Is This Fair Criticism Of Libertarianism?

[Jollybear]

I didn't mention minimum wage, which varies around the country. If that is the minimum required to keep an employee in a given industry in a given area, then that is what they pay. If it requires more, then that is what they will pay. And minimum wage does not apply to all occupations.

Also, is it not possible to incorporate some libertarian ideas into a capitalist society without becoming a wholly Libertarian state?

I don't have a dog in the fight. I'm looking for input from you and others.

Your misunderstanding the point.

In the state of north carolina where i live, the minimum wage is $7 dollars and change. However most companies in North Carolina pay way over that requirement. They pay like 8, 9, 10, 11, 15 dollars an hour. Proving that the minimum wage law is not even needed to exist.

 

[Milton Platt]

Your misunderstanding the point.

In the state of north carolina where i live, the minimum wage is $7 dollars and change. However most companies in North Carolina pay way over that requirement. They pay like 8, 9, 10, 11, 15 dollars an hour. Proving that the minimum wage law is not even needed to exist.

Yes, I get that. But my point is that 8,9,10 dollars an hour is not necessarily a wage that affords a comfortable living and at the same time permits investing for one's retirement. It is a "just getting by" wage. It is the minimum those companies feel they can pay and still retain employees qualified to do those jobs. Those corporations did not sit down at a board meeting and decide the maximum they can pay. They did just the opposite.

However, there are also other industries which do not pay that well, and also the minimum wage law was not intended to set the highest pay, only the lowest.

But this is sort of a rabbit hole. I'm interested in hearing about the pros and cons of Libertariansm in general and the criticisms in the video in particular.

I appreciate your input, though. This is a component of the overall discussion.

I am not trying to either oppose or defend Libertarian ideas, just trying to air them out and get other's view points.

Revoltingist, for instance, proposed a blending of Libertarian concepts with the current system.

 

[Revoltingest]

Can you address the criticism in the video?

I could, but I don't intend to watch it.
Instead, I'm just conversing with posters here.

 

[Milton Platt]

What if you just added a pinch of libertarianism to some other system?
For example, Ameristan could benefit from waging fewer wars, &
eliminating military draft registration. You could call it "libertarian lite".

Yes, I think everybody is guilty of thinking in black and white terms. There is no perfect system.

 

[Milton Platt]

I could, but I don't intend to watch it.
Instead, I'm just conversing with posters here.

okay. No problem. I was just interested in your opinion.

 

[Revoltingest]

Can you address the criticisms in the video? Has Libertarianism ever been actually tried? Another poster mentioned Chile in the 70's. I thought that it was a dictatorship back then, but memory fades.

Actually, the poster mentioned "Chili", not Chile.
Btw, libertarian chili should typically has hamburger, kidney beans,
& stewed tomatoes, with a watery rather than thick sauce.

If you want a pure libertarian society, I don't know of any.
It would have both social and economic liberty.
Chile didn't have the former in that time period.
(Pinochet lasted from 74 to 89.)
And it lapsed from from the latter at times.
Ref....
Miracle of Chile - Wikipedia

It's hard to address the citing of Chile as troubled,
without saying why you believe it to be so.
(Different people will see different failures.)
If you have a specific result or policy criticism
regarding Chile, I'll consider it.

 

[Revoltingest]

okay. No problem. I was just interested in your opinion.

Seeing the video's front page, I sensed an annoying screed.
I try to avoid those.
(And I find Ayn Rand's visage frightening.)
And the good posters here are posing interesting questions.

 

[Jollybear]

Yes, I get that. But my point is that 8,9,10 dollars an hour is not necessarily a wage that affords a comfortable living and at the same time permits investing for one's retirement.

Yes, it can. If you live with a spouse or a room mate, both your incomes help pay the bills. This will afford a comfortable living and you can still plan a retirement.

It is a "just getting by" wage. It is the minimum those companies feel they can pay and still retain employees qualified to do those jobs. Those corporations did not sit down at a board meeting and decide the maximum they can pay. They did just the opposite.

How do you know thats what they did? How you know they didnt sit down and figure out the max they can pay?

Also, think about this for a moment, if the dam government would leave vusinesses alone and stop taxing the butt off them, perhaps the conpanies can afford to pay the workers even MORE.

But, no, government wants more money, yet then tell companies to pay workers more money too. Can ya get blood from an onion?

However, there are also other industries which do not pay that well, and also the minimum wage law was not intended to set the highest pay, only the lowest.

Which it should be set the lowest because if government is gonna set it hypothetically at 20$ an hour minimum wage, then they BETTER lower taxes on those businesses so they can afford to pay the workers that much money.

But this is sort of a rabbit hole. I'm interested in hearing about the pros and cons of Libertariansm in general and the criticisms in the video in particular.

Rabbit hole? This is a libertarian issue.

I appreciate your input, though. This is a component of the overall discussion.

Yes.

I am not trying to either oppose or defend Libertarian ideas, just trying to air them out and get other's view points.

