Now the question is: which moves us closer to socialism, the minimum wage which affects 1 million workers and costs in the neighborhood of maybe $2 billion per year, or defense spending which deprives us of economic freedom on the order of $700 billion per year? It never ceases to amaze me how people will spend all their time complaining about the mosquito and remain silent when the crocodile is eating us alive.Socialism preaches the gospel of envy. One piece of socialist legislation, like the minimum wage, is not going to sink us. What is sinking us is the philosophy that is behind socialist legislation. Congress believes in salvation by law. If only there were a perfect law, there would be a perfect society?
Unlike defense, the minimum wage is socialism enacted into law. Socialist thinking does affect the defense budget, however. The second largest army in the world was the army that Clinton gutted. Obama is quietly doing the same thing. Contrast that to President Reagan who built the Navy up to 600 ships, etc.Now the question is: which moves us closer to socialism, the minimum wage which affects 1 million workers and costs in the neighborhood of maybe $2 billion per year, or defense spending which deprives us of economic freedom on the order of $700 billion per year? It never ceases to amaze me how people will spend all their time complaining about the mosquito and remain silent when the crocodile is eating us alive.
Defense spending is also socialism enacted into law. The government is deciding how to spend $700 billion of your and my money. If the government took up a collection and let people vote with their dollars as to how much defense spending they wanted that would be a perfect market solution. But the government uses command and control to determine what the defense budget is.Unlike defense, the minimum wage is socialism enacted into law.
Really? What is the function of government? Is it to determine the equality of outcome, as the socialists claim? The minimum wage, a government price floor, is an illegitimate attempt to force an equality of outcome.Defense spending is also socialism enacted into law. The government is deciding how to spend $700 billion of your and my money. If the government took up a collection and let people vote with their dollars as to how much defense spending they wanted that would be a perfect market solution. But the government uses command and control to determine what the defense budget is.
The function of government is to do as little as possible since the government is a parasite. It creates nothing of value, it only redistributes what people have already earned.Really? What is the function of government?
The minimum wage does not force equality of outcome, not even close.Is it to determine the equality of outcome, as the socialists claim? The minimum wage, a government price floor, is an illegitimate attempt to force an equality of outcome.
Bush was just as much a socialist as Obama, after all, what was Medicare part D if not socialism? Under Clinton, at least our budget deficit went down and we got welfare reform. What can Bush say?The only inequality of outcome the military wants is to win a war! The military people that I know cannot stand Clinton or Obama. They have good reason to hate these socialist commander-in-chiefs.
Which should tell you that government has no business running the military.Let’s go back to your favorite country, Somalia. Clinton, the so-called commander in chief, personally directed that little war. First, he strips the military and then insists on directing the war from the White House. The results are shown in the movie, “Blackhawk Down.” Ditto for Carter in Iraq.
stinkcat_Under Clinton said:All of these “surpluses” were bogus!
The preamble to the US constitution says that a function of government is to promote the general welfare.The function of government is to do as little as possible since the government is a parasite. .
…and the general welfare does not mean socialism. Socialism does not promote the general welfare, far from it. Socialism promotes special interest groups.The preamble to the US constitution says that a function of government is to promote the general welfare.
It should be noted that promotion of the general welfare is not the same as providing the general welfare.The preamble to the US constitution says that a function of government is to promote the general welfare.
I am certain it was unintended, but I cannot help but be concerned at the order with which the two atrocities show themselves.This November would be a good time to throw the socialists, and the politicians who support abortion, out of office!
You are correct in connecting socialism and abortion. Socialism is hostile to the Church and the family. "Socialism, with its essentially materialistic nature, can admit no raison d’etre for a spiritual power, as complementary and superior to the secular power of the State. …. The State was never meant to appropriate to itself the main parental duties…"I am certain it was unintended, but I cannot help but be concerned at the order with which the two atrocities show themselves.
I want abortion supporters removed first.
It just so happens that the vast majority of these supporters are socialist, but my primary goal is outlawing abortion.
You mean the government courts?, So I must individually sue every air polluter because all contributed to the pollution in my lungs, and the government courts can handle all those suites and settle them all fairly. Wow you seeem to believe the government is super human an needs great authorityOf course.
Pollution is just a matter of private property rights, if you pollute your neighbors land, air, or water there will be compensation ruled by a court. It actually used to be like this and was working fine until courts started to rule that “for the common good” some industries can pollute more then others…You do, however, have the right to pollute your own land, as long as it does not effect others
Wow now there is some insightful thought. So how many electric lines need to be installed at your house, 5, 15, 25, 50? And how much will you pay me to allow those lines to cross my property? After all in his systems most people will need access to many, many lines, to have alternative purchasing power.As far as power lines, water lines, roads, etc go. Why can’t they be private? It would be much more efficient. Competition would spur better products, better ways of doing things.
lewrockwell.com/orig6/frazier3.html -article or roads
lewrockwell.com/rockwell/blackouts.html - article on electricity
lewrockwell.com/orig7/woods-d1.html - another on roads, makes points on sewer system as well.
The actual deficits are $418.3 billion in 1998, $520.7 billion in 1999 and $137.6 billion in 2000.stinkcat_Under Clinton said:All of these “surpluses” were bogus!
I found this information several years ago. (An old web site that no longer works is: federalreserve.gov/releases/Z1/Current/zir-3.pdf)
Do you find this hard to believe? Check it out for yourself. You might try calling the Federal Reserve at (202) 452-3482 and request that they mail you their Z1-Flow of Funds Accounts. The above information is in Table F4, on page 11.
I am a bit reluctant to infer another’s thoughts particularly when one assumes time, living standard, nor political control, could not matter. Adam Smith lived in Scotland practically 300 years ago, was he subject to a King? Was free trade openly applied there? Etc., etc. How would he have defined a living wage? His invisible hand set the stage for underlying economics and for that he deserves his fame, however to assume he has answers for today conditions is a bit much.So, us back to the original topic. Was Adam Smith against a living wage?
Is this improvement in the circumstances of the lower ranks of the people to be regarded as an advantage, or as an inconveniency, to the society? The answer seems at first abundantly plain. Servants, labourers, and workmen of different kinds, make up the far greater part of every great political society. But what improves the circumstances of the greater part, can never be regarded as any inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. **It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe, and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed, and lodged. **
That’s what I said. It would take $80 - $100 per hour to insure that everyone is "tolerably well fed, clothed, and lodged". Others have suggested it would need to be on the order of $500k/yr ($240/hr.) but I think this is a bit overly generous.Here is what Adam Smith said:
That is about the top 2% of income earners in the world or top 5% in the USA. Why would some one need that when in the USA the estimate is 10-14k/year or roughly $6-$7/hr. If that person is in a family say a family of four a single worker would need to earn 22-27k/year or roughly $11-$13.5/hr to "tolerably well fed, clothed, and lodged". their family.That’s what I said. It would take $80 - $100 per hour to insure that everyone is "tolerably well fed, clothed, and lodged". Others have suggested it would need to be on the order of $500k/yr ($240/hr.) but I think this is a bit overly generous.