Posted by cowboy
    "aesthetically pleasing manner" !!! I've got a business to run! Who cares what it looks like.
    I really don't think you are up to addressing my actual objection or to produce the evidence needed to support your reasoning. You don't seem capable of seeing past the fact that laws exist, and look into the reasoning behind them, and see how none of them rely on the reasoning you have forwarded. Generally that rights flow down from the gov, and specifically that people have no right to commerce.
    To serve man.

  4. #424
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,620
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    But I blew this up when it was shown that the discrepancy was only due to the amount of time the employee had the money. The funds still existed and could have been invested by the company making it 187.68/187.68...so no loss of productivity.
    1) To which I replied if we are going to ignore the time it actually takes to make the money, then the company should get the $40 in revenue right away. correct? That returns the disequilibrium to the relative figures I stated earlier.


    2) What happens to Bob in month 4, when the company can't afford to pay the $50 wage?


    3) Why is the employer being hurt by the scenario morally acceptable? Would it be equally compelling to say that in scenario 1 "the loss is only to Steve's bottom line?"



    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Because appealing to others for their opinion - others with experience and familiarity with the game and its rules (maybe not experts) - is established in the human tradition. It forms the basis of democracy.
    Ok, how does this relate to our actual discussion though? How does the fact that we appeal to others to resolve a dispute mean that they should be involved in our initial setup of the game?


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Right, who determines what is espionage and what is speech?
    Generally those are terms defined via the emergent process of language. IE nobody determines what is espionage and what is speech. A court determines if a specific act becomes espionage by comparing the act to the definition, if that is what you mean.

    But let's say a court also made the definition. That doesn't really help your defense. The court also determines what is rape and what is sex. Does that mean sexual practice is a privilege? Is it permissible in your view to ban homosexual activity under this logic? If not, how are the arguments different?



    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    I'm desiring apples. Let's say I go to the market to look for apples and MT is there and he's produced turnips...which no one wants. I tell him I want apples and that if he has them tomorrow I'll buy them. He goes back to his farm and picks apples to return the next day.
    When you went to the market and found that MT had only turnips, what had you planned to trade for the apples? You needed to produce whatever that was before you set out for the market right? Hence you needed to create a supply of something to trade in order to go to the market and express your demand, correct?

    You'll notice that Say didn't say that "Production guarantees demand" he said that production is necessary for demand.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Sure, because all of the progressivism since the enlightenment, including the American Revolution,
    If you think the American Revolution was progressive I don't think you understand the definition or historicity of one of those two movements.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  5. #425
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,375
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    I believe we've been over this and it's a red herring, unless you believe that there should never be any transactions, ever.
    You never demonstrated it was a red herring. I believe people agree to transactions when it is in their best interests to do so. You believe in forcing someone to perform a transaction and pretend like there is no cost to that transaction (i.e. we can magically take money out of someone's pocket and put into someone else's pocket without losing any value).
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  6. #426
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,638
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    1) To which I replied if we are going to ignore the time it actually takes to make the money,
    Why is that any of the employees concern? They have the funds (which they can invest) or they have the product on the shelves or in the warehouse, when it sells is irrelevant...it can sell instantaneously (think pre-orders) or take all month...neither of which is the employees fault or problem.

    ---------- Post added at 02:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:25 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    You never demonstrated it was a red herring. I believe people agree to transactions when it is in their best interests to do so. You believe in forcing someone to perform a transaction and pretend like there is no cost to that transaction (i.e. we can magically take money out of someone's pocket and put into someone else's pocket without losing any value).
    Either way there is a cost so it's a wash.

    ---------- Post added at 02:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:25 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    Ok, how does this relate to our actual discussion though? How does the fact that we appeal to others to resolve a dispute mean that they should be involved in our initial setup of the game?
    Because as an established way of doing things they naturally are a part, even if they aren't.