Revoltingist, for instance, proposed a blending of Libertarian concepts with the current system.

Sure.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yea, ive thought about that, where a corporation wont give benefits or enough pay to there workers to live.

But, remember, libertarianism is freedom to do whatever you want except harm others.

If i was an employer and i hired a worker full time, who had a child and a house and a car that had debt to it, and i paid him $1 per hour, do you think he would survive? No, he would not be able to pay his bills. He would barely even have enough to pay for food for himself and his child. He would die. Then id have no worker. So its in my best interest to pay him liberally. Plus it shows on my part how much i appreciate and respect his help to build my business.

Absence of regulation <> freedom.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Your misunderstanding the point.

In the state of north carolina where i live, the minimum wage is $7 dollars and change. However most companies in North Carolina pay way over that requirement. They pay like 8, 9, 10, 11, 15 dollars an hour. Proving that the minimum wage law is not even needed to exist.

... or that the market could bear a substantial increase in the minimum wage?

 

[Jollybear]

Absence of regulation <> freedom.

Just because libertarianism uses the word "liberty" does not mean they mean liberty to do evil.

... or that the market could bear a substantial increase in the minimum wage?

Either way, it proves the minimum wage law is not needed.

 

[Revoltingest]

Just because libertarianism uses the word "liberty" does not mean they mean liberty to do evil.

Some people think libertarian = economic anarchy.
Instead, they should think of minarchy, both social & ecnomic.
Some regulation is useful. Just don't overdo it.

Have you noticed some thought bubbles over some posters' heads?
"Libertarian....hmmm....how can I hate it? Let me count the ways."
There's often more common ground than would appear.

 

[Milton Platt]

Actually, the poster mentioned "Chili", not Chile.
Btw, libertarian chili should typically has hamburger, kidney beans,
& stewed tomatoes, with a watery rather than thick sauce.

If you want a pure libertarian society, I don't know of any.
It would have both social and economic liberty.
Chile didn't have the former in that time period.
(Pinochet lasted from 74 to 89.)
And it lapsed from from the latter at times.
Ref....
Miracle of Chile - Wikipedia

It's hard to address the citing of Chile as troubled,
without saying why you believe it to be so.
(Different people will see different failures.)
If you have a specific result or policy criticism
regarding Chile, I'll consider it.

No criticism.....don't know enough to speak on the subject (as if that has ever stopped me before). I know at one time, Chile was one of the most (perhaps the most) economically stable countries in South America. But then, that's a low bar......

Thanks as always for your input......Whether or not I agree with you on a particular topic (I usually do) your comments are generally well thought out, and with a dose of humor tossed in for free.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Just because libertarianism uses the word "liberty" does not mean they mean liberty to do evil.

That's what it ends up meaning in practice, though.

 

[Revoltingest]

No criticism.....don't know enough to speak on the subject (as if that has ever stopped me before). I know at one time, Chile was one of the most (perhaps the most) economically stable countries in South America. But then, that's a low bar......

Thanks as always for your input......Whether or not I agree with you on a particular topic (I usually do) your comments are generally well thought out, and with a dose of humor tossed in for free.

Not entirely free.
I do occasionally expect posters to endure my poetry.

 

[Jollybear]

That's what it ends up meaning in practice, though.

No, thats NOT what it ends of meaning in practice. Absolutely not.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, thats NOT what it ends of meaning in practice. Absolutely not.

Ah - that settles it, then.

By all means, then: please tell me how libertarianism would prevent the evils of, say, company towns:

Company town - Wikipedia

... as one example for starters.

 

[Jollybear]

Ah - that settles it, then.

By all means, then: please tell me how libertarianism would prevent the evils of, say, company towns:

Company town - Wikipedia

... as one example for starters.

I remember we had a discussion on this in a past thread.

But, in anycase, the conpany town shoyld be allowed as LONG AS the people there are free to come be a part or free to go.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I remember we had a discussion on this in a past thread.

Right. And you didn't give a real response that time, either.

But, in anycase, the conpany town shoyld be allowed as LONG AS the people there are free to come be a part or free to go.

So you don't consider it evil to take advantage of vulnerable people as long as they can technically walk away, even if on very unfavourable terms?

If you were in a crappy job, but knew that your family would be evicted if you found a better one, would you feel particularly free?

Planned economies are okay, as long as it's a company that's doing the planning (for its own benefit)?

 

[Jollybear]

Some people think libertarian = economic anarchy.
Instead, they should think of minarchy, both social & ecnomic.
Some regulation is useful. Just don't overdo it.

Have you noticed some thought bubbles over some posters' heads?
"Libertarian....hmmm....how can I hate it? Let me count the ways."
There's often more common ground than would appear.

Right, some regulation is useful. Its amazing how some non libertarians think the regulations are not being overdone.

Alot of laws look good on paper, so why not make more they think. But, yhey dont think of the ramifications (a.k.a suffications) that they will entail in society. That ripple effect once the rock of laws hit the water of society.