Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Ron Paul Revolution!!!!


Recommended Posts

Zig, I think it has been mentioned plenty of times before but there are no such things as natural rights, you are not born with a god given right to anything, it is because you live in America that your thoughts are on these rights because you don't need to worry about things like not being butchered by a rival clan, or needing to find clean water so you don't die. You don't have a right to these things you are lucky that you don't need to worry about things like clean water.

 

Also, the point you made about drug companies having to get the approvals for drugs, that is a good thing, to just let them release things on the market with no approval is crazy.

 

Sure I understand that in other situations around the world these rights are non-existent and the reality is that there is no equality. I also understand crooked's point of view, where he doesn't believe in a deity so he doesn't believe that these rights are inalienable, just agreed upon to be protected. The question I have is do you believe these rights ought to be protected and do you believe citizens around the world ought to have universal access to these rights? Should justice enforce these rights? If you can agree that these rights should be universal and all human-beings should have access to them and that they should be protected, than you are in agreement with the founding fathers and the constitution of america. If you are in disagreement with this philosophy than please explain yourself. This is not just directed at you decy, it's directed at anyone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.
  • Replies 3.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

WHEN in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to desolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the seperate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

 

The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable. Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356.

 

By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect. People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123).

 

Chancellor Kent (2 Kent, Comm. 1) defines the "absolute rights" of individuals as the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights have been justly considered and frequently declared by the people of this country to be natural, inherent, and inalienable, and it may be stated as a legal axiom [A principle that is not disputed; a maxim] that since the great laboring masses of our country have little or no property but their labor, and the free right to employ it to their own best interests and advantage, it must be considered that the constitutional inhibition against all invasion of property without due process of law was as fully intended to embrace and protect that property as any of the accumulations it may have gained. In re Jacobs (N. Y.) 33 Hun, 374, 378.

 

///

Link to post
Share on other sites

What rights do you mean though? I don't believe in any kind of natural rights, I know we have developed these ideas as a society over time but do I believe they are god given, no. We are essentially animals the strong survive and the weak don't. We get caught up so much in freedom this blah blah when the only reason we think we have a right to this stuff is because we have been blessed to live in a western country and a democracy.

 

But looking at what we are discussing I would like to know what rights you mean, I don't believe you have a right to own a gun, I agree you can defend yourself but I don't see gun ownership as a right, however I believe everyone should have access to medical care but again that isnt a god given right but it is a hell of a lot more civilised than everyone owning a gun!

 

The thing is I dont recognise the constitution as anything more than a piece of paper, Im not american it has zero meaning to me and what it says has no importance to me either in as much as laws in other countries aren't applicable to me as I don't live there. I am not saying it isn't an important document, it clearly is, just not to me. If it said in the constitution that everyone has the right to free healthcare to be provided through tax on income then would everyone be so up in arms about the US now trying to provide healthcare? Or what if it said in there you don't have the right to arm yourself to the teeth? Does that mean your right have been violated? No because essentially you dont have the right to either.

 

Rights and freedom are given to you by the people in power or the strongest. This is why I say there are no natural rights, your freedoms are given to you by the powers that be, they are the ones allowing you to have free speech, to own weapons. nothing more than that really.

 

So are my rights being violated because I don't own a property, I would like to just cant afford it. Are my rights violated because I am not happy?

Link to post
Share on other sites
What rights do you mean though? I don't believe in any kind of natural rights, I know we have developed these ideas as a society over time but do I believe they are god given, no. We are essentially animals the strong survive and the weak don't. We get caught up so much in freedom this blah blah when the only reason we think we have a right to this stuff is because we have been blessed to live in a western country and a democracy.

 

These are old ideas you're speaking of Decy. They are also contradictory to the arguments I constantly see you making here. How are you on one side of the argument, going to support social government welfare, and than on another end say something like "the strong survive and the weak don't". That makes no sense to me.

 

I also disagree that we only have these rights because we have been "blessed" to live in a western country and a democracy. No, this is not true whatsoever. Government does not bless upon the people inalienable rights. I do not believe we receive our rights from government, no matter the realities of modern times, the philosophy is what I'm speaking of. The philosophy of the founding fathers who created and established these fundamental American morals that sparked revolution in the world and lead to a new era of freedom and prosperity for generations. The philosophy you speak of is the ancient philosophy of tyranny and oppression.

