Previous
1
2
3
4
5
6
Next

Read Discussion
Reply to All

1

Who decides? The state or the individual?

Forums: Philosophy, Political Philosophy, Government
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Well, JP, if you wish to assign to the minimum wage a weight in the equation which determines the cost to the consumer which is unrealistic, that's OK by me. When i was a kid in high school, before McDonald's appeared on the scene, burgers at the Sandy's were 15 cents. The minimum wage then was $1.25/hour. Burgers of the same type are now more than ten times that price, but the minimum wage is not $12.50/hour.

The most consistent inflationary factors since 1973 have been the cost of petroleum and switch to over-the-road transport from railroads to deliver consumer goods. The minimum wage has frequently not been raised for years on end, but inflation continues. It simply is not the powerful infaltionary factor you seem to wish to contend, and i strongly suspect that you make your claim as a result of an ideological position.

0 Replies

Set I'm not saying that it is the all encompassing reason for inflation that you think I am, but it is part of the cost of doing business and does factor into the cost of commodities.

Part of my claim is based on an ideological position and I make no bones about it. I would also like to point out, that while minimum wage is not at 12.50 an hour, there certainly have been call to make it that high... a postion that is also the result of ideaological positions.

0 Replies

The cause of dick-in-the-dirt poor working white America is spoken for exclusively by educated middle class people who grew up on the green suburban lawns of America. However learned and good intentioned, they are not equipped to grasp the full implications of the new American labor gulag -- or the old one for that matter. They cannot understand a career limited to yanking guts out through a chicken's ass for the rest of one's life down at the local poultry plant (assuming it does not move offshore). Being born working class carries moral and spiritual implications understood only through experiencing them.

0 Replies

By the way, JP, to give you a little perspective on the minimum wage and petroleum costs as inflationary factors--in 1973 the minimum wage was $1.65/hour, it is now $5.15. In 1973 (before the Arab-Israeli War, and the subsequent Arab oil embargo), petroleum sold on the spot market for from $1.80 and $2.00 per barrel--it recently hit an all-time high of $78.00 per barrel, roughly 40 times the 1973 pre-war price. It has dropped down to less astronomical levels right now, but, nevertheless, ask yourself which you would consider to be the most important inflationary factor.

0 Replies

I'm not denying that, set. But what would happen if you you were to double or triple the minimum wage? Do you deny that this would contribute to inflation as well?

0 Replies

Re: Who decides? The state or the individual?

joefromchicago wrote:

fishin wrote:
Calling lawmaking "mediation" is bending the concept to extremes.

Well, let's not get too caught up in the nomenclature. I only chose the term "mediator" because I couldn't think of a better term for something that inserts itself in media res in a contract negotiation. I could have called it an "intervenor" just as easily.

You could have chosen another term but I went with the common definition of the one you did choose.

Quote:

We have laws right now that limit one's ability to contract. Are those laws impermissible infringements on the liberty to contract?

Well, again we'll get into quibbles about words but - impermissble? No, not currently IMO. Excessive? Yeah, probably so in many cases.

I beleive the current status of our contract framework is that the authority to create laws derives from the Constitution (at both Federal and State levels.) and a component of any contract's validity is that it can not compel either party to violate any law. Since a change of law can force a change in (or make provisions unenforceable) any existing or future contract it seems to me that we have already moved away from the freedom to contract being any sort of significant right on par with the right against self incrimination, for example. It is now a right so dilluted that most people don't recognize it. Personally, I'd prefer to see this particular right elevated in importance.

Quote:

The motives or abilities of individual legislators are immaterial to the issue at hand.

Well, it was relevant until you decided that "mediator" wasn't the word you wanted. *shrugs*

0 Replies

Re: Who decides? The state or the individual?

joefromchicago wrote:

Thomas wrote:
I disagree with your premise: Just because Worker and Boss have chosen to join a political society, that doesn't mean they have chosen the state as the arbitrator of their disputes. They have merely chosen it as the protector of their lives, their liberty and their property.

But, in my example, they did choose the state to act as their "mediator." Furthermore, even if neither explicitly chose the state to act as the "mediator," they both "chose" (in a Lockean fashion) to abide by the decisions of the state.

