Minimum Wage Sucks Because

[Speaker to Animals]

It's not at all. Because, if I say 'good government does most good for most people', then we have the Tyranny of the Majority, and 49% of citizens can be oppressed.

If I say 'good government does most good for all people', then clowns jump all over me for being a Marxist.

It's a word game, that can't be answered in absolutes.

We are not talking about oppression, though. That would entail a violation of the minority's rights.

There exists a category of things a government should not do and a category of things that a government should do. We are speaking of the latter category. You are appealing to a violation of the former category, which was not even argued.

One defines the other. All actions not prohibited by law are implicitly endorsed.

The Bill of Rights are not laws, though. They are constraints on laws themselves.

I would agree that the federal government, shit pile that it is, has done a great job of passing illegitimate laws to violate our rights, and the jackass Supreme Court just rubber stamps it. That doesn't make it right. What is says is that we don't have a good government.

Violating rights is what a government should not do.

We are discussing the realm of things that a government can legitimately do, and that maybe it should do. The argument is about whether the government should do something that we know it can do at some point in the future.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

I think addressing the rights and needs of all citizens is a fantastic rubric. That is only really excluded by the premise if you want to be really pedantic by saying that 'most' is, by definition, not all. If we changed it to 'works the best for all while doing the least' would it pass muster?

It would be an improvement, don't you think?

Honestly, it didn't even occur to me that anything would ever work the best for absolutely everybody. Seems too idealistic, but since the whole thing is shooting for maximum abstraction, I suppose that isn't really a concern.

Okay, premise two:

A necessary and proper government works best for all while doing the least.

:smug:

[SuburbanFarmer]

We are not talking about oppression, though. That would entail a violation of the minority's rights.

There exists a category of things a government should not do and a category of things that a government should do. We are speaking of the latter category. You are appealing to a violation of the former category, which was not even argued.

One defines the other. All actions not prohibited by law are implicitly endorsed.

The Bill of Rights are not laws, though. They are constraints on laws themselves.

I would agree that the federal government, shit pile that it is, has done a great job of passing illegitimate laws to violate our rights, and the jackass Supreme Court just rubber stamps it. That doesn't make it right. What is says is that we don't have a good government.

Violating rights is what a government should not do.

We are discussing the realm of things that a government can legitimately do, and that maybe it should do. The argument is about whether the government should do something that we know it can do at some point in the future.

From the government's perspective, they "should" do whatever they can get away with. That's why we no longer have a 1st or 4th Amendment, but millions of guns in the hands of citizens. Citizens didn't pitch a fit about their free speech or privacy, so those rights went away.

That's why I have that quote in my sig. It's pretty brilliant.

[Martin Hash]

I interpret "for the most" as "for all" as in public goods only. IOW, no "healthcare," no food, no private goods addressed by the state in any way, in as much as they cannot be "for the most," by definition.

Does that mean something different to any of you all?

If I had the monopoly on violence, I would take all your stuff, rape your wife, and eat your kids. I'm thinking Government is doing a much better job. They may take some of your stuff but your wife & kid are reasonably secure.

Would you Hash?

Or would you try to set up a general security with rules, and wind up where we are now?

I'd be a Benign Tyrant but you can't depend on it being me, which is why we use the current cock-eyed selection technique to choose government instead.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

I'd be a Benign Tyrant but you can't depend on it being me, which is why we use the current cock-eyed selection technique to choose government instead.

[SuburbanFarmer]

If I had the monopoly on violence, I would take all your stuff, rape your wife, and eat your kids. I'm thinking Government is doing a much better job. They may take some of your stuff but your wife & kid are reasonably secure.

Would you Hash?

Or would you try to set up a general security with rules, and wind up where we are now?

I'd be a Benign Tyrant but you can't depend on it being me, which is why we use the current cock-eyed selection technique to choose government instead.

You just said you'd eat my kids, man. I don't think I trust you anymore.

I'll vote for the shithead that said nice things instead.

[Martin Hash]

Would you Hash?

Or would you try to set up a general security with rules, and wind up where we are now?

I'd be a Benign Tyrant but you can't depend on it being me, which is why we use the current cock-eyed selection technique to choose government instead.

You just said you'd eat my kids, man. I don't think I trust you anymore.

I'll vote for the shithead that said nice things instead.

Dude, don't worry, I'll never be elected. (What were you thinking?!)

[DBTrek]

Did we get to the magic demiGod robot portion of the discussion yet?
The part where 20% of us work with our robot overlords creating goods and wealth, so the government can take that wealth and hand it to a growing 80% of non-productive citizens who in turn buy the products being produced?

No word on why anyone would voluntarily choose to be in the 20% of people creating wealth to be seized and distributed to non-productives, but we won't get hung up on glaring flaws just yet.

[I just Lurk]

He find an outlier therefor all x doesn't equal that

Naxalt is boomer cancer

Aren't you in Texas right now?
That's what's astounding to me.
If you're in Texas you should realize the divide in America isn't racial, it's ideological.
You should realize that there are more white people preaching a divisive SJW message than there are minorities looking to mess you up.
You should realize the actual threat to your "culture" isn't coming from any other skin tone but your own.

But I guess you're hooked on some dailystormer shit so you're letting their script mess with your perceptions.
Sad.

It's liberals that are the problem.

As the American people waged their struggles to grow, thrive, expand, and persist over the past three centuries - a struggle that they were extraordinarily successful in waging - they took numerous spiritual casualties. The struggle was cosmic in nature, and there were many American who, unfortunately, did not possess the requisite mettle to endure psychologically intact. These poor souls fell from the American Megadeus, broke off from the greater cultural entity. They lamented their separation from their parent organism, and they became voices of dissent and dissidence. They - the various pieces of cultural debris - became liberals.

The illegals are fueling the machinations. We do a fairly good job at fending them off here though it won't last forever.

And finally, those inhabitants of the American nation who are culturally alien to the American people are extremely susceptible to liberalism even when they are family oriented or possessed of a plethora of offspring. Indeed, recent immigrants often feel themselves as constituting a distinct cultural group separate from the American cultural Megadeus. Thus, they perceive the fortunes of their own children to be separate from the fortunes of the children of real Americans. And hence their susceptibility to liberalism, which seeks to weaken or destroy the American cultural organism. They instinctively perceive that the weakening of this greater American organism will provide ample room for their descendants to grow and prosper in this country at the expense of the offspring of We the People. Of course, after a generation or two - if assimilation is permitted- the children of immigrants will often come to identify themselves with the greater American cultural entity, but their immigrant parents are often too nearsighted to foresee this development. Thus, immigrants often seek protection from the liberal consensus and it's primary vehicle, the Democrat Party.

Megadeus reminds me of a megaduce.

[SuburbanFarmer]

I'd be a Benign Tyrant but you can't depend on it being me, which is why we use the current cock-eyed selection technique to choose government instead.

You just said you'd eat my kids, man. I don't think I trust you anymore.

I'll vote for the shithead that said nice things instead.

Dude, don't worry, I'll never be elected. (What were you thinking?!)

Just making the point that rhetoric matters. Our current Troll-In-Chief being cheered on by his sucker-erm 'supporters' is an example of why this is a problem.