 

But looking at what we are discussing I would like to know what rights you mean, I don't believe you have a right to own a gun, I agree you can defend yourself but I don't see gun ownership as a right, however I believe everyone should have access to medical care but again that isnt a god given right but it is a hell of a lot more civilised than everyone owning a gun!

 

The thing is I dont recognise the constitution as anything more than a piece of paper, Im not american it has zero meaning to me and what it says has no importance to me either in as much as laws in other countries aren't applicable to me as I don't live there. I am not saying it isn't an important document, it clearly is, just not to me. If it said in the constitution that everyone has the right to free healthcare to be provided through tax on income then would everyone be so up in arms about the US now trying to provide healthcare? Or what if it said in there you don't have the right to arm yourself to the teeth? Does that mean your right have been violated? No because essentially you dont have the right to either.

 

Rights and freedom are given to you by the people in power or the strongest. This is why I say there are no natural rights, your freedoms are given to you by the powers that be, they are the ones allowing you to have free speech, to own weapons. nothing more than that really.

 

So are my rights being violated because I don't own a property, I would like to just cant afford it. Are my rights violated because I am not happy?

 

I take such issue with your statements here. You're contradicting the entire meaning behind the American revolution by saying what you're saying, the constitution is just a piece of paper. You're ignoring history when you say Rights and Freedom is GIVEN to us by the people in power. I'm sorry, but you have a very clear misunderstanding of American values.

 

///

Link to post
Share on other sites

But I am not talking about American values, if a right is inalienable then it is there for everyone not just americans.

 

I argue for social programmes like healthcare and welfare becaus eI believe it is the responsibility of the people in power to provide for the people they represent (and I dont mean supplying flat screen tvs and shit like that I mean basic healthcare provisions). The natural order of the world is that the strong survive, however as a race we have decided that we are social beings and in the civilised world you look out for the poor and help the needy, but that is not the way the world actually works. The strong survive, evolution shows that you adapt and survive or you don't. We have chosen to build a society that works differently to the natural order.

 

I do understand what you are saying Zig, I really do, it just isn't what I believe. Say China decided it wanted to take over America and it managed to invade, get rid of the government and they then held the power. If they decide that you don't have freedom to say what you want, or they say you aren't allowed to wear blue tshirts and they make that law then that is the rule of the land, now I am not saying you wouldnt be able to say what you want but you would be punished for it. Is that right? no, but also it is their house they have the power they make the rules, and yes you can rebel against that.

 

You have the ability to do what you want, if you want to call it your right then that is fine, however I do see it a right, just as much as a zebra doesn't have the right to not be eaten by the lion, he just best try hard to not get caught.

 

Basically my view is that I am lucky to live in a country where I can go to the doctor, get educated, get a job and eat. I would strive for those things no matter where I was but I don't have a right to them. We are an insignificant spec in an infinate universe, we are owed nothing by anyone really all we have is the ability to survive, we dont have the right to it,, we have to work at it. Some of us are just very lucky to live places like the UK or America.

 

The reason I say that about the constitution is that it was just written by men, it doesn't have any authority in the natural order of the world it is a social contract not a list of rights that every single person (because it does say everyone is equal) has.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's why the Constitution is so important, and needs to be upheld.

 

Freedom at least what we are talking about here if brand new to our society, if you look throughout history very few people have had it, and we had it for a little while and now we are tossing those rights away.

 

You can say those are "American values" but people wrote about them, and tried to obtain those values many years before the Founding Fathers we're even born. The fact that they we're even able to obtain this dream for a little while is so profound, and is a real shame that people do not value this today, especially Americans.

 

I do for one believe that all men should have these rights and are born with them. However they are taken away by the authority they face. That's what needs to be changed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose it comes down to definition of it. I of course believe we should be able to say what we want, make our own choices and all of those things we associate with freedom. We have as a society (and the consitution) made a social contract that we should abide by. This is why I am for the uprising in Libya, Syria etc because those people were being held in tyranny, now if I compare that to American society I would hardly say a few regulations etc is tyranny.

