Minimum Wage Sucks Because

[Martin Hash]

You're not getting a monopoly on violence, champ. Not in this life.

That's some real skittle shitting right thur.

You're trying to restrict the definition of government too much. Government is there so you AND OTHERS can take advantage of opportunities to better yourself & your family. That comes in many forms, and all those OTHERS got needs too.

[Fife]

You're not getting a monopoly on violence, champ. Not in this life.

That's some real skittle shitting right thur.

You're trying to restrict the definition of government too much. Government is there so you AND OTHERS can take advantage of opportunities to better yourself & your family. That comes in many forms, and all those OTHERS got needs too.

Nay nay. Equal protection of the rule of law AND public goods inure to the benefit of ALL the citizens, by definition. No rackets, no mafia, no corpotacracy; no crooks acting under the color of "IT"S LEGAL" allowed.

[Martin Hash]

You're not getting a monopoly on violence, champ. Not in this life.

That's some real skittle shitting right thur.

You're trying to restrict the definition of government too much. Government is there so you AND OTHERS can take advantage of opportunities to better yourself & your family. That comes in many forms, and all those OTHERS got needs too.

Nay nay. Equal protection of the rule of law AND public goods inure to the benefit of ALL the citizens, by definition. No rackets, no mafia, no corpotacracy; no crooks acting under the color of "IT"S LEGAL" allowed.

Nice theory. You can tell how it's working out by polling The People with a technique called "voting."

[Fife]

Come and see the violence inherent in the system.

[SuburbanFarmer]

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?

[SuburbanFarmer]

You're not getting a monopoly on violence, champ. Not in this life.

That's some real skittle shitting right thur.

corpotacracy; .

Trademarked

[Speaker to Animals]

This "OMG state violence!!" red herring was fun, but back to the original point that Fife and others have spent two pages deflecting from:

Something that seems to go under the radar when discussing the dangerous paternalism of something like UBI, or any sort of state support, is that the system of currency we have now is paternalistic. Earned, given or redistributed, USD is just Monopoly money without the state. We are dealing with degrees of paternalism here.

Leaving aside every other consideration, monetary policy is a real, current issue, and it will have varying effects on different types wealth.

The fact is, America is already, basically, a post-scarcity society.

Serious question for other participants in this discussion, in an attempt to find some bedrock to work from.

Do we all pretty much agree that:

1: resources + rule of law = less total violence,

and

2: A good government is one that works the best for the most while doing the least?

[Fife]

Fuck me dude. Do you even read this stuff. He agreed that the state's only tool is violence/force/coercion, and I agreed with him.

[DBTrek]

Fuck me dude. Do you even read this stuff. He agreed that the state's only tool is violence/force/coercion, and I agreed with him.

No, he does not read. I also addressed HM's point about government being best "for most". Tackled the premise head on. But it didn't go the way StA wanted it to go (he's a fan of really bad ideas never being questioned) so obviously we're all just being assholes and never addressing anything, whine, whine, whine.

/shrug

[SuburbanFarmer]

This "OMG state violence!!" red herring was fun, but back to the original point that Fife and others have spent two pages deflecting from:

Something that seems to go under the radar when discussing the dangerous paternalism of something like UBI, or any sort of state support, is that the system of currency we have now is paternalistic. Earned, given or redistributed, USD is just Monopoly money without the state. We are dealing with degrees of paternalism here.

Leaving aside every other consideration, monetary policy is a real, current issue, and it will have varying effects on different types wealth.

The fact is, America is already, basically, a post-scarcity society.

Serious question for other participants in this discussion, in an attempt to find some bedrock to work from.

Do we all pretty much agree that:

1: resources + rule of law = less total violence,

and

2: A good government is one that works the best for the most while doing the least?

Pretty much correct. Real resources fell behind spending early in WW1. We decoupled from reality, and made monopoly money because we couldn't afford to build more crap. Since then, we've just invented more money-per-resource (inflation) to keep things going.

Scarcity of money doesn't exist, but scarcity of real wealth always will. This is why I said before that the pie doesn't change much. You can slap zeros all over it, but the real resources aren't expanding anywhere near as fast as imaginary ones (futures/options/capital/etc).

Re:

resources + rule of law = less total violence,

Depends on the submission of the populace to that law system - usually determined by the perceived fairness of it.

A good government is one that works the best for the most while doing the least?

Word games and semantics. A good government is whatever most citizens think is good. There is no objective "good", but there is "stable" and there is "accepted".