“Hristos Doucouliagos and T. D. Stanley (2009) conducted a meta-study of 64 minimum-wage studies published between 1972 and 2007 measuring the impact of minimum wages on teenage employment in the United States. When they graphed every employment estimate contained in these studies (over 1,000 in total), weighting each estimate by its statistical precision, they found that the most precise estimates were heavily clustered at or near zero employment effects (see Figure 1). Doucouliagos and Stanley’s results held through an extensive set of checks, including limiting the analysis to what study authors’ viewed as their best (usually of many) estimates of the employment impacts, controlling for possible correlation of estimates within each study, and controlling for possible correlation of estimates by each author involved in multiple studies. Doucouliagos and Stanley concluded that their results “…corroborate [Card and Krueger’s] overall finding of an insignificant employment effect (both practically and statistically) from minimum-wage raises.””
Somewhere in the basement of the Mises Institute, a dark ritual is being performed in an attempt to make this study spontaneously combust in a ball of flame.
First, understanding the negative consequences of minimum wage laws is not some Austrian-exclusive “belief.” It’s universally accepted Economics 101, as even legendary Keynesians Paul Samuelson, Jim Tobin, and [economist] Paul Krugman will tell you (not to mention non-Austrian Milton Friedman). It is, literally, the basic and immutable law of supply and demand: as prices rise, quantity demanded - ceteris paribus - decreases, which in turn results in excess supply (or a glut). When the supply is labor, we call that glut “unemployment.”
In fact, there are countless studies and analyses we can offer each other. And we know that numbers can be interpreted and manipulated in any number of ways. The economic profession is far from free of ideologues.
Plus, there is the real understanding that the complexities of economies - that is the complexities of varied, independently acting individuals with subjective preferences, goals, and histories making decisions regarding scarce resources - cannot be distilled to one changed variable. And as such, because there is always time between when a minimum wage is proposed and when it takes effect, its impact can be all but hidden as employers take different actions leading up to the new minimum wage than simply waiting for the new wage to take affect and firing everyone then. Furthermore, compensation is not