Where does Locke say the state is entitled to make decisions about their their work contract? Where does Locke say individuals have to abide by every decision the state makes? I'm getting a sense you may be mixing up Locke and Hobbes here.

joefromchicago wrote:

Does every limitation on the freedom to contract destroy that freedom?

I wouldn't necessarily express it in such absolute terms as "every" and "destroy". But yes: on the margin, every limitation destroys some of their freedom of contract.

joefromchicago wrote:

For instance, suppose that, instead of negotiating a labor contract, Boss and Worker are negotiating the terms of a contract for Worker to kill Boss's wife. Is a law that prohibits such contracts destructive of either Boss's or Worker's freedom to contract?

Yes it is. But that's okay if the law is narrowly tailored to enforce the equal natural rights of Mrs. Boss, whose protection is a compelling state interest. If you can show me how the labor contract infringes on the natural rights of others in ways comparable to a hit job, I may change my mind.

joefromchicago wrote:

It's getting harder and harder for me to figure out your philosophical position, Thomas. You claimed elsewhere that you are a utilitarian, but here you adhere to a Lockean natural rights position. Now, it's true that, in the end, natural rights advocates and utilitarians often end up in the same place, but they get there by radically different paths. The two are fundamentally irreconcilable, and so adhering to both is not an option. One simply cannot be a natural rights utilitarian, any more than one can be a Christian atheist.

I don't think this last point is true. A Christian Socialist might be a good analogy for my position -- often they point in the same direction, sometimes they don't -- but a Christian Atheist is not. For example, I see no contradiction in believing that murder is inherently evil, that it's destructive of overall happiness, and that both are valid arguments for making it illegal. But your general point is fair: my moral convictions are not entirely consistent. When utilitarian and natural law arguments point in the same direction, as they usually do, I use them both with conviction. In the rare cases where they point in different directions, my moral compass admittedly doesn't work. In those cases, I have to fly by eyesight, which means I decide from case to case. I'm not sure this is one of those cases. That's why I concentrate on the natural rights side, which I find more interesting here.

joefromchicago wrote:

If he, nevertheless, decides to operate a business, and thus take advantage of the state's protections that permit him to remain in business, why is it improper for the state to expect Boss to adhere to certain standards that advance the state's interests as well?

It is never improper for the state to expect something. The question is what it may do if its expectation proves wrong. In this case, the state may refrain from awarding to Boss the medal of honor that it might otherwise have awarded to him. It may create a product label saying "worker-friendly company", specify work conditions for firms who wish to feature it, and prohibit Boss to display the label on his products. The state may decide to quit doing business with Boss's firm altogether. It may do all these things -- but it may not force boss at gunpoint to pay the higher wage. I agree with Max Weber that what defines a state is its socially accepted monopoly on violence. The permissible use of this violence is constrained to the protection of people's lives, liberty and property against force and fraud by others. A wage that disappoints the state's expectations does not rise to this level.

joefromchicago wrote:

As I mentioned above, one cannot consistently be both a natural rights libertarian and a utilitarian.

Maybe, maybe not. But enough about me -- what about your approach? Are you going to suggest one? Or do you just want to play Socrates, asking me questions and waiting until my arguments stumble over their own feet?

0 Replies

jpinMilwaukee wrote:

I'm not denying that, set. But what would happen if you you were to double or triple the minimum wage? Do you deny that this would contribute to inflation as well?

I do, to answer your earlier question. Prices rise when aggregate demand outgrows aggregate supply. Minimum wages, to the extent that they compel businesses to give workers a raise, make no difference to aggregate supply and are a wash for aggregate demand: Whatever extra money workers have more to spend, businesses have less. To the extent that minimum wages disemploy workers, they decrease aggregate supply (because workers are not working), but also decrease aggregate demand (because workers have no money to spend). As I said earlier, the changes all add up to zero.

