An employee adds value to a company/org/etc. If the employee did not add value, they would presumably not be hired.
The amount of value that the employee adds will vary based on skills, etc. If the employee added less value than their wage, there is no reason to employ them; they are costing the business money.
The simple thing that comes from a minimum wage (this is a rate that a person cannot legally agree to work for less than) is that anyone who's productivity for the company adds less value than the minimum wage (and this needs to include payroll taxes, costs of employment, etc.), is now not just unemployed, but unemployable.
I had thought about various mechanical ways to sort them. Another thought that occured is the resistivity -- the copper of course being much more conductive, although that would probably vary based on the gunk and such on them.
Hmmm... if the price went high enough to make writing off the new pennies economical, perhaps an acid bath would be the way to do it... of course, that would take a very high price...
Another note, in a not-so-random sample a few weeks ago (my pocket and desk drawer), pre-'82s were about 30% of my pennies.
The Constitution is not so much intended to limit the federal government, as it is to define a *very* narrow list of things that the federal government can do. One of the arguements against the bill of rights was just that, actually -- that with a list of specific rights, the government would take that as the list of things it couldn't do. That's exactly what happened.
The powers that the federal government actually is supposed to have based on the constitution are things like creating the post office, national defence, establishing a (limited) copyright, and regulating (or perhaps better put as making sure there are not internal tariffs) commerce between the states.
Taken like that, most of what the federal government does today is blatantly unconstitutional, but there are still laws possible that do not go against the Constitution.
The personal income tax in its present form was first levied by the federal government in 1913, at 1%.
Not having ready access to gobs of cash kept congress focused on the important things they could afford with their limited funds.
That, and one of the other evils that came out of 1913 and gave the government gobs of cash to gorge on, and is the whole reason that the government can go this far in debt, and that the purchasing power of the dollar can be so shredded; the Federal Reserve.
The income tax really is one of the sickest things to happen to this country, it's made worse by way of withholding. The payroll taxes (Social Security, Meidcare, employer's portion of those) are damn sick too.
And while we're at it, I don't much care for direct election of senators, either.
So you don't think people should be compelled to pay taxes?
Correct, I don't. Look at it this way -- what magical thing about a government is it that gives them the right to take without consent? Just because they can convince 50% of the people +1 to go the way they want? Even if it's not right?
And even if whatever 50%+1 of the people want to do is alright, no matter what it is (no booze for anyone! a few years later, booze for anyone!, etc.), does it matter if only, say, 60% of the population vote? and then, say, 50%+1 of those who vote want whatever it is that they're voting for? so you've now got 30%+1 of the people deciding what's right.
What, then, would be the point of having a government in the first place? Without taxes, they certainly wouldn't be able to perform any duties at all!
Whats the saying? Something like "democracy works great until the people realize they can vote themselves lunch."
Crikey. Way past time to just admit that Social Security is a crack-pot idea that only suceeds in making people dependent on government.
Why won't anyone come out and say that it is *NOT MORAL* to take a chunk of a person's income by force, before they even get a chance to see it, for whatever purpose?
I suppose I stated that wrong -- I did not mean to suggest that time preferences only came from inflation. I only meant to suggest that inflation would make time preferences much higher/more immediate.
Personally, I don't see anything irrational about a bird in the hand versus two in the bush.:)
Right, point taken that we are not hitting hyper-inflation or anything like that now(yet), and that inflation currently is miniscule (and if the.gov's numbers aren't too cooked, neglibile.)
It's just a sub-point that time preferences get higher with inflation; the point is that high-interest short loans are an expression of time preferences.
As inflation keeps going/picks up and the dollar loses more value, more quickly, expect time preferences to get much more immediate, and people to be willing to have less money in order to spend it quicker.
Most of the founders of this country were quite k00ky, based on present standards, Darmox. We need more damned libertarian k00ks in this society, in my opinion.
Couldn't agree more:)
I tend to think that people like the grandparent are of the view that government will be good as long as the right people are in charge. I'm of the view that there are no right people. Hell, you might find the right people for a few years, maybe even a generation (length of time between 1789 and 1812, perhaps?) -- but you'll always get the wrong people sooner or later.
Liberals of today -- and the Republicans of today both need to realize that when they make government bigger and more powerful, it'll be used against them in a few years. If it wasn't this big and powerful, it wouldn't be an issue.
Nothing to back this up, this is all opinion, but I tend to think it depends on the people -- there's about as many different versions of libertarianism as there are libertarians.
It seems to me that the "beltway" libertarians are much more in favor of IP -- although CATO is fairly against it.
I'd imagine most libertarians would also be open to arguements against it, though. Much more than statists, anyway.
