[ksrugis]

I agree with much that was previously posted, and I will add what I think was not already mentioned:

You keep going by not always arguing. This can be done 2 ways: flat out taking a break, or move the argument to something more along a conversation or discussion. No more point-counter-point dynamic, but friendlier conversation.

With random internet people, I find that a break to “get to know them” is helpful because you both become more humanized. They might learn that you are not what they thought, and you have more of an “in” with their brain, than other random people.

With friends, always be respectful, and always try to steer the debate away from a win-lose proposition, to more of an information or inquisitive discussion about your respective beliefs. They might be stimulated into learning more that way because they are not building a wall against what you say but trying to understand your expression of your own beliefs.

[ksrugis]

I’d add on to what Muffin said, in that Bill Gates actually has a stake in the health and well being of society. If he bombs the hell out of a country, he loses business. B’obama doesn’t have anything at stake.

[ksrugis]

For the purpose of self-defense, or defense against a tyrannical gov’t, you don’t need tanks or A-bombs. I think history has shown us that when it comes to the ‘few vs many’ warfare, gorilla style is the way to go. Tanks, bombers, etc are useful against traditional military advances, but quite useless against a ‘terrorist” or fighting an idea such as liberty. When it is man vs man, each will have a gun, and your gun should be as good as the soldier’s. We have the right to bear arms precisely for this purpose, just as intended by the founders, who were fighting a behemoth state.

[ksrugis]

If you want to look at a more general argument for the purpose of government, I would recommend Bastiat’s “The Law”. Here is a short quote, as he launches directly into what you are talking about:

“Here I encounter the most popular fallacy of our times. It is not considered sufficient that the law should be just; it must be philanthropic. Nor is it sufficient that the law should guarantee to every citizen the free and inoffensive use of his faculties for physical, intellectual, and moral self-improvement. Instead, it is demanded that the law should directly extend welfare, education, and morality throughout the nation.”

This is a work that has stood the test of time and inspired many generations after him in the pursuit of liberty. It’s also quite short, easy to read, thrilling (to me at least), and free online.

[ksrugis]

“Private companies should fund their own payrolls rather than rely upon substantial government subsidies, which produce major distortions in market signals.”

Of course this sweeping legislation that changes the min. wage is not at all distorting market signals…noooo not at alllll….

[ksrugis]

I’m just going to think out-loud here, but I think it has to do with what you mentioned, our consciousness and self-awareness. The depth to which we can contemplate ethics, and the death of ourselves or others is unmatched in the world. That is in itself a very unique thing that separates us from the rest of the animals roaming about. A wolf cannot know what it is to die or to suffer like a human can. The idea that we are created by God, and therefor have natural rights (because we are essentially His property) could be considered in the reverse sense: If, we being uncreated (no creator involved) have no rights by our very nature, then God also has no rights by His very nature (being uncreated). Isn’t that wild? I could be wrong, but interesting to think about.

[ksrugis]

very interesting

[ksrugis]

I think the beauty about the truth is that is can be grasped by all. You don’t have to do mental gymnastics to understand what we’re talking about IMO because it fits so precisely with common sense and your every day experience. Those cases with the engineer and so forth are interesting. I have PhD friends who are beyond liberal, to where I would seriously fear them in a revolution. One wants to forcefully confiscate wealth and redistribute it. She happened to marry my best friend, whose father is a millionaire banker…go figure.

[ksrugis]

So the author states that the market doesn’t determine wages, but rather we as a society determine what is suitable for people to earn. But doesn’t that fly in the face of the logic? If 99,000 people out of 100,000 are capable of sweeping a floor, while 1 out of 100,000 is capable of performing brain surgery, doesn’t it stand to reason that the wage for a brain surgeon would be higher than that of a janitor? Isn’t that basic supply and demand?

[ksrugis]

Wow, very excellent responses. Thanks so much. I’ll have to probe his mind some more to find out what/where he is missing information or having faulty premises. He definitely thinks FDR is the savior of the nation, so talking to him about these high wage policies should be interesting. I never picked up on any kind of intelligence when hearing Rangel speak, but that could just be me LOL!

[ksrugis]

I’ve told him that before JohnD, but his exact response is this: Businesses always employ the people they need to employ to get the job done. So if a candy shop needs 5 people to operate, it will have hired 5 people. I said to him that certain positions are eliminated and other employees end up taking on those tasks, example: I worked in a nursing home doing payroll and payables after college. When I left, they did not replace me, but hired a part time person to do payables and had another accountant there do payroll on top of her other work.

[ksrugis]

So if I laid out a simplistic model for him to look at, say Wonka’s factory, I could break it down to: Wonka spends on production + wages, and Wonka Saves. When the wages increase, production and savings decrease. So we end up poorer than if wages were linked only to production.

[ksrugis]

on second thought, perhaps the only thing that matters is that we are talking about monetary wages, and wealth is more than just money. So new products are = to new wealth, like Bill Gates created windows software which added to our wealth as a society?

[ksrugis]

Ok thanks for the replies. A follow-up: I have also talked to him about zero sum economics, in that he believes there is a given amount of wealth in the world, and the top 1% are taking it away from the rest. So if we have a pie representing wealth, he doesn’t believe we can bake more pies (i.e. create more wealth), we can only divide it up. His view seems to mesh well with what you are saying though, in that if you put money into wages, you are at the same time taking it out of production. So how does our view that we can create wealth fit in here?

[ksrugis]

I’m not saying that morality is based on human perception, at least not any more so than the theist relies on human perception to read a holy book or to see a holy vision. I’m a theist btw.

[Author]

Posts