0 Replies

The next saturday morning you're standing in line at walmart and the pot-bellied 40 something in front of you with the cart holding a case of Pennzoil 10W30, a case of Bud Lite and a case of ammo and he's wearing a Disneyland tshirt, pretend that you understand his plight. His father, an independent contractor (a janitor with no benefits be they health insurance, retirement, vacation/holiday) made 8$ an hour and prayed there would be enough hours on the clock to pay the heat bill. This slob in your lane at the check-out was never asked to join Skull & Bones, apply to Yale or, even apply to the community vocational college, the last book he read had drawings of a spotted dog and he remains a statistic in the debate between liberals and conservatives while remaining a dedicated christian conservative. He is called "the working backbone" of america (to his face) and yet, remains the most dissed human being in north america by every political faction. Locke you say? How very *****ing interesting

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

The next saturday morning you're standing in line at walmart and the pot-bellied 40 something in front of you with the cart holding a case of Pennzoil 10W30, a case of Bud Lite and a case of ammo and he's wearing a Disneyland tshirt, pretend that you understand his plight.

How would pretending to understand his plight make me support the minimum wage?

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

dyslexia wrote:
The next saturday morning you're standing in line at walmart and the pot-bellied 40 something in front of you with the cart holding a case of Pennzoil 10W30, a case of Bud Lite and a case of ammo and he's wearing a Disneyland tshirt, pretend that you understand his plight.

How would pretending to understand his plight make me support the minimum wage?

It wouldn't.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

Thomas wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
The next saturday morning you're standing in line at walmart and the pot-bellied 40 something in front of you with the cart holding a case of Pennzoil 10W30, a case of Bud Lite and a case of ammo and he's wearing a Disneyland tshirt, pretend that you understand his plight.

How would pretending to understand his plight make me support the minimum wage?

It wouldn't.

okay. How would truly understanding his plight (by your definition of "truly") make me support the minimum wage?

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

dyslexia wrote:
Thomas wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
The next saturday morning you're standing in line at walmart and the pot-bellied 40 something in front of you with the cart holding a case of Pennzoil 10W30, a case of Bud Lite and a case of ammo and he's wearing a Disneyland tshirt, pretend that you understand his plight.

How would pretending to understand his plight make me support the minimum wage?

It wouldn't.

okay. How would truly understanding his plight (by your definition of "truly") make me support the minimum wage?

Again, it wouldn't, what I posted really has nothing to do with the minimum wage laws and much to do with philosophising about the human condition while observing it from a Boeing 747.

0 Replies

jpinMilwaukee wrote:

I'm not denying that, set. But what would happen if you you were to double or triple the minimum wage? Do you deny that this would contribute to inflation as well?

We weren't talking about doubling or tripling the minimum wage, we spoke or a rise of $2.00 or $3.00. I wouldn't deny that tripling the minimum wage (and remember, the Federal minimum wage right now is only $5.15/hour) would have a significant impact. However, even if that had been the case, petroleum prices have increased more than 30 times the 1973 cost, while the minimum wage has more than tripled since 1973. It still would seem to me that the effect of the increase pales into meaninglessness in comparison to the increase in prices entailed in the rise of the cost of crude oil, and the transport of consumer goods by over-the-road transport rather than railroads.

0 Replies

The Census Bureau keeps numbers on the working poor. Universities conduct studies and economists rattle off statistics. If studies and numbers alone could solve the problem of working poverty, then rip-off check cashing would not be one of the hottest franchises in the country and Manpower would not be our largest employer. Yes, and if a bullfrog had wings it wouldn't bump its ass. Reason and social science are not cutting it, and numbers cannot describe the soul and character of a people. Those same ones who smell like an ashtray in the checkout line, devour a carton of Little Debbies at a sitting and praise Jesus for every goddam wretched little daily non-miracle.

0 Replies

Re: Who decides? The state or the individual?

Thomas wrote:

Where does Locke say the state is entitled to make decisions about their their work contract? Where does Locke say individuals have to abide by every decision the state makes? I'm getting a sense you may be mixing up Locke and Hobbes here.