 

I know you can argue that the slightest infraction would be deemed as tyranny, however I am a realist, nothing is black and white. I m not against us having free speech or your right to own a gun or any of that, if you look at it black and white then White is completely free with no governments getting involved in your life at all and black being a libya style dictatorship then I think we need some grey, this is why I am for government healthcare and regulation of business.

 

People know my view I dont want business running rampant destroying the planet, monopolising and exploiting the consumer and I also dont want a totalitarian regime running things. I can accept some government intervention for healthcare and welfare therefore I submit to my taxes being taken. Nothing is perfect I just prefer the way it is now to other options currently being used around the world.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Debunking Ron Paul Racism Myths

http://libertyidaho.tumblr.com/post/9904895345

 

Ron Paul is Racist!

Here, I’ll take the most common reasons some young people (mostly democrats) don’t like Ron Paul and argue against them.

 

Ron Paul doesn’t believe in a separation of church and state.

 

Ron Paul believes the government shouldn’t be interfering in people’s personal lives. They shouldn’t be telling people what they can put in their bodies, what they can eat, who they marry, or what they say. He also believes, however, that government shouldn’t be interfering with people’s religious lives as well. He believes the Federal Government “shall write no laws” when it comes to religion.

 

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of our constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers.

 

Many young people take this quote and imply he believes government and religion should be intertwined. This isn’t the case at all. Ron Paul believes in the right for all religious groups to display there religion without state interference. He recently fought for the religious freedom of Muslims. Here is a quote about it.

 

The outcry over the building of the mosque, near ground zero, implies that Islam alone was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. According to those who are condemning the building of the mosque, the nineteen suicide terrorists on 9/11 spoke for all Muslims. This is like blaming all Christians for the wars of aggression and occupation because some Christians supported the neo-conservative’s aggressive wars.

 

Ron Paul battles with the religious right about personal freedom, and with the secular left on religious freedom. He believes not only in the right for you to make choices about lifestyle, but also about religion and your public display of it. What’s so bad about that?

 

Ron Paul is a racist.

 

Ron Paul has been called a racist for a few articles that appeared in his news letters over 15 years ago. He claims he did not write them and takes full responsibility for them being there. Here is a quote from Ron Paul on the subject of racism.

 

In the long run, the only way racism can be overcome is through the philosophy of individualism, which I have promoted throughout my life. Our rights come to us not because we belong to some group, but our rights come to us as individuals. And it id as individuals that we should judge one another. Racism is a particularly odious form of collectivism whereby individuals are treated not on their merits but on the basis of group identity. Nothing in my political philosophy, which is the exact opposite of the racial totalitarianism of the twentieth century, gives aid or comfort to such thinking. To the contrary, my philosophy of individualism is the most radical intellectual challenge to racism ever posed.

 

Ron Paul believes individualism is the most “radical challenge to racism ever posed.” Paul wants to end the War on Drugs because he claims it is discriminating against minorities, and also wishes to end the death penalty which he claims is discriminating against the poor and people who aren’t white.

 

I do not believe in the death penalty. They make mistakes - and it’s racist too. More than half the people getting the death penalty are poor blacks. This is the one place, this is the one remnant of racism in our country: the court system, enforcing the drug laws, and enforcing the death penalty. I don’t even know, but I wonder how many people have been executed - over 200? - I wonder how many wwere minorities. If you’re rich, you usually do not get the death penalty. And the DNA evidence now has proven people innocent. I don’t think it’s a very good sign for civilization to still be invoking the death penalty.

 

If you click here you can see Ron Paul’s reaction to his charges of racism. You can decide for yourself if he’s racist.

 

Ron Paul is a libertarian, and libertarians don’t care about the poor.

