Excaept you can't work for a dollar an hour because of minimum wage laws. Instead your only option is unemployment. You are the one introducing force when you tell someone else how much they must pay you or else you will call the police to throw them in jail.
You know what happens when you eliminate minimum wage laws? You get a country that looks a little like China. A lot like China, actually, when you factor in the assumption that you're also against all other labor laws in effect, as well. Those people don't have
to work eighteen hours a day for a dollar an hour, right? It becomes a race to the bottom and the only people who win are the people at the top.
In a competitive job market, pretty soon you have people offering to work for a pathetic fraction of what they could be because what incentive does the employer have to pay more than he needs to? Working for less money for longer hours suddenly becomes a chance to see who can debase themselves the most -- how is that a desirable alternative? I assume you're probably against welfare, but I don't see how the government could not
offer welfare if it eliminates minimum wage laws seeing as you can't live on a dollar an hour.
Just because you aren't qualified to get a high paying job doesn't mean you should be able to demand someone else pay you more money. Heres a good video about how Government interference in prices causes unemployment.
I never made this point.
I'm saying that a minimum wage is set to ensure that a person who is working for it can support a minimum standard of living. In case you haven't taken a look around lately, it actually still doesn't.
Living on minimum wage is damn near impossible, and you have neglected to mention the fact that employers aren't forced to hire people.
You don't think your applicants are worth minimum wage? Don't hire them. It's already a non-issue.
I was mainly arguing for the ethics of being allowed to make my own currency. As I pointed out in a previous post, I would get a felony and five years in prison for engaging in purely voluntary behavior. Your willing to commit violence against a peaceful person based on someones economic opinion. I would like you to actually support that claim that the economy will melt down if we have multiple currencies, but thats not even the main point of my argument. Its that in the really complex field of economics, you have an opinion so strong that you are willing to use violence to force it upon me.
Right. Because when you're issued a speeding ticket, you never speed again, right? Now imagine you got punched in the face repeatedly for every mile over the limit you were going.
Don't get me wrong, I'm hardly advocating for violence in the place of a speeding ticket, but I have to say, the way you're using 'violence' in this context is largely unsettling. The police aren't kicking in your door, tazering you, and clubbing you to death with nightsticks. I don't consider prison time as necessarily 'violent'. I don't know how you'd propose we enforce our laws instead -- pillow fight? Tickle time?
You could still have a government, it would just have to never initiate violence, the threat of violence or fraud against anyone. Alternatively, you could have a government via contract, like a DRO.
A carebear police force? I still don't follow your proposal here because it does not occur to me as very practical.
Its largely a myth that Scandanavia is significantly more controlling. They have high taxes, but economic freedoms often beat out the US in many areas. I don't think that the government is run by a room full of evil men who want to conquer the world, but I do think that government naturally invites parasites that want to increase their own power. The only thing that has slowed them down is our freedom and checks and balances. But that has only slowed them down.
You still have yet to provide any tangible proof that our government is in a glacial drift towards a totalitarian state except a reactionary bill provoked by a large-scale terrorist attack, in which case I would simply say "causation vs. correlation", which is a fallacy.
Also: Scandinavia and much of Europe have very socialist tendencies, which runs hard against what you're asking for here.
Ok, I really have stuff to do and can't continue this discussion anymore or respond to the rest of your points. Sorry about that. I completely disagree with you on most everything.
If you're too busy to discuss things, please don't waste my time. It's disrespectful and is not terribly conducive to a civil debate if you simply can't be arsed. If you don't have time to debate, then don't.