    ---------- Post added at 02:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:27 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post



    If you think the American Revolution was progressive I don't think you understand the definition or historicity of one of those two movements.
    I'll do you one better, Magna Carta was progressive...favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters:

    ---------- Post added at 02:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:30 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Generally that rights flow down from the gov, and specifically that people have no right to commerce.
    Well, no, I didn't say that. People empower their government - establish a zoning board and ordinances, say - and that is used to curb people's ability to do commerce.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  7. #427
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,375
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Either way there is a cost so it's a wash.
    Not a wash. You are transacting money where one party receives nothing of value. That transaction cost has to be absorbed somewhere and you have not created any value by exchanging the money. When I move money from my pocket to a bank. There is a transaction cost. Right? I think we can both agree on that. The bank takes the money and invests it to make more money. I pay for the transaction and receive value based on my investment. So, the transaction cost is absorbed by the potential profit I can make from it. I think the adage, you have to spend money to make money sums this process up.

    In the case of an employee, an employer gives the employee money to receive some service or labor. The transaction has a cost, but it is absorbed in the potential investment. However, if you are asking me to send money to an employee without any expectation or potential of return investment, then I absorb the entirety of the transaction. That money's value has decreased the moment it left my hand. It is not worth the same as it did when it was in my pocket because it carries no potential for return profit. So, not only am I a bit poorer, having to hand over money which was not earned. I also have to absorb the loss of value based on the non-invested transaction.

    I understand what you desire here. You want people to live better. You want more value placed on humanity than on dollars and cents. We are approaching this from very different ideologies. There is only one thing I wish to impart here. You have this sense that employers are greedy and take advantage of others. Maybe that is true for some employers. It is no more true than generalizing that all poor people are lazy or inept. Just as you believe your approach shows compassion, so do I. I believe that capitalism is the most moral and humane system on the planet. Now, it is true, only one of us can be right. By deduction, one of us is wrong. However, what you can at least try to accept is that I desire a better world just as much as you do. I desire peace, happiness, and prosperity just as much as you do. Just because the road I take is different, does not mean I am heartless or cold or wish others to fail. I am an optimist and believe all people can succeed. I believe people can apply truth and logic to their lives without help or intervention. My position is one that people are inherently good. As such, we do not need government intervention by default. Regulations and rules are fine, but if they can be replaced by common sense, then they should be. Not all transgressions require draconian laws and all laws/regulations should be implemented in as minimalistic a fashion as necessary to ensure people may interact with each other freely and without the use of force. Again, the key here is where you see wealthy people as inherently evil or bad, I see all people as inherently good. All people from all walks of life. The next time you think we need some new regulation, just ask yourself. What if your premise is that people are good? Would we still need that regulation/law?
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  8. Likes Squatch347 liked this post
  9. #428
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,107
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    Well, no, I didn't say that. People empower their government - establish a zoning board and ordinances, say - and that is used to curb people's ability to do commerce.
    No, you did in fact say that. You said that people don't have a right to commerce, that it is a privilege.
    I have only ever challenged that reasoning directly. ... geez. your impossible.
    To serve man.

  10. #429
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,638
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Not a wash. You are transacting money where one party receives nothing of value.
    Says you.

    ---------- Post added at 01:02 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:49 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    No, you did in fact say that. You said that people don't have a right to commerce, that it is a privilege.
    I have only ever challenged that reasoning directly. ... geez. your impossible.
    "The narrowest definition of "to regulate" is to "make regular," that is, to facilitate the free flow of goods, but not, except in cases of danger, to prohibit the flow of any good. The Supreme Court has never accepted this narrow definition. From the beginning, Chief Justice John Marshall in Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) saw the power to regulate as coextensive with the other delegated powers of Congress. He declared: "This power, like all others vested in Congress, is complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations, other than are prescribed in the constitution."" Emphasis mine.

    I don't see any limitations in the constitution. It doesn't even specify any economic system.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  11. #430
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,620
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    But I blew this up when it was shown that the discrepancy was only due to the amount of time the employee had the money. The funds still existed and could have been invested by the company making it 187.68/187.68...so no loss of productivity.
    2) What happens to Bob in month 4, when the company can't afford to pay the $50 wage?


    3) Why is the employer being hurt by the scenario morally acceptable? Would it be equally compelling to say that in scenario 1 "the loss is only to Steve's bottom line?"



    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Why is that any of the employees concern?
    And why is that the Employer's concern? Why should he pay the employee before the employee has done their work? Traditionally, an employee isn't paid until the end of a pay period, right? So why should we accept your argument that the employee can invest that income during the month they are earning it?