I'll just leave the first part off for the moment... that whole things about everyone does better without government interference, people being generally good, banding together with neighbors... etc.
It's impossible to explain the rationale of government to some people--they don't get the simple concept of doing good works for the whole of society that industries, corporations and individuals wouldn't have been able to do on their own.
Likewise, it's impossible to convince some people that government is always harmful. I have this conversation with a friend of mine every few months.
It's good to know that beaurocrats in Washington know better things to do with my money that I do; I don't have to take responsibility for myself and how I manage my money.
It's okay if they occasionally do things I don't like -- "save" for my retirement, or pay for propaganda to try to make me support a law, or invade a couple of places, or just shoot some cruise missiles, or deal in drugs and weapons, or plan things like Operation Northwoods. But thats okay, because its a democratically elected government, and they know better what to do with my money than I do.
Damn, this comes off as bastard/k00k post.
Anyway, though - I assert that there is nothing that government can do better than the private sector.
I think we're talking "effective rights" here. Yes, one has an obvious natural right to private property where government doesn't play a role. But effectively, the right doesn't have much meaning if someone can come along and steal it, without government intervening to restore the property to you. And this can apply to IP rights as well. If there's not a legal system (a part of governance obviously), then IP rights simply could not exist; in fact, IP rights are impossible without government. In essence, rights cannot exist without some kind of large force to continuously protect it, and just because one is not at an early age cognizant of the role of that force, doesn't mean that this force isn't require to make their "natural" right a living reality.
I still have the right to defend myself, and likewise to defend my property. Meaning that in a purely natural law setting, I can assert rights over my property, completely justifiably.
I can also hire someone else to defend my self/property for me.
Further, "the state produces nothing" is nice-sounding libertarian bumper-sticker idea, but it's also extreme and not actually true. E.g., government-sponsored research in many science/technical areas (by the way, which corporations/industries often cannot afford) produces great value for societies, no doubt. There's also little doubt why almost no Libertarian party candidates get anywhere electorally: their positions just don't reflect the real world where large economic powers prey upon the smaller ones in the absence of government involvement.
ehh... all research done with government funds is paid for by funds involuntarily extracted from people/private entities. Those funds could be put to a better use by the people who produced them -- simply because no one knows better what to do with their money than that person. Also, government cannot possible make the best choice of where to put that research.
It's amazing how little conflict we'd have in the US with a government that was much-much smaller -- without public schools, there is no issue about teaching evolution or creationism in public schools. Parents can send their kids to a school that teaches one or the other, it's their choice.
As to a lack of LP candidates doing well, there's a lot of factors in that -- for one thing, a lot of times, they come off as k00ks. I know this -- while not a LP candidate, I certainly come off as a k00k when I get ranting on these things. Another issue is simply the traction that the two main parties have.
I don't see that as important, though. If the LP does well or not -- that's not important. What is important is that libertarian (small l) minded people start getting more say in government, in both parties. I want to see a couple hundred Ron Pauls in congress.
As to the last portion of your last sentance, I tend to think that large forces preying on smaller ones is more an issue created/made worse by government... but that's a whole different arguement.
Being a libertarian myself, and thinking of private property as essential to society, justified in natural law, and a negative right, etc... I'm curious what reasoning you have for saying private property is a positive right?
The article you linked to addresses positive liberty (again, I differ -- the article spells out pretty well why I do.)
I don't see why private property needs the state to exist -- there are several reasonable arguements for how private property could arise without the state, and likewise, how it could continue to exist without the state.
Now, on another note, though -- I don't believe that intellectual property (for the most part) legitimately falls into private property -- but that's another matter entirely.
Additionally, in order that the free market be further stimulated, I recommend that all federal fossil fuel-related subsidies be moved to biomass fuels, and that tax disincentives be enacted on all fossil fuel-related industry.
While I certainly think that hemp farming should be legal...
I have to question the use of the term free market in the same sentance as subsidies and tax disincentives...
Your greatest fear has already been realized. Progressives lost, Bush will get to appoint his radical conservative judges to the Supreme Court, his wealthy supporters will continue to rape the country (while they invest their own money in what they know to be the future: other countries). Its done.
As far as I'm concerned, we can play this out like in Atlas Shrugged: all the intelligent productive people can leave, and all the idiots that are left over can wonder why they're suddenly up to their necks in crap.
Certainly not to defend Bush or anything -- I'm curious how you can use the words 'Progressive' and 'Atlas Shrugged' in the same post...
Draft bills that don't allow anyone out are anti war , not pro war. I personally believe that it is only ethical to enstate one in a time of peace to promote peace though. Because it is bad enough to have war, but to pull in non volentiers is worse.
And I, for one, don't believe it is ethical to enslave one. In a time of peace or war.
We can get into splitting hairs plenty, on both sides of this. I'd call forced national service a draft -- even if not everyone is being forced into combat or.mil. Granted, lots of people will disagree with that.
I'd normally attack the forced service idea and such on moral grounds -- is it moral to force someone into service... but that's not what this is about -- this is about whether or not Kerry supports a draft.
This comment(I'm sure you saw it, just pointing it out), in this same thread, does a better job of explaining it than I can at the moment.
Slashdot Mirror
An employee adds value to a company/org/etc. If the employee did not add value, they would presumably not be hired.
The amount of value that the employee adds will vary based on skills, etc. If the employee added less value than their wage, there is no reason to employ them; they are costing the business money.
The simple thing that comes from a minimum wage (this is a rate that a person cannot legally agree to work for less than) is that anyone who's productivity for the company adds less value than the minimum wage (and this needs to include payroll taxes, costs of employment, etc.), is now not just unemployed, but unemployable.
I had thought about various mechanical ways to sort them. Another thought that occured is the resistivity -- the copper of course being much more conductive, although that would probably vary based on the gunk and such on them.
Hmmm... if the price went high enough to make writing off the new pennies economical, perhaps an acid bath would be the way to do it... of course, that would take a very high price...
Another note, in a not-so-random sample a few weeks ago (my pocket and desk drawer), pre-'82s were about 30% of my pennies.
They already are.
l ainen011006.html
Ashtray outperforming 401k: http://www.321gold.com/editorials/nevalainen/neva
Copper is at $2.1373 / lb today, meaning:
100 pre-1982 pennies (95% copper, 3.11 grams of copper, ignore the zinc as it is a small amount) are worth $1.39
(1982 is when they switched to the 95% zinc we have today.)
now if only I had a machine to sort out the pre and post-'82 pennies...
That, uh, is the final plan for perl 6; to be written in perl 6.
It'll compile to parrot bytecode.
Of course, if you just want to mess with perl 6 before it's (completely) written in perl 6, hit Pugs.
The four most expensive words in the English Language: "This Time It's Different"
The Constitution is not so much intended to limit the federal government, as it is to define a *very* narrow list of things that the federal government can do. One of the arguements against the bill of rights was just that, actually -- that with a list of specific rights, the government would take that as the list of things it couldn't do. That's exactly what happened.
The powers that the federal government actually is supposed to have based on the constitution are things like creating the post office, national defence, establishing a (limited) copyright, and regulating (or perhaps better put as making sure there are not internal tariffs) commerce between the states.
Taken like that, most of what the federal government does today is blatantly unconstitutional, but there are still laws possible that do not go against the Constitution.
That, and one of the other evils that came out of 1913 and gave the government gobs of cash to gorge on, and is the whole reason that the government can go this far in debt, and that the purchasing power of the dollar can be so shredded; the Federal Reserve.
The income tax really is one of the sickest things to happen to this country, it's made worse by way of withholding. The payroll taxes (Social Security, Meidcare, employer's portion of those) are damn sick too.
And while we're at it, I don't much care for direct election of senators, either.
Correct, I don't. Look at it this way -- what magical thing about a government is it that gives them the right to take without consent? Just because they can convince 50% of the people +1 to go the way they want? Even if it's not right?
And even if whatever 50%+1 of the people want to do is alright, no matter what it is (no booze for anyone! a few years later, booze for anyone!, etc.), does it matter if only, say, 60% of the population vote? and then, say, 50%+1 of those who vote want whatever it is that they're voting for? so you've now got 30%+1 of the people deciding what's right.
Exactly!
Good, good! I've got three friend's with me, and we decided that we need your car/house/bike/computer/40% of your income/whatever!
:)
It's an 80% majority, you can't argue with a majority!
And it's okay because we're going to call ourselves the government! (oh, and we have bigger guns...)
In fact, it's down right MORAL because we're more than that magic number of 50%+1!
Yea, over the top, lots of hyperbole, I'm not sorry
Whats the saying? Something like "democracy works great until the people realize they can vote themselves lunch."
Crikey. Way past time to just admit that Social Security is a crack-pot idea that only suceeds in making people dependent on government.
Why won't anyone come out and say that it is *NOT MORAL* to take a chunk of a person's income by force, before they even get a chance to see it, for whatever purpose?
I *really* thought about putting that in, it took a lot of restraint on my part to not do so. :)
I suppose I stated that wrong -- I did not mean to suggest that time preferences only came from inflation. I only meant to suggest that inflation would make time preferences much higher/more immediate.
:)
Personally, I don't see anything irrational about a bird in the hand versus two in the bush.
Right, point taken that we are not hitting hyper-inflation or anything like that now(yet), and that inflation currently is miniscule (and if the .gov's numbers aren't too cooked, neglibile.)
It's just a sub-point that time preferences get higher with inflation; the point is that high-interest short loans are an expression of time preferences.
It's called time preferences.
As inflation keeps going/picks up and the dollar loses more value, more quickly, expect time preferences to get much more immediate, and people to be willing to have less money in order to spend it quicker.
Couldn't agree more:)
I tend to think that people like the grandparent are of the view that government will be good as long as the right people are in charge. I'm of the view that there are no right people. Hell, you might find the right people for a few years, maybe even a generation (length of time between 1789 and 1812, perhaps?) -- but you'll always get the wrong people sooner or later.
Liberals of today -- and the Republicans of today both need to realize that when they make government bigger and more powerful, it'll be used against them in a few years. If it wasn't this big and powerful, it wouldn't be an issue.
Nothing to back this up, this is all opinion, but I tend to think it depends on the people -- there's about as many different versions of libertarianism as there are libertarians.
It seems to me that the "beltway" libertarians are much more in favor of IP -- although CATO is fairly against it.
I'd imagine most libertarians would also be open to arguements against it, though. Much more than statists, anyway.
Likewise, it's impossible to convince some people that government is always harmful. I have this conversation with a friend of mine every few months.
It's good to know that beaurocrats in Washington know better things to do with my money that I do; I don't have to take responsibility for myself and how I manage my money.
It's okay if they occasionally do things I don't like -- "save" for my retirement, or pay for propaganda to try to make me support a law, or invade a couple of places, or just shoot some cruise missiles, or deal in drugs and weapons, or plan things like Operation Northwoods. But thats okay, because its a democratically elected government, and they know better what to do with my money than I do.
Damn, this comes off as bastard/k00k post.
Anyway, though - I assert that there is nothing that government can do better than the private sector.
I still have the right to defend myself, and likewise to defend my property. Meaning that in a purely natural law setting, I can assert rights over my property, completely justifiably.
I can also hire someone else to defend my self/property for me.
ehh... all research done with government funds is paid for by funds involuntarily extracted from people/private entities. Those funds could be put to a better use by the people who produced them -- simply because no one knows better what to do with their money than that person. Also, government cannot possible make the best choice of where to put that research.
It's amazing how little conflict we'd have in the US with a government that was much-much smaller -- without public schools, there is no issue about teaching evolution or creationism in public schools. Parents can send their kids to a school that teaches one or the other, it's their choice.
As to a lack of LP candidates doing well, there's a lot of factors in that -- for one thing, a lot of times, they come off as k00ks. I know this -- while not a LP candidate, I certainly come off as a k00k when I get ranting on these things. Another issue is simply the traction that the two main parties have.
I don't see that as important, though. If the LP does well or not -- that's not important. What is important is that libertarian (small l) minded people start getting more say in government, in both parties. I want to see a couple hundred Ron Pauls in congress.
As to the last portion of your last sentance, I tend to think that large forces preying on smaller ones is more an issue created/made worse by government... but that's a whole different arguement.
Being a libertarian myself, and thinking of private property as essential to society, justified in natural law, and a negative right, etc... I'm curious what reasoning you have for saying private property is a positive right?
The article you linked to addresses positive liberty (again, I differ -- the article spells out pretty well why I do.)
I don't see why private property needs the state to exist -- there are several reasonable arguements for how private property could arise without the state, and likewise, how it could continue to exist without the state.
Now, on another note, though -- I don't believe that intellectual property (for the most part) legitimately falls into private property -- but that's another matter entirely.
by not spending money there...
yea, yea... flamebait...
While I certainly think that hemp farming should be legal...
I have to question the use of the term free market in the same sentance as subsidies and tax disincentives...
*ahem*
Certainly not to defend Bush or anything -- I'm curious how you can use the words 'Progressive' and 'Atlas Shrugged' in the same post...
And I, for one, don't believe it is ethical to enslave one. In a time of peace or war.
We can get into splitting hairs plenty, on both sides of this. I'd call forced national service a draft -- even if not everyone is being forced into combat or .mil. Granted, lots of people will disagree with that.
I'd normally attack the forced service idea and such on moral grounds -- is it moral to force someone into service... but that's not what this is about -- this is about whether or not Kerry supports a draft.
This comment(I'm sure you saw it, just pointing it out), in this same thread, does a better job of explaining it than I can at the moment.
How many Libertarians does it take to change a light bulb?
None, the free market will take care of it
(disclaimer; voted Badnarik first thing this morning)