I'm not sure if Locke says anything specifically about work contracts, but he does say a fair amount about obedience to the state:

Sect. 150. In all cases, whilst the government subsists, the legislative is the supreme power: for what can give laws to another, must needs be superior to him; and since the legislative is no otherwise legislative of the society, but by the right it has to make laws for all the parts, and for every member of the society, prescribing rules to their actions, and giving power of execution, where they are transgressed, the legislative must needs be the supreme, and all other powers, in any members or parts of the society, derived from and su bordinate to it.Now, of course, Locke argues that the state cannot take property away from the people without their consent, but his definition of "consent" is as I have described it before:

Sect. 140. It is true, governments cannot be supported without great charge, and it is fit every one who enjoys his share of the protection, should pay out of his estate his proportion for the maintenance of it. But still it must be with his own consent, i.e. the consent of the majority, giving it either by themselves, or their representatives chosen by them....Thus, Locke clearly views "consent" as a willing acquiescence to the state (I copied these sections from this online version of the Second Treatise).

Thomas wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
Does every limitation on the freedom to contract destroy that freedom?

I wouldn't necessarily express it in such absolute terms as "every" and "destroy". But yes: on the margin, every limitation destroys some of their freedom of contract.

joefromchicago wrote:
For instance, suppose that, instead of negotiating a labor contract, Boss and Worker are negotiating the terms of a contract for Worker to kill Boss's wife. Is a law that prohibits such contracts destructive of either Boss's or Worker's freedom to contract?

Yes it is. But that's okay if the law is narrowly tailored to enforce the equal natural rights of Mrs. Boss, whose protection is a compelling state interest. If you can show me how the labor contract infringes on the natural rights of others in ways comparable to a hit job, I may change my mind.

That's fine. I just wanted to see how far you were willing to take the freedom to contract.

Thomas wrote:

It is never improper for the state to expect something. The question is what it may do if its expectation proves wrong.

"Wrong" in what sense? In a natural rights sense, or in a utilitarian sense?

Thomas wrote:

In this case, the state may refrain from awarding to Boss the medal of honor that it might otherwise have awarded to him. It may create a product label saying "worker-friendly company", specify work conditions for firms who wish to feature it, and prohibit Boss to display the label on his products. The state may decide to quit doing business with Boss's firm altogether. It may do all these things -- but it may not force boss at gunpoint to pay the higher wage.

But, as you yourself pointed out before, Boss isn't forced to pay any wage at all, since he always has the option of not employing anyone.

Thomas wrote:

I agree with Max Weber that what defines a state is its socially accepted monopoly on violence. The permissible use of this violence is constrained to the protection of people's lives, liberty and property against force and fraud by others. A wage that disappoints the state's expectations does not rise to this level.

According to whom?

Thomas wrote:

Maybe, maybe not. But enough about me -- what about your approach? Are you going to suggest one? Or do you just want to play Socrates, asking me questions and waiting until my arguments stumble over their own feet?

I am, by nature, an anarcho-pessimist. I believe that no government can be just, but that people, left to themselves, would exterminate each other in a Hobbesian bellum omnium contra omnes. Admittedly, shedding about 80% of the population would cause me but a manageable amount of grief, but the loss of the remaining 20% would be very hard indeed.

Consequently, if the inherent evil of human nature forces us into the unhappy expedient of the state, I suppose we should have the most just state. I am inclined, in that instance, to agree with John Rawls's approach. We should have the kind of government that we'd all agree to if we knew nothing of our own interests. Would a Rawlsian government permit minimum wage/maximum hour legislation? I'm pretty sure that it would.

0 Replies

0 Replies

Re: Who decides? The state or the individual?

joefromchicago wrote:

I'm not sure if Locke says anything specifically about work contracts, but he does say a fair amount about obedience to the state

Fair enough. None of these two sections convinces me that minimum wage laws fall within the limited scope of legitimate violence that government has according to Locke. But you have convinced me that, after the government has violated Boss's rights, Locke thinks Boss has no remedy but to try to get a different legislature elected. Unlike later thinkers in his tradition (such as Blackstone), Locke does not appear to discuss legitimate grounds for civil disobedience, rebellion, and the like. But just because minorities can't do anything when the majority makes the state transgress against their rights, that doesn't mean these transgressions are okay. They are still violations of natural law.

joefromchicago wrote:

Thomas wrote:
It is never improper for the state to expect something. The question is what it may do if its expectation proves wrong.

