Everyone deserves a basic standard of living. I would question the morality of anyone who didn't agree with that statement, but believe it or not, there are those who do not believe it.
The degree of inequality should be constrained. This is a bit harder to defend, but if you don't want riots in your country one could argue that you should take care of the least of your citizens.
Most improvements in technological and material prosperity are a good thing. Who would really want to go back to living in the 1930's?
We should value the preservation of non-market institutions. This is a bit harder to defend based on your definition of non-market institutions. Also, libertarians will take issue with interfering with the so called "free market". But, one example; many SL residents believe that removing homes, businesses and the beach from River St. was a huge mistake.
Now look at Wal-Mart.
Basic standard of living. Wal-Mart, the wealthiest company in the world, has low wages and benefits. Not only that, it pulls down wages and benefits of other companies. Wal-Mart's low prices are dependent on low prices and low benefits.
Inequality. Wal-Mart has placed 1.3 million persons in the USA into low paying, low benefit jobs. Recent census reports show more people in poverty and decreases in real income.
Improvements in technological and material prosperity. Wal-Mart takes business from existing firms by offering the same merchandise cheaper. Good competitive capitalism. Wal-Mart arguably lets you buy more with your money, but wouldn't a 1.50/hr wage increase provide the same savings and allow one to shop places other than Wal-Mart if they so wished? I guess the question here might be, should Wal-Mart spend $3 billion of it's $11 billion in profits to increase employee wages. Or maybe raise your prices by 1-2% and do the same thing. Or a combination of the two.
Non-Market institutions. Maybe you can argue that a Wal-Mart located in SL will not effect us socially somehow. How likely is it that a woman will be trampled by a crowd trying to grab $29 DVD players or that there will be an increase in crime. If there was a Wal-Mart will people be calling TOTT 30 years from now asking "What were those people thinking"?
Shopping at Wal-Mart is a no brainer for the 'consumer' in most of us. But what about the 'worker' or 'citizen' part of us?
NOTE: I stole most of this material from Bob Brownstein HERE.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Everyone deserves a basic standard of living. I would question the morality of anyone who didn't agree with that statement, but believe it or not, there are those who do not believe it.
The degree of inequality should be constrained. This is a bit harder to defend, but if you don't want riots in your country one could argue that you should take care of the least of your citizens.
So what are you saying, evil? Do you believe that it is right for socieaty to subsidize individuals who can't or won't pull their own weight? Do you think that we should limit how much people can make even if it removes their incentive to do more good for society? What is it you believe? I'm dying to hear.
I knew I'd hear from my favorite young libertarian. What about you? Do you believe in a fair days pay for a fair days work? Your damn right I think it's right for society to 'subsidize' individuals who can't work. What do you propose, maybe put them in debtors prison? Explain to me how much good the Waltons are doing for society. Are they doing a fair days work for a fair days pay? If there is a god, he/she is very upset with you right now.
1. I wouldn't consider myself a libertarian as I do not oppose government involvement in many areas and most libertarians seem to believe in almost no government. You must get the young part because I originally included my age in my Blogger profile (or you could have read it on WMW). I suppose I can grant that.
2. I do believe in a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. We likely differ in our definition of fair. I believe "fair" is determined by supply and demand, while you believe it is a function of need.
3. I notice you didn't answer my question about those who won't work. You probably don't want to hear what I have to say about those that can't, so let's just leave assume I agree in helping those who are physically or mentally unable to contribute to society through no fault of their own. I will not accept any other definition of "can't" (well, I might, but it's unlikely).
4. I didn't make any claims as to how much anyone contributes to society. Some people don't deserve a damn thing they get (I'm thinking of a certain heiress). Since I don't know exactly how you propose to prevent excessive wealth, or how you define it, I'll use a hypothetical to illustrate what I was getting at: Suppose a person comes up with the cure for AIDS and consequently reaches the income ceiling. During his research, he also came across a potential cure for cancer. Assuming he doesn't really care about helping people, what incentive does he have to pursue this research if there is no more financial gain. A similar argument is used by Wal-Mart associates affected by the caps, and I see it as a valid line of reasoning.
Bad example, you sure don't know scientists very well.
Ummmm, would you state your questions again please?
Someone, please take your hateful attitudes about single mothers elsewhere. You are not welcome here.
Umm...
What "hateful attitudes about single mothers" did I post here? Those missing posts had nothing to do with single mothers.
Post a Comment