 

Ron Paul has authored six books on economics and was recently called a genius on the subject. He belongs to one of the most radical schools of thought on earth; the Austrian School of Economics. As Lew Rockwell says, the Austrian School “is a radical alternative for young people.” Ron Paul stated in Liberty Defined:

 

The Austrian School provides a way of looking at economics that takes into account the unpredictability of human action and the huge role of human choice in the way economies work, and explain how it is that order can emerge out of the seemingly chaos of individual action. In short, the Austrian School provides the most robust defense of the economic system of the free society that has ever been made.

 

Ron Paul, as a member of the Austrian School believes that war is economically destructive to the economy and the middle class. He believes in bringing our troops home from around the world. He will then take half that money and reduce the deficit, and take the other half to spend here at home.

 

He wants to end corporate welfare, end the wars, abolish the federal reserve, have sound money, lower the deficit, lower taxes, and reject the notion that replacing our freedom with government power is the answer to our economic problems.

 

We are not cogs in a macroeconomic machine; people will always resist being treated as such. Economics should be as humanitarian as ethics or aesthetics or any other field of study.

 

That doesn’t sound “anti-poor” to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I suppose it comes down to definition of it. I of course believe we should be able to say what we want, make our own choices and all of those things we associate with freedom. We have as a society (and the consitution) made a social contract that we should abide by. This is why I am for the uprising in Libya, Syria etc because those people were being held in tyranny, now if I compare that to American society I would hardly say a few regulations etc is tyranny.

 

I know you can argue that the slightest infraction would be deemed as tyranny, however I am a realist, nothing is black and white. I m not against us having free speech or your right to own a gun or any of that, if you look at it black and white then White is completely free with no governments getting involved in your life at all and black being a libya style dictatorship then I think we need some grey, this is why I am for government healthcare and regulation of business.

 

People know my view I dont want business running rampant destroying the planet, monopolising and exploiting the consumer and I also dont want a totalitarian regime running things. I can accept some government intervention for healthcare and welfare therefore I submit to my taxes being taken. Nothing is perfect I just prefer the way it is now to other options currently being used around the world.

 

the social contract theory doesnt hold water. why do i say that? because in order for it to be justified, you must have the consent of the people. the US govt is based on the social contract model, yet i do not recall ever having been asked my consent as to whether i want to live under such an arrangement. all the social contract does is makes it convenient for governments to justify their existence. the basic idea behind it is that if government exists, it is legitimate. nothing could be further from the truth, as far as im concerned.

 

it is nothing but naive to say that the state that most people in the US (or UK or europe, they are farther down the road to serfdom than us) are living in some sort of splendid squalor because they get to vote and trash talk their government, whereas the people in libya dont. we are merely talking in terms of degree of tyranny. which is why i was pushing the idea of the 'tales of a slave' narrative, which you really didnt grasp. libya might of been further down the road to tyranny, but the US is nothing but the healthiest patient in the cancer ward. please examine that slogan for what it is because it reveals nothing but reality. the citizens of the US are not just living under 'a few regulations' they are living under out and out tyranny. consider that the police can kill you with little repercussion, the US gov can invade any part of your privacy they wish and trample any civil liberties you have if they by just calling you a terrorist. they can throw you in jail forever if they want to without even charging you. they even have an assassination list that includes the extra judicial killing of american citizens. we have swat teams killing people every day in botched drug raids. couple that stuff with the 'regulations' you like so much that literally forbid children from operating lemonade stands. to say that the US does not live under the biggest and most powerful government on the earth today and that americans are some how 'free' is sort of like saying that if a slave has the right to roam around without shackles but other slaves have to wear shackles that, the slave that is unshackled is 'free' and the slave with shackles is not.

 

the underlying question has ALWAYS been whether these tyrannical bodies have a right to exist and violate peoples liberty. whether you reject the idea of natural rights or not, its universal that murder and theft are wrong. yet these are the very principles that give coercive governments their power. if you consent to living under such an arrangement, that is fine. you just have no right to force other people to do so. that is the entire heart of the matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Rick Perry bully tactics against Ron Paul during a commercial break. LOL. Who does this guy think he is? I felt like throwing up when he was talking about capital punishment during the debate as if he's some sort of hero.