"Wrong" in what sense? In a natural rights sense, or in a utilitarian sense?

"Wrong" in the sense of mistaken. As in: "Ted Kennedy expected Boss to pay $7/h; boss actually paid $5. Hence, Ted Kennedy erred in his expectation about boss."

joefromchicago wrote:

Thomas wrote:
[...] It may do all these things -- but it may not force boss at gunpoint to pay the higher wage.

But, as you yourself pointed out before, Boss isn't forced to pay any wage at all, since he always has the option of not employing anyone.

Let me revise my sentence then: "The government must not force Boss at gunpoint to pay a higher wage to Worker, or to lay him off, or not to hire him in the first place, or to do any choice of those three."

joefromchicago wrote:

Thomas wrote:
I agree with Max Weber that what defines a state is its socially accepted monopoly on violence. The permissible use of this violence is constrained to the protection of people's lives, liberty and property against force and fraud by others. A wage that disappoints the state's expectations does not rise to this level.

According to whom?

The permissible use of this violence is constrained (...) according to Locke: He says natural law, in a state of nature, allows Worker to thwart any attempts of Boss to actively kill him. But it allows him no more retaliation than is necessary to protect his "life, health, liberty, and possessions" (Second Treatise, sections 6 and 7). Boss's low-wage job offer does not transgress against any of these. Worker can either take the offer and be better off, or he can leave it and be off the same as before. Either way, Boss does not violate any of Worker's rights. Hence, the law of nature gives Worker no rightful power to retaliate against Boss's low-wage job offer in a state of nature. When Worker leaves the state of nature and subjects himself to a government, he surrenders to it all rightful power of punishment that he had in the state of nature (Section 130). But he cannot surrender to government any righful powers that he didn't previously have (section 135). Summing up, Boss violated none of Worker's natural rights by making him a low-wage job offer; Worker had nothing to rightfully punish Boss for. Because Worker had no such right, he couldn't transfer it to government when he left the state of nature. It follows that under Locke's Natural Law, government cannot rightfully punish Boss for not paying worker a minimum wage.

Thomas wrote:

I am inclined, in that instance, to agree with John Rawls's approach. We should have the kind of government that we'd all agree to if we knew nothing of our own interests. Would a Rawlsian government permit minimum wage/maximum hour legislation? I'm pretty sure that it would.

I, on the other hand, am pretty sure that it wouldn't. Remember that Rawls's government ends up maximizing the economic welfare of the worst-off. Which stakeholder is the worst off under minimum wage regulations? Not the employers: We can safely assume they are richer than the workers who work for them, or whom they lay off. Not the workers who get a raise, either. The worst-off stakeholders in minimum wage legislation are those workers who get laid off, their employers no longer finding it profitable to employ them. I'm certain Rawls's governement would enact other methods of income redistribution. Examples might include a progressive income tax or the Earned Income Tax Credit. As an individual citizen, Rawls probably has voted for politicians who raised the minimum wage. But if you test the minimum wage against Rawls's philosophy, it fails it, just as it fails the Lockean test.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

Reason and social science are not cutting it, and numbers cannot describe the soul and character of a people.

If that is a problem for you, maybe you shouldn't waste your time in a thread about reason and social science. Maybe you should start your own, more anecdotal thread about the working poor instead.

0 Replies

Re: Who decides? The state or the individual?

Thomas wrote:

Fair enough. None of these two sections convinces me that minimum wage laws fall within the limited scope of legitimate violence that government has according to Locke. But you have convinced me that, after the government has violated Boss's rights, Locke thinks Boss has no remedy but to try to get a different legislature elected. Unlike later thinkers in his tradition (such as Blackstone), Locke does not appear to discuss legitimate grounds for civil disobedience, rebellion, and the like. But just because minorities can't do anything when the majority makes the state transgress against their rights, that doesn't mean these transgressions are okay. They are still violations of natural law.

Locke does talk about rebellion, but civil disobedience wasn't something that was in anyone's contemplation in Locke's time.

Thomas wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
Thomas wrote:
It is never improper for the state to expect something. The question is what it may do if its expectation proves wrong.