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Because as an established way of doing things they naturally are a part, even if they aren't.
    How so? This didn't answer the question at all. How does their being called upon to adjudicate a dispute mean they should be there to set up the game?

    By established do you mean it is how it has been done in the past? Aside from being appeal to tradition and appeal to common practice fallacies, I'm not sure how this could be true because it is a hypothetical that we just set up a few days ago. How can it be an established way of doing things if we just made it up?

    I'm asking you to defend your position that those who arbitrate disputes are (or at least should be) parties to a contract. So far you've offered no such defense.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Right, who determines what is espionage and what is speech?
    Generally those are terms defined via the emergent process of language. IE nobody determines what is espionage and what is speech. A court determines if a specific act becomes espionage by comparing the act to the definition, if that is what you mean.

    But let's say a court also made the definition. That doesn't really help your defense. The court also determines what is rape and what is sex. Does that mean sexual practice is a privilege? Is it permissible in your view to ban homosexual activity under this logic? If not, how are the arguments different?


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    I'm desiring apples. Let's say I go to the market to look for apples and MT is there and he's produced turnips...which no one wants. I tell him I want apples and that if he has them tomorrow I'll buy them. He goes back to his farm and picks apples to return the next day.
    When you went to the market and found that MT had only turnips, what had you planned to trade for the apples? You needed to produce whatever that was before you set out for the market right? Hence you needed to create a supply of something to trade in order to go to the market and express your demand, correct?

    You'll notice that Say didn't say that "Production guarantees demand" he said that production is necessary for demand.



    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    I'll do you one better, Magna Carta was progressive

    1) Absolutely irrelevant to the point you made since the Magna Carta is not the American Revolution.


    2) Again, you seem to have absolutely no knowledge of what the Magna Carta or the English Civil War were about. The Magna Carta was about restoring the ancient rights and customs of the English people. It was the codification on the principle of English common law. It didn't transform anything so much as attempt to reign in the abuses of a king. Hard to call restoration of traditional rights and privileges, "progressive."

    Regardless, this seems a bit off topic.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  12. #431
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,375
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Says you.

    This isn't a rebuttal. I'll accept that you have no real argument and have conceded.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  13. #432
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,638
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    And why is that the Employer's concern? Why should he pay the employee before the employee has done their work? Traditionally, an employee isn't paid until the end of a pay period, right? So why should we accept your argument that the employee can invest that income during the month they are earning it?
    That's not what I said at all. The employer can invest that income during the month up until he pays the employee.

    ---------- Post added at 04:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:23 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    2) What happens to Bob in month 4, when the company can't afford to pay the $50 wage?
    Why wouldn't they be able to pay?

    ---------- Post added at 04:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:24 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    This isn't a rebuttal. I'll accept that you have no real argument and have conceded.
    Believe what you wish. I only read the first sentence which is what I generally do with your replies...read up to the first unsupported fact.

    ---------- Post added at 04:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:27 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    How so? This didn't answer the question at all. How does their being called upon to adjudicate a dispute mean they should be there to set up the game?

    By established do you mean it is how it has been done in the past? Aside from being appeal to tradition and appeal to common practice fallacies, I'm not sure how this could be true because it is a hypothetical that we just set up a few days ago. How can it be an established way of doing things if we just made it up?

    I'm asking you to defend your position that those who arbitrate disputes are (or at least should be) parties to a contract. So far you've offered no such defense.
    I already agreed that they weren't.

    As a part of the society in which we've agreed to make our contract, our contract is automatically covered under its laws or in our informal example our traditions. Although I'd argue that it goes far deeper than that as it is in our human nature to compete and to form consensus.

    So I sell you a motorcycle for cash that craps out the next day. You're still covered under our states lemon laws even though the government played no part in our transaction.

    ---------- Post added at 04:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:34 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    1) Absolutely irrelevant to the point you made since the Magna Carta is not the American Revolution.


    2) Again, you seem to have absolutely no knowledge of what the Magna Carta or the English Civil War were about. The Magna Carta was about restoring the ancient rights and customs of the English people. It was the codification on the principle of English common law. It didn't transform anything so much as attempt to reign in the abuses of a king. Hard to call restoration of traditional rights and privileges, "progressive."