 

Op-Ed: Gruesome GOP crowd applauds Perry's execution of 234 humans

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/311262#ixzz1XOKGVgQZ

 

Ron Paul's position on the death penalty:

 

"Over the years I've held pretty rigid to all my beliefs, but I've changed my opinion of the death penalty. For federal purposes I no longer believe in the death penalty. I believe it has been issued unjustly. If you're rich, you get away with it; if you're poor and you're from the inner city you're more likely to be prosecuted and convicted, and today, with the DNA evidence, there've been too many mistakes, and I am now opposed to the federal death penalty.""

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Capital_punishment

Link to post
Share on other sites
the social contract theory doesnt hold water. why do i say that? because in order for it to be justified, you must have the consent of the people. the US govt is based on the social contract model, yet i do not recall ever having been asked my consent as to whether i want to live under such an arrangement. all the social contract does is makes it convenient for governments to justify their existence. the basic idea behind it is that if government exists, it is legitimate. nothing could be further from the truth, as far as im concerned.

 

it is nothing but naive to say that the state that most people in the US (or UK or europe, they are farther down the road to serfdom than us) are living in some sort of splendid squalor because they get to vote and trash talk their government, whereas the people in libya dont. we are merely talking in terms of degree of tyranny. which is why i was pushing the idea of the 'tales of a slave' narrative, which you really didnt grasp. libya might of been further down the road to tyranny, but the US is nothing but the healthiest patient in the cancer ward. please examine that slogan for what it is because it reveals nothing but reality. the citizens of the US are not just living under 'a few regulations' they are living under out and out tyranny. consider that the police can kill you with little repercussion, the US gov can invade any part of your privacy they wish and trample any civil liberties you have if they by just calling you a terrorist. they can throw you in jail forever if they want to without even charging you. they even have an assassination list that includes the extra judicial killing of american citizens. we have swat teams killing people every day in botched drug raids. couple that stuff with the 'regulations' you like so much that literally forbid children from operating lemonade stands. to say that the US does not live under the biggest and most powerful government on the earth today and that americans are some how 'free' is sort of like saying that if a slave has the right to roam around without shackles but other slaves have to wear shackles that, the slave that is unshackled is 'free' and the slave with shackles is not.

 

the underlying question has ALWAYS been whether these tyrannical bodies have a right to exist and violate peoples liberty. whether you reject the idea of natural rights or not, its universal that murder and theft are wrong. yet these are the very principles that give coercive governments their power. if you consent to living under such an arrangement, that is fine. you just have no right to force other people to do so. that is the entire heart of the matter.

 

same can be said of the consitutional model, who asked everyone if that was what they wanted? where was the referendum?

 

I grasp you r issues so far they amount to I cannot drink raw milk, I cannot own fully automatic weapons I cannot opt of of taxes, thats it, that is the infringement fo your freedoms, as a person in the US you can basically do whatever the hell you want and you still bitch about it, seems ludicrous to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
same can be said of the consitutional model, who asked everyone if that was what they wanted? where was the referendum?

 

agreed and this is spooners argument. i personally never signed the document.

 

I grasp you r issues so far they amount to I cannot drink raw milk, I cannot own fully automatic weapons I cannot opt of of taxes, thats it, that is the infringement fo your freedoms, as a person in the US you can basically do whatever the hell you want and you still bitch about it, seems ludicrous to me.

 

hahaha. you are just hilarious man. 'can do whatever you want....'

 

this is just a sampling of 'freedom' in america:

 

http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2011/06/clarence-dupniks-death-squad.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w30.html

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/department-of-education-swat-raid-for-unpaid-student-loans/

http://www.cato.org/raidmap/

Link to post
Share on other sites

well, the argument paul puts forth is not really radical at all. especially if one has a basic understanding of economics and removes the class warfare/hysteria goggles for a second.

 

in order to believe the minimum wage 'helps the poor' by raising wages, you must believe that the minimum wage is a 'floor' under wages. even a casual examination reveals this to be nonsense as wages are determined by productivity. if you remove the minimum wage, brain surgeons wont make less nor will they be earning pennies as most minimum wage advocates imagine. the minimum wage is nothing but a hurdle in which one has to jump in order to get a job. you must produce atleast the federally mandated minimum wage in goods/services in order for an employer to hire you. if you have two broken arms, you cant be a paper hanger. or *insert similar example here* therefore if your productivity in the paper hanger business is 0, you cannot get paid 7.50 or whatever the minimum wage is as the employer will be losing 7.50 for every hour he pays you. so in effect, low skilled jobs are outlawed by minimum wage laws.