"Wrong" in what sense? In a natural rights sense, or in a utilitarian sense?

"Wrong" in the sense of mistaken. As in: "Ted Kennedy expected Boss to pay $7/h; boss actually paid $5. Hence, Ted Kennedy erred in his expectation about boss."

Well, then I don't know what happens when the state is wrong in that sense. Maybe it apologizes?

Thomas wrote:

Let me revise my sentence then: "The government must not force Boss at gunpoint to pay a higher wage to Worker, or to lay him off, or not to hire him in the first place, or to do any choice of those three."

That's a rather broad interpretation of "force," isn't it? People choose courses of action that have expected legal consequences all the time, but we typically don't say that those people are "forced" to accept those consequences. If Boss is operating a business in a state that has minimum wage/maximum hour legislation, he has already accepted the fact that he will have to abide by those laws when he hires Worker. Indeed, he accepted that fact the moment that he decided to start his business.

Furthermore, just how much "force" is the state permitted to apply? For instance, suppose the state passed a law that required Boss to pay Worker something -- in other words, the law would prohibit an employer from not paying an employee at all. All Boss would need to do in order to comply with the law, then, would be to pay Worker one cent in wages. Is that "forcing" Boss to pay a higher wage to Worker, given that Boss would, in the best of all possible Boss-worlds, prefer to pay Worker nothing? And if that's "force," is that a permissible level of force for the state to exert?

Thomas wrote:

The permissible use of this violence is constrained (...) according to Locke: He says natural law, in a state of nature, allows Worker to thwart any attempts of Boss to actively kill him. But it allows him no more retaliation than is necessary to protect his "life, health, liberty, and possessions" (Second Treatise, sections 6 and 7). Boss's low-wage job offer does not transgress against any of these. Worker can either take the offer and be better off, or he can leave it and be off the same as before. Either way, Boss does not violate any of Worker's rights. Hence, the law of nature gives Worker no rightful power to retaliate against Boss's low-wage job offer in a state of nature. When Worker leaves the state of nature and subjects himself to a government, he surrenders to it all rightful power of punishment that he had in the state of nature (Section 130). But he cannot surrender to government any righful powers that he didn't previously have (section 135). Summing up, Boss violated none of Worker's natural rights by making him a low-wage job offer; Worker had nothing to rightfully punish Boss for. Because Worker had no such right, he couldn't transfer it to government when he left the state of nature. It follows that under Locke's Natural Law, government cannot rightfully punish Boss for not paying worker a minimum wage.

I'll have to think about this a little while longer.

Thomas wrote:

I, on the other hand, am pretty sure that it wouldn't. Remember that Rawls's government ends up maximizing the economic welfare of the worst-off. Which stakeholder is the worst off under minimum wage regulations? Not the employers: We can safely assume they are richer than the workers who work for them, or whom they lay off. Not the workers who get a raise, either. The worst-off stakeholders in minimum wage legislation are those workers who get laid off, their employers no longer finding it profitable to employ them. I'm certain Rawls's governement would enact other methods of income redistribution. Examples might include a progressive income tax or the Earned Income Tax Credit. As an individual citizen, Rawls probably has voted for politicians who raised the minimum wage. But if you test the minimum wage against Rawls's philosophy, it fails it, just as it fails the Lockean test.

There you go again, assuming that the only good is economic good. As I've mentioned elsewhere, minimum wage laws primarily address a sociopolitical problem, not an economic one. If those laws, therefore, don't satisfy the Rawlsian imperative to better the lives of the worst-off, maybe it's because your notion of "betterment" is too narrow.

0 Replies

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho

Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave

The Void and the Absolute Oneness of the Universe - Discussion by Relinquish

can we reconcile darkness in man with madness(lunacy) ? - Question by studentnorway

Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas

Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus

Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus

In the GRAND scheme of things, what matters? - Question by komr98

Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King

How can something come from nothing? - Question by ripple

Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz

Forums
» Who decides? The state or the individual?
» Page 4

Previous
1
2
3
4
5
6
Next

Read Discussion
Reply to All

Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/17/2025 at 08:02:40

▲ ▼