Libertarianism fails to acknowledge that hunger is a gun to your head.
And who would be holding that gun?
Whoever offers starvation wages knowing there is nothing better out there, like we tried your thing it was called the 19th century, it sucked
Okay, so I’m starving, and somebody offers me a job at $4/hr.
In your mind, the villain of this story is the only person who is offering me anything?
Leftists don’t seem to understand that no one is obligated to give them anything at all.
I would say the person is helping you, but not on an immediate or permanent scale. Frankly, I think we deserve to be paid fairly for our work. $4/hour is not only illegal, but also not likely to feed you.
No one has to give me anything, but there is a reason we have laws forbidding people working all day and night and being paid basically nothing. Work is worth something.
Fair pay is subjective. Fair pay for you may not be fair pay for someone else, based on the labor that is provided, so it’s unfair to employers to attempt to enforce a fair wage.
Minimum wage laws and (most) labor laws are unnecessary and cause further economic problems. Work may be worth something, but it should be up to the employer and employee to figure out how much that something is; the state shouldn’t have a place in the argument.
If someone makes the decision to work all day with little pay, that’s their decision to make. That’s not to say that they shouldn’t make a fair wage — it is to say, however, that the employee should negotiate for a fair wage with the employer at the time of hiring (or after, if they have sufficient skills to justify a raise).
But you must admit the owner has unfair advantage over an individual worker as he has resources to command they do not, thus the necessity of a union, also it’s all rather moot as wage labor is a perverse incentive and I want it and the owning class abolished as they do nothing useful and much that is harmful
Along with a drastic restructuring of the system of ownership to better reflect the dynamics of use
The owner does have an advantage, but said advantage isn’t necessarily unfair (though, in some cases, it may be used unfairly). They create the need for labor to begin with. Most employees are a means to an end; they are not the end itself (nor should they be, as that creates unnecessary labor), nor do they usually decide which end to pursue.
Unions may be necessary in some cases, but employers still have every right to replace people if they attempt to unionize (though those employers may be dicks). This is especially the case if other people are willing to work at a lower wage than those unionizing are attempting to secure.
What is “the owning class”? People who own things? What a silly phrase.
Ownership and use are not wholly relevant to each other. While transferring ownership based on use may be more practical, it is ultimately the owner’s decision to transfer ownership. If anyone else were to attempt to make that decision, it would be through the use of coercion (coercion is the action that must be justified, and more often than not, it isn’t).
Demand creates jobs, not employers, and I mean those who make a living owning rather than working
and I think force is justified to remove dogs from the manger and to stop the theft of the fruits of other’s labor
Thoughts From The Peacock Angel 