 

furthermore, if all we have to do is pass a law making to make people richer or make people make more money, why in the world, dont we just raise the minimum wage to 10,000K an hour and we'll all be rich?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont believe the minimum wage as a floor, but a safety net. The paper hanger analogy makes sense the way you put it, but is that how the job market really works?

 

If this policy is put in to practice, would employers hire more people because they can now legally pay employees as they see fit, or would they keep the same number and cut their wages?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I dont believe the minimum wage as a floor, but a safety net. The paper hanger analogy makes sense the way you put it, but is that how the job market really works?

 

If this policy is put in to practice, would employers hire more people because they can now legally pay employees as they see fit, or would they keep the same number and cut their wages?

 

your argument is BASED on the theory that it is a floor. and yes, people with a productivity level BELOW govt mandated minimum wage would now be employed if they so wanted to be, if MW was repealed

 

although you claim your argument is based on the MW being a safety net and not a floor, it necessarily means that if it is not a floor, than people with with low productivity wont be employed because the employer will lose money.

 

now, lets put this into play. you are able to produce a product for your employer that takes one hour and brings your employer a total of 5$. how long can this employer stay in business if you are paid 25$ per hour? lets look at it another way. if you think that competition and productivity do not drive wage prices, then you MUST believe that a brain surgeon will be making somewhere around 2 cents an hour if the minimum wage is repealed.

 

all the MW law does is outlaw private transactions between consenting adults at non government approved rates. and since it makes no economic sense to pay someone more than their productivity value, (employer goes broke) the employer will simply not employ someone in the position that has a productivity value of 5$ per hour when he is mandated to pay this person 8$ (or whatever the min wage rates are due to federal and state laws)

 

i'll ask it again, if this 'safety net' is a viable model, why can we not just raise this net to 10K per hour and make every rich?

i'll go ahead and answer this for you, since you eluded it last time. if the MW was raised to 10K per hour, there would be no jobs and no market because probably less than 1% of the people have a productivity this high.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would probably depend on the industry, the type of employer and the direction of the business.

 

However if you we're allowed to pay people what the value of their actual job is, you could hire more people, let people work more hours, have more profits, expand your operations, hire more people, etc and etc.

 

The minimum wage mandate really only helps out big business, it is a shame that most people think it is a favor to the poor.

 

Here is something someone much smarter than me has to say about it...

 

http://mises.org/daily/2130

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand what you guys are saying and im not saying I agree totally with the minimum wage but in this day and age who the fuck is ganna work for less than $7 an hour?

 

I wouldnt, I wont work minimum wage now, in my opinion that isnt a''livable wage''.

Maby if you work from the minute you wake up till the sun sets you can have your bills paid and if you eat ketchup sandwhiches and never do shit.

 

Gas is around an average of $3.50 a gallon, people would be working just to pay their gas to get to and fro in some cases.

 

I wouldnt work for $7 and hour, and less you got to be fucking joking me. Id rather sell drugs or steal shit before I give an hour of my time for pocket change.

 

I got that employers could hire more people etc etc. , but how would increased productivity help if everyone's broke from only earning 5 dollars and hour when the goods theyre making they cant even afford. No one could buy the excess goods because all their money is paying rent and food.

 

Something has to give, either inflation and the cost of living needs to go down or people need to be paid more. It should be based on your creditials, education, experience etc etc im not for some slob making 10 an hour to sit on his ass or some punk woking at a burger king who sweeps trash but people cant even survive off what theyre getting paid.

 

At my last job I was working with people 10/20/30 years older than me with kids/mortgages and all that steez making the same as I was as a 20 year college student. Im not sure what the answer is other then shit just needs to stop being so fucking expensive or take the money and bonuses of millions of dollars of the chiefs and give it to the fucking indians who keep their machine going.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...