If you put in 8 hours/day every week, should you receive a wage you can live upon?

[feralkid]

Keep spouting your BS.



So you're an asshole? Just as I suspected. Stay on topic instead of resorting to attacks.

It is on topic, you dope. Who do you think hires the first responders?

 

[Incorruptible]

It is on topic, you dope. Who do you think hires the first responders?

No, You decided to use personal attacks and if you expect me to just take it then you're wrong.

 

[Tango]

What I do not want, is the government continuing to toy with minimum wage... Which is what this thread is about.

Not necessarily. There are other ways to insure that anybody who works 8 hr/day receives a enough money she can live on without touching the minimum wage (in fact, even without having one at all).

 

[feralkid]

No, You decided to use personal attacks and if you expect me to just take it then you're wrong.

Nice dodge.

 

[Lithium381]

It is on topic, you dope. Who do you think hires the first responders?

the oath is supposedly to protect the constitution but we know that's not happening.


oathkeepers

 

[spidey07]

It is on topic, you dope. Who do you think hires the first responders?

The local city or county government.

That means I am their boss, I sign their paycheck. I am their employer.

 

[Vic]

The local city or county government.

That means I am their boss, I sign their paycheck. I am their employer.

Reese Witherspoon, is that you?

 

[feralkid]

The local city or county government

Yeah, thanks...that was my point.

And no, you don't sign their checks; another government employee does.

 

[Victorian Gray]

It's disgusting (but not surprising) that leftists believe that the act of two individuals trading, one of the most basic concepts of human interaction, exists only because others allow it to exist.

I can just see the leftwing cavemen standing around, watching as the rightwing cavemen were trading , and deciding that it wasn't fair that they be allowed to trade their berries and sharpened sticks without giving some of their berries and sticks to the cavemen who sat around all day doing nothing.

The left is little more than the mob demanding protection money.

And what I find disgusting about *anyone* (not just 'leftists') are people who don't have any concept of history and the development of human society and refuse to even bother educating themselves.

 

[Victorian Gray]

He gave us PHONES and he gona do MORE!

Yo werd up, you mean those fly Reagan phones what 'chew thinkin' man?

 

[Victorian Gray]

Trust me, libertarians are even less interested in having the government protect PRIVATE property.

Hmm. Wonder what the following is from?

"We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life -- accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action -- accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property -- accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation."

http://www.lp.org/platform

 

[Zaap]

(3) the right to property -- accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation."

http://www.lp.org/platform

I assume you're reading the second half of that statement as wanting the government itself to protect property.

Taken in context with most of the rest of the Libertarian Party platform (which if you notice is virtually all about what the government should NOT do, rather than what it MUST do) it's more likely they're advocating for laws that allow individuals to protect one's own property from robbery, trespass, fraud etc.

There's a huge gulf between believing in having laws that say "You can't steal from me, or commit fraud against me, without me having legal recourse" and saying, "The government itself must protect my private property."

When I see a sign on a fence that says "Trespassers will be shot" or perhaps mauled by dogs, I assume it means the owner of that property will be doing the shooting, (or sicking of the hounds) not a bunch of government officials.

Of course, I've never had chance to test this theory, as when I see a sign that says Keep Out with an implied undesirable consequence, I generally heed the advice.

 

[Victorian Gray]

I assume you're reading the second half of that statement as wanting the government itself to protect property.

Taken in context with most of the rest of the Libertarian Party platform (which if you notice is virtually all about what the government should NOT do, rather than what it MUST do) it's more likely they're advocating for laws that allow individuals to protect one's own property from robbery, trespass, fraud etc.

There's a huge gulf between believing in having laws that say "You can't steal from me, or commit fraud against me, without me having legal recourse" and saying, "The government itself must protect my private property."

When I see a sign on a fence that says "Trespassers will be shot" or perhaps mauled by dogs, I assume it means the owner of that property will be doing the shooting, (or sicking of the hounds) not a bunch of government officials.

Of course, I've never had chance to test this theory, as when I see a sign that says Keep Out with an implied undesirable consequence, I generally heed the advice.

Nice try.

"Libertarians want all members of society to have abundant opportunities to achieve economic success. A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society."

Source, same place.

 

[Zaap]

Nice try.

"Libertarians want all members of society to have abundant opportunities to achieve economic success. A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society."

Source, same place.

Protect property RIGHTS. Are you really so dense as to not understand that's exactly what I said?

I want a government to protect my rights not to have criminals or class-envy morons steal everything from me or anyone else. That's simply a benefit of rule of law. It doesn't mean I expect the government to guard my house litterally. It won't be federal agents that shoot you or sic dogs on you if you tresspass where that sign is up... just a legal system dealing with what's left of you.