    Regardless, this seems a bit off topic.
    I'm gonna skip this because you really are just pulling my leg now.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  14. #433
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,107
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by cowboy
    I only read the first sentence
    That explains sooo much.

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    I don't see any limitations in the constitution. It doesn't even specify any economic system.
    Here it is from your link.
    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    Marshall nonetheless saw that there is some commerce that Congress cannot reach: "The enumeration presupposes something not enumerated; and that something, if we regard the language or the subject of the sentence, must be the exclusively internal commerce of a State." Purely local activities, therefore, remain outside of the reach of Congress under the Commerce Among the States Clause.
    What I still must note, is that you have not shown that commerce is not a right of the people, and certainly you have not supported that the ability to do commerce is dictated down from the gov to the people.
    Instead, it appears to exist already and is something the state governs. So the state (here the fed) is governing the right to engage in commerce, it is not creating the right to engage in commerce.
    To serve man.

  15. #434
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,638
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That explains sooo much.
    Yes, he tends to preach.

    ---------- Post added at 01:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:22 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So the state (here the fed) is governing the right to engage in commerce, it is not creating the right to engage in commerce.
    I'll agree to that, though I don't think I ever disagreed, regardless, the power is absolute only depending on jurisdiction - according to your quote.

    So, back to the original problem:

    Asshole Corporation comes to town, buys a parcel of property and begins making it known that they intend to open a plant there. The populace gets wind of this, investigates AH Corp business practices and model and decides they don't want them in their town. (They held a special referendum and it was 100% against)

    They pressure their governance to block AH Corp progress through licencing, permits, easements, zoning ordinances, whatever. Maybe they even pass a new "No AH Corp" ordinance.

    What would be the constitutional challenge AH Corp would bring?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  16. #435
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,375
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Yes, he tends to preach.

    Says the guy arguing something he has proclaimed he does not understand...
    Last edited by Squatch347; December 17th, 2015 at 10:00 AM. Reason: You know better.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  17. #436
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,620
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    That's not what I said at all. The employer can invest that income during the month up until he pays the employee.
    Right, just like he could invest it completely if he never hired the employee right? So why is that fact an issue? How does that fact change the math offered?


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Why wouldn't they be able to pay?

    Look at the math in post 384.

    At the beginning of month 1, the employer has $100 in capital.

    At the end of month 1 he has $92.50

    At the end of month 2 he has $84.63

    Month 3: $76.36

    Month 4: $67.68

    Month 5: $58.56

    Month 6: $48.99

    So at that point he can no longer make payroll right? That means he has to fire Bob.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    But I blew this up when it was shown that the discrepancy was only due to the amount of time the employee had the money. The funds still existed and could have been invested by the company making it 187.68/187.68...so no loss of productivity.
    3) Why is the employer being hurt by the scenario morally acceptable? Would it be equally compelling to say that in scenario 1 "the loss is only to Steve's bottom line?"


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Right, who determines what is espionage and what is speech?
    Generally those are terms defined via the emergent process of language. IE nobody determines what is espionage and what is speech. A court determines if a specific act becomes espionage by comparing the act to the definition, if that is what you mean.

    But let's say a court also made the definition. That doesn't really help your defense. The court also determines what is rape and what is sex. Does that mean sexual practice is a privilege? Is it permissible in your view to ban homosexual activity under this logic? If not, how are the arguments different?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    I already agreed that they weren't.

    As a part of the society in which we've agreed to make our contract, our contract is automatically covered under its laws or in our informal example our traditions.
    That is what I pointed out was an "is/ought" fallacy. You are substituting the assertion that "it is that way" for the defense you needed to offer of why it should be that way.

    This particular issue is even more of a problem because several pages ago you already conceded that he government isn't a party to contracts in current law.

    So we are left with the conclusion that the government isn't a party to a contract under the law and that you've offered no rational defense for why it should be.


    So I'll have to wind back to the original question. What is the moral justification for abridging someone's right to make a labor contract?




    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    I'm desiring apples. Let's say I go to the market to look for apples and MT is there and he's produced turnips...which no one wants. I tell him I want apples and that if he has them tomorrow I'll buy them. He goes back to his farm and picks apples to return the next day.
    When you went to the market and found that MT had only turnips, what had you planned to trade for the apples? You needed to produce whatever that was before you set out for the market right? Hence you needed to create a supply of something to trade in order to go to the market and express your demand, correct?

