Forum Replies Created
The first objection does not even address the issue. A large supply of low skilled workers simply means a large supply of unemployed individuals if there is a minimum wage put in place. So we can have a large supply of “extraordinary low” (extraordinary compared to what?) wage earners or a large supply of unemployed individuals. Which is better? I would prefer to have a bunch of low wage earners contributing to a productive process than a bunch of unemployed individuals. Finally, giving someone a job (at any wage) is not exploitative so long as the employer is not using force.
With regard to the second objection, welfare has its own arguments aside from the minimum wage. There are moral and economic objections against welfare. When discussing welfare, I like to ask the proponent of welfare if it is permissible for me to break into their home and steal their food if I am hungry. Further, the expropriation necessary to fund welfare (whether through taxation, debt or money creation), is destructive of wealth.
Thank you very much.
John and James,
Thanks for the info. I will check out Caplan’s work. I have seen the Murphy video, but again that is an Austrian laying out the oppositions argument. I am trying to hear it straight from the horses mouth.
I find that when Mises, Hayek and the like become too complex for my comprehension, Robert Murphy saves the day. He puts in clear language that is easier understood. Check out his Lessons for the Young Economist…
In line with what RealMises posted above, see this article by Rothbard himself…http://www.mises.org/daily/5342/Do-You-Hate-the-State
Here is an interesting article on today’s Mises Daily that is somewhat on point…http://www.mises.org/daily/6145/Anarchy-in-the-Aachen
Page 22 of the Supreme Court’s opinion in DC v. Heller discusses this issue. Not that what the Supreme Court thinks is necessarily correct (I haven’t researched), but still a source. Link to the opinion below…
Thinking back to my Property Law classes there were a string of cases that seriously limited common law private rights of action for Nuisance and other similar torts which can be used as a method of private environmental regulation. This shift occurred in the mid to late 19th Century in an attempt to help foster the industrial revolution. I will open my seriously dusty law school text book later to see if I can find any actual citations.
Thus, I believe that the Krugman argument and others like it can be defeated by showing that it was a failure of the Court’s to enforce the common law private rights of action that allowed corporations to pollute at ease. So long as the particular industry did not tick off the legislature they had a near free pass to pollute. No free pass when your neighbor can sue for any damages caused.
With regard to property rights in water (again going off memory here), the old English rule was a straight first in time, first in right property ownership. Whoever first acquired the waterway owned it to the exclusion of others.
This English rule was used in certain western US territories because of the scarcity of water sources and lack of population density.
The more Eastern US states adopted a system of Riparian rights which essentially provided that a party who owns land that abuts a waterway has the right of reasonable use. You may use the water in any way that does not interfere with the reasonable use by others. But as mentioned above, the Court’s became pro-industry during the industrial revolution.
I have only just begun Conceived in Liberty by Murry Rothbard, but it is amazing so far. He starts at the conception of colonial life and moves through the revolution (over 1500 pages mind you).
If you only want to look at the war itself, volume 4 of Conceived in Liberty covers 1775-1784.
Thank you for the input Joshua. I may just put it in the que of books I have to read and let fate decide whether the book is read before, during, or after the video lectures.
This article by Gary North really puts the debt issue into context. I must warn it is more libertarian/politically charged than economically, but it certainly makes the economic case. http://lewrockwell.com/north/north1081.html
A quick answer would be that the presently accumulated debt will be payed off with future taxes or by the FED creating new money to pay off the debt which will devalue your money and is thus another form of taxation.
Don’t forget that pesky old 17th Amendment passed during the Wilson presidency. Prior to the 17th Amendment U.S. Senators were chosen by the State Legislatures from each state. After the passage of the 17th, the U.S. Senators were chosen by a popular vote of the people of each state.
This removed a very strong check on Federal Power that was held by the states. Prior to the 17th you had the voice of the people in the House of Representatives and the voice of the State governments in the Senate. After the passage of the 17th, the governments of each of the states had no voice at the Federal level.