Your stance is akin to beleiving that govenrment protecting free speech rights is saying you want government to speak for you.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Protect property RIGHTS. Are you really so dense as to not understand that's exactly what I said?

I want a government to protect my rights not to have criminals or class-envy morons steal everything from me or anyone else. That's simply a benefit of rule of law. It doesn't mean I expect the government to guard my house litterally. It won't be federal agents that shoot you or sic dogs on you if you tresspass where that sign is up... just a legal system dealing with what's left of you.

Your stance is akin to beleiving that govenrment protecting free speech rights is saying you want government to speak for you.

I'm sorry English is my first language, not Libertarianese.

Meanwhile back in the real world do you have a policeman stationed outside your house 24/7?

 

[Victorian Gray]

Protect property RIGHTS. Are you really so dense as to not understand that's exactly what I said?

btw, what's with attitude?

 

[Zaap]

Its pretty clear you don't actually understand what you read.

 

[fskimospy]

Its pretty clear you don't actually understand what you read.

Sorry guy, you're just wrong. Protecting property rights means protecting the ability of individuals to use, profit from, and sell property they own. How do you protect their right to do so? In one large part, by making sure nobody steals it.

The libertarian party platform is explicitly calling for the government to protect private property.

 

[destey]

sorry, libertarian ideals are not at all founded on the idea that government should protect property.

What specifically do you mean by "protect property?" Be specific..

 

[exdeath]

I'll take a controversial stance for the sake of discussion: I'll say that if you put in a solid 40 hours of honest work a week, you should be able to put food on your own table and a pay for a roof over your own head - no matter what your job title is. That would be the rule even for the least-paid but most-popular jobs such as retail salesperson, cashier, waiter or janitor.

Anybody can work 8 hrs a day and put food on the table.

But some can't also have 5 iPhones 3 PlayStation 4s a BMW and a plasma TV too like their neighbors and that's what all the moaning is really about.

The "poor" in America have no clue how well off they are compared to the rest of the world.

 

[Agent11]

Hmm. Wonder what the following is from?

"We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life -- accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action -- accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property -- accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation."

http://www.lp.org/platform

The police have no obligation to protect you or your property specifically. There have been court cases, it's already settled.

As for government employees they do work for us, the citizenry, although they seem to have forgot it. Maybe it has something to do with relying on bank loans instead of taxes for paying their salaries...

 

[Veliko]

Anybody can work 8 hrs a day and put food on the table.

But some can't also have 5 iPhones 3 PlayStation 4s a BMW and a plasma TV too like their neighbors and that's what all the moaning is really about.

The "poor" in America have no clue how well off they are compared to the rest of the world.

Neither do the wealthy.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

Neither do the wealthy.

Most wealthy people are keenly aware of how good they have it. Sure, some are stingy, or selfish, but perhaps that's how they ended up where they are. It's certainly no more selfish than a lazy poor person who is unwilling to work because they'd rather "make" $300 less per month by sitting around the house living off of the people who work.


And exdeath is absolutely right about the thought process of the "poor" in America. This is the only country where you get government subsidized obama phones, you get ~$200 per person for food, you get government assistance with housing, with finding transportation, with finding jobs (for those willing to work, anyway). edit: along with ~$1000 / month welfare check, plus housing waivers/vouchers, plus an easyt $3-4000 tax return if you have no kids $8000 with a couple of kids. And this is for people who pay NOTHING into the system. If you have a min wage job you get that PLUS every penny you pay into the system back at the end of the year.

This country has, by far, the easiest entrance for a poor/lazy person to support themselves. We pay all tuition for minorities and the majority of tuition for the poor to go to school, shit we even set up the interviews and fill out job applications.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

And the police absolutely do not have a "duty" to protect you or your possessions. There are plenty of stories of LEOs who were called to armed robberies, who wait outside for the bad guy to leave because they feel like it's too dangerous.

It has been repeatedly upheld that a LEO is free to use personal discretion regarding safety and whether or not they're personally willing to deal with a situation.

 

[Veliko]

Most wealthy people are keenly aware of how good they have it. Sure, some are stingy, or selfish, but perhaps that's how they ended up where they are. It's certainly no more selfish than a lazy poor person who is unwilling to work because they'd rather "make" $300 less per month by sitting around the house living off of the people who work.

If they really were so keenly aware, they wouldn't be so stingy and selfish.

And exdeath is absolutely right about the thought process of the "poor" in America. This is the only country where you get government subsidized obama phones, you get ~$200 per person for food, you get government assistance with housing, with finding transportation, with finding jobs (for those willing to work, anyway).

This country has, by far, the easiest entrance for a poor/lazy person to support themselves. We pay all tuition for minorities and the majority of tuition for the poor to go to school, shit we even set up the interviews and fill out job applications.

If you think that the US is the easiest place for a poor person to survive in, you are incredibly deluded.