    You'll notice that Say didn't say that "Production guarantees demand" he said that production is necessary for demand.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    I'm gonna skip this because you really are just pulling my leg now.
    I'm not even sure how to interpret that response. Feel free to start your own thread on that, but I think given the nature of my last response and the definition you offered, you have to concede this point intellectually. A treaty whose entire purpose was to reestablish the "ancient rights and customs" of the people of England can hardly be called progressive under the definition you offered.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  18. #437
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,107
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    I'll agree to that, though I don't think I ever disagreed, regardless, the power is absolute only depending on jurisdiction - according to your quote.
    You said you didn't see any const limitation.. I showed you one you missed.

    So, now that we clearly agree that the gov doesn't create the right to commerce, we see that the gov roll is to gov the existing right.
    What do you suppose the point of that gov is to be? As in, to what end?

    Is it
    A) To pick winners and losers, and to facilitate crony capitalism.
    B) To make sure businesses people don't like, which are otherwise lawful expressions of their personal rights, such as a turnip farmer selling his goods, are denied their rights.
    C) To protect the rights of all citizens equally, taking into account the effects of business action on the rights of others (Like a plant that produces a foul oder, effect on surrounding citizens).
    D) Other(explain)

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    What would be the constitutional challenge AH Corp would bring?
    That his plant didn't negatively effect them in any way.
    To the extent that point is valid, is the point which people are overstepping their use of the gov into tyranny of the majority, especially as their only motive would be that they don't like him personally.
    Lets hope he isn't a minority, because they are probably racist using the gov as a weapon.


    *Note* I'm not aware of the state level const statements on commerce.
    IE, if there are none, then we should assume there exists a right of the citizen to engage in commerce within the state




    **
    http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/project...tecommerce.htm
    List of examples of rulings regrading commerce between states.
    To serve man.

  19. #438
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,638
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post


    I'm not even sure how to interpret that response. Feel free to start your own thread on that, but I think given the nature of my last response and the definition you offered, you have to concede this point intellectually. A treaty whose entire purpose was to reestablish the "ancient rights and customs" of the people of England can hardly be called progressive under the definition you offered.
    The treaty itself is, since those ancient rights and customs didn't stand a chance without codification, did they? The US Revolution and the Constitution took it to the next level.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  20. #439
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,620
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    That's not what I said at all. The employer can invest that income during the month up until he pays the employee.
    Right, just like he could invest it completely if he never hired the employee right? So why is that fact an issue? How does that fact change the math offered?


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Why wouldn't they be able to pay?

    Look at the math in post 384.

    At the beginning of month 1, the employer has $100 in capital.

    At the end of month 1 he has $92.50

    At the end of month 2 he has $84.63

    Month 3: $76.36

    Month 4: $67.68

    Month 5: $58.56

    Month 6: $48.99

    So at that point he can no longer make payroll right? That means he has to fire Bob.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    But I blew this up when it was shown that the discrepancy was only due to the amount of time the employee had the money. The funds still existed and could have been invested by the company making it 187.68/187.68...so no loss of productivity.
    3) Why is the employer being hurt by the scenario morally acceptable? Would it be equally compelling to say that in scenario 1 "the loss is only to Steve's bottom line?"


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Right, who determines what is espionage and what is speech?
    Generally those are terms defined via the emergent process of language. IE nobody determines what is espionage and what is speech. A court determines if a specific act becomes espionage by comparing the act to the definition, if that is what you mean.

    But let's say a court also made the definition. That doesn't really help your defense. The court also determines what is rape and what is sex. Does that mean sexual practice is a privilege? Is it permissible in your view to ban homosexual activity under this logic? If not, how are the arguments different?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    I already agreed that they weren't.

    As a part of the society in which we've agreed to make our contract, our contract is automatically covered under its laws or in our informal example our traditions.
    That is what I pointed out was an "is/ought" fallacy. You are substituting the assertion that "it is that way" for the defense you needed to offer of why it should be that way.

    This particular issue is even more of a problem because several pages ago you already conceded that he government isn't a party to contracts in current law.

