or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Minimum wage or minimum guaranteed income?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Minimum wage or minimum guaranteed income? - Page 3

post #31 of 160
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruben View Post
I undertsand why minimum income is more libertarian than min wage, but it still seems odd that it's sorta a pet cause for a select bunch of libertaians. And isn't it a whole hell of a lot bigger,more intrusive and more expensive than our current welfare system? I just see a disconect, plus setting aside medicare/medicad and Social Security, I don't really have a problem with welfare in the US.
Libertarians (big L) are generally crazy and have reformed classical liberal thought into something so incredibly restrictive that it becomes a silly religion rather than a reasonable philosophy which allows differences of opinion. The idea was, back in the day, to create a society in which people could flourish to their fullest extent, with the belief that a general lack of constraint on both personal and economic freedom was the best way to achieve that goal. It did not mean, ever, that people should be left to die in the streets or that the poor should be hunted. Libertarianism seems to take on an awfully radical position that generally devolves into some sort of ugly social Darwinism if pressed too far. In other words, to use old terminology, Liberals and Socialists basically want the same thing, and that is a good, safe, ordered society in which people can flourish, they just disagree on what creates that necessary order and how much restraint is necessary in order to create it. Hardcore Libertarians, on the other hand, seem to understand only part of the equation, the lack of constraint, not the reasons for it. Here is a kind of crappy blog entry on it from Marginal Revolution.
post #32 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by dkzzzz View Post
Guaranteed gramophone for each American family, that is what I would propose as a Wage-Tsar.

Makes as much sense as subsidising digital TV converters.
post #33 of 160
Funny, whenever I talk to passionate libertarians, the conversation alway devolves into who is and who isn't a libertarian. I'd tell them to get their ducks in order, but then you have the Republican party that can hold both Pat Robertson an Paul Wolfowitz, and the Deomcrats who cover Western PA union members and commune dwelling enviormentalists so... I think a dose of reasoned, sensible (and as you say) non social darwinist libertarianism would be welcome in domestic politic, I just can't get behind anything they say beyond that (though I'm a bit of a small-n neocon I guess).
post #34 of 160
There should be no minimum wage or guaranteed minimum income. There should be a social safety net that provides a minimum level of the essentials - food, clothing, shelter- for those who cant work, are currently out of work or stubbornly refuse to work.

To those who voluntarily remain in this condition I say enjoy your pinto beans and pup tent and your newly donated "walk for the cure" t-shirts.

Additional help for those who through no fault of their own are unable to work should be provided by private charities and of course family.
post #35 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bird's One View View Post
Makes as much sense as subsidising digital TV converters.

Well, if I heard right, the government made a bunch of $ selling the old VHF/UHF airspace to cell phone companies, so the idea that they should compensate people who had bought equipment that was rendered useless by the move isn't that crazy.

Doesn't matter anyways, since they ran out of converter $ and there's a huge backlog. I sent off for some of the coupons (or older relatives) almost a year and a half ago and have yet to receive anything back.
post #36 of 160
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruben View Post
Funny, whenever I talk to passionate libertarians, the conversation alway devolves into who is and who isn't a libertarian. I'd tell them to get their ducks in order, but then you have the Republican party that can hold both Pat Robertson an Paul Wolfowitz, and the Deomcrats who cover Western PA union members and commune dwelling enviormentalists so... I think a dose of reasoned, sensible (and as you say) non social darwinist libertarianism would be welcome in domestic politic, I just can't get behind anything they say beyond that (though I'm a bit of a small-n neocon I guess).
Well, manton is a big NEO, neo-conservative and I know he is skeptical in many ways of the Libertarian movement, mainly for its lack of interest in providing necessary order. Still, I think if you asked him, there would be several people generally considered libertarian whose works he admires and draws from. The whole who is/who isn't debate is ridiculous, as are any debates about purity, and I think they keep people like me away from their movement.
post #37 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by iammatt View Post
Well, manton is a big NEO, neo-conservative and I know he is skeptical in many ways of the Libertarian movement, mainly for its lack of interest in providing necessary order. Still, I think if you asked him, there would be several people generally considered libertarian whose works he admires and draws from. The whole who is/who isn't debate is ridiculous, as are any debates about purity, and I think they keep people like me away from their movement.

Remember that Matt is very nuanced and sophisticated in his views; I don't think most people who shout Ron Paul or Ayn Rand at the top of their lungs think like this at all. Not that Matt does either of those things, thank god.
post #38 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by iammatt View Post
Libertarians (big L) are generally crazy and have reformed classical liberal thought into something so incredibly restrictive that it becomes a silly religion rather than a reasonable philosophy which allows differences of opinion. The idea was, back in the day, to create a society in which people could flourish to their fullest extent, with the belief that a general lack of constraint on both personal and economic freedom was the best way to achieve that goal. It did not mean, ever, that people should be left to die in the streets or that the poor should be hunted. Libertarianism seems to take on an awfully radical position that generally devolves into some sort of ugly social Darwinism if pressed too far. In other words, to use old terminology, Liberals and Socialists basically want the same thing, and that is a good, safe, ordered society in which people can flourish, they just disagree on what creates that necessary order and how much restraint is necessary in order to create it. Hardcore Libertarians, on the other hand, seem to understand only part of the equation, the lack of constraint, not the reasons for it.

Here is a kind of crappy blog entry on it from Marginal Revolution.

This is excellent -- I might add that both the Liberals and Socialists best beware of permanent triumph of the one or the other in the struggle to mold society. The tension is useful insofar as it reduces the likelihood of stagnation on the one hand, and enhances flexibility on the other.
post #39 of 160
You can have a minimum income with a fully refundable tax credit. The Earned Income Tax Credit approaches this as well.

McGovern suggested something similar when he ran for President. And lost. And it's been a dead duck since then.
post #40 of 160
I doubt Canada will ever do this, but our national newspaper just ran a fairly long article on Minimum Guaranteed Income:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...1806904/page1/
post #41 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Working Stiff View Post
I doubt Canada will ever do this, but our national newspaper just ran a fairly long article on Minimum Guaranteed Income:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...1806904/page1/

Thanks for the link. Good read.
post #42 of 160
I would enjoy a stipend.
post #43 of 160
I am not in favour of either proposal. I don't see any benefits to them that outweigh the costs.
post #44 of 160
Minimum wage under current system. However, it should be a progressive minimum wage. 16 year olds should make less than a 25 year old.
post #45 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonlegoman View Post
Minimum wage under current system. However, it should be a progressive minimum wage. 16 year olds should make less than a 25 year old.

So you would reward people merely for getting older? Like a nation wide union?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Minimum wage or minimum guaranteed income?