#Minimum wage
2 messages in this thread
>> Not so, however, with government. Governments are in the
>> 'business' of self perpetuation, first and formost. They do
>> not act in a manner that is automatically good for anything
>> other than their own self perpetuation. While a government
>> MIGHT do something that is actually good for the society it
>> governs, it is merely a coincidental situation. This, in my
>> opinion, is nothing more or less than the bureaucratic
>> equivalent of a pyramid scheme; which has only itself to sell.
For the most part I agree although not completely. Our
government and, hopefully, yours is still somewhat answerable to its
citizens. For example, there is a lot of talk about tax cuts after
the November elections. (Enuff said!) I've seen a pyramid scheme
firsthand. I believe it to be worse than our governments. It is
certainly true that government can and will do things that citizens
are not permitted.
Permit me to remind you of your words from Weird Science:
I, for one, would like to aim for at least that position; that of
taxation for defense, police, judiciary.
These functions that YOU name as purposes of government are not
typical of a pyramid scheme.
Sir, you contradict yourself!
>> Is it? I think it is fair comment on the results of my
>> opponent's philosophy.
I am leery of the extremes of either philosophy. Too much conservatism
leads to a 'big brother' type of society. Too much liberalism leads to chaos.
"the market as an indicator of significant results."
>>Could be. I am not at all sure what you mean by that.
Probably too much shorthand to the extent that I was cryptic instead
of concise.
>> seen and spoken to people who are in useless, parasitic jobs,
>> and who happen to know and admit it, and who also happen to be
>> civil servants. . . . Nor do I say that all civil service jobs
>>are useless and/or parasitic.
My father is a retired rural letter carrier. Many of my family
have worked or are working in civil service or other government
jobs. I believe that our effects are neither useless nor parasitic.
>> Well, in that case, how about a little reasoning?
Why not comparison and example?
You appear to be following a Jeffersonian model of reasoning in
that the government that governs least governs best. His mansion is
a delight to visit especiallly since I am an engineer. I have seen
his duplicating pen, his automatic French doors, his clock, etc. He
did carry efficiency too far in that his staircases are too narrow
for safe use such that it is not reasonably possible for tourists to
visit the other stories of Monticello.
Since I have a day job, I'm going to have to forego posting in
the wee hours of the morning.
Merry Christmas to you and yours, and may the government(s) indeed
get rid of the pyramids with police, judges, and/or defense and
otherwise let us all get on with our daily concerns and pleasure!
Good [ night | morning] !
> Our government and, hopefully, yours is still somewhat
> answerable to its citizens.
To a small degree, it is. However, that is small comfort for those
that see the current misinterpretation of the entire basis of the
country as being the method by which government reduces, and will
continue to reduce, the amount that the citizenry has to say.
If you examone the founding fathers' politics, you will, for the most
part, find men who would likely have been ardent Libertarians if they
were here today. They would be appalled at the governments of the
past 50 years, and the powers they have usurped.
> These functions that YOU name as purposes of government are not
> typical of a pyramid scheme.
> Sir, you contradict yourself!
I do not. When I compared government to a pyramid scheme, I spoke of
'government as she is in evidence today', only part of which is
concerned with defense, police, and judiciary, the three proper
functions of government. When I say that I want to aim for _AT LEAST_
limiting gobvvernment to its proper functions, I am speaking of a
goal; a far different thing than a current implementation.
> I am leery of the extremes of either philosophy.
"Either"? Hmm… I think you may have confused me with someone of a different
political stripe.
> Too much conservatism leads to a 'big brother' type of society.
> Too much liberalism leads to chaos.
Ahh… there it is.. the assumption that if I lambaste the liberals, I
must, of necessity, be a conservative. Same mistake that many make,
but a mistake nonetheless. I am a libertarian (and sometimes a
Libertarian". There is no such thing as "too much libertarianism".
> .. rural letter carrier. … I believe that our effects are neither useless
nor parasitic.
You may be quite right in your statement. However, I note that none of
your examples is of a person who, to cite a few, issues business
license, works in a PR department, or audits tax returns, all
functions I consider to be parasitic. After all, I cannot hold the
opinion that taxation should not exist, and at the same time, hold
the opinion that tax colection is useful, or that chatting up the
public to make them think the gov't is doing good, is useful, etc.
> You appear to be following a Jeffersonian model of reasoning
> in that the government that governs least governs best.
Absolutely. Jefferson is a man to be admired, and who would be a
libertarian if he were here today. No doubt about it.
> Merry Christmas to you and yours,
And to you and yours.
-larry