    So we are left with the conclusion that the government isn't a party to a contract under the law and that you've offered no rational defense for why it should be.


    So I'll have to wind back to the original question. What is the moral justification for abridging someone's right to make a labor contract?




    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    I'm desiring apples. Let's say I go to the market to look for apples and MT is there and he's produced turnips...which no one wants. I tell him I want apples and that if he has them tomorrow I'll buy them. He goes back to his farm and picks apples to return the next day.
    When you went to the market and found that MT had only turnips, what had you planned to trade for the apples? You needed to produce whatever that was before you set out for the market right? Hence you needed to create a supply of something to trade in order to go to the market and express your demand, correct?

    You'll notice that Say didn't say that "Production guarantees demand" he said that production is necessary for demand.





    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    The treaty itself is, since those ancient rights and customs didn't stand a chance without codification, did they? The US Revolution and the Constitution took it to the next level.

    Well, that doesn't fit your definition of Progressive as 426: "advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are..."

    The Magna Carta is explicitly about keeping things they way they are, right? That the existing privileges and customs be maintained and that "change" not be allowed to occur?

    I'm curious how you can see an appeal to tradition as progressive given that definition?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  21. #440
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,638
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Increasing the Minimum Wage hurts those most vulnerable in our society.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Look at the math in post 384.

    At the beginning of month 1, the employer has $100 in capital.

    At the end of month 1 he has $92.50

    At the end of month 2 he has $84.63

    Month 3: $76.36

    Month 4: $67.68

    Month 5: $58.56

    Month 6: $48.99

    So at that point he can no longer make payroll right? That means he has to fire Bob.
    "Bob in Month 1 gets paid $50. And in Month 2 he gets paid another $50 and gets $2.50 from his investment. His ending total is $102.50. So the total is 187.13."

    First of all, Bob is only investing $20 a month at %5...that same $20 is being invested at %5 whether it is being held by bob or his employer so it is a wash. You have it figured that it isn't invested the first month while the employer waits to pay bob.

    ---------- Post added at 12:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:37 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    Well, that doesn't fit your definition of Progressive as 426: "advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are..."

    The Magna Carta is explicitly about keeping things they way they are, right? That the existing privileges and customs be maintained and that "change" not be allowed to occur?

    I'm curious how you can see an appeal to tradition as progressive given that definition?
    Insecurity and instability to security and stability. Progress.

    ---------- Post added at 12:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:54 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    3) Why is the employer being hurt by the scenario morally acceptable? Would it be equally compelling to say that in scenario 1 "the loss is only to Steve's bottom line?"
    Why is the employer hurt? Because he's paying more than something's worth, right? You never overpaid for anything? Or underpaid? Assuming we are bound by those valuations, that is to say that we must follow them.

    ---------- Post added at 01:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:57 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post


    That his plant didn't negatively effect them in any way.
    To the extent that point is valid, is the point which people are overstepping their use of the gov into tyranny of the majority, especially as their only motive would be that they don't like him personally.

    They believe it does. Let's say they are pacifists and this plant makes weapons...or what about an abortion clinic!

    ---------- Post added at 01:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:01 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post

    Is it
    A) To pick winners and losers, and to facilitate crony capitalism.
    B) To make sure businesses people don't like, which are otherwise lawful expressions of their personal rights, such as a turnip farmer selling his goods, are denied their rights.
    C) To protect the rights of all citizens equally, taking into account the effects of business action on the rights of others (Like a plant that produces a foul oder, effect on surrounding citizens).
    D) Other(explain)
    Government is us, it is whatever we make it.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

 

 
Page 22 of 32 FirstFirst ... 12 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Minimum wage is better than nothing
    By Wolf Myth in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: June 28th, 2010, 10:50 AM
  2. Welfare vs. Minimum Wage
    By KevinBrowning in forum Politics
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: April 3rd, 2007, 01:59 AM
  3. Minimum Wage Hike?
    By market state in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: December 7th, 2006, 08:02 PM
  4. Minimum Wage
    By Dr. Gonzo in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: September 14th, 2006, 06:27 PM
  5. Minimum Wage
    By emtee10 in forum General Debate
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: October 22nd, 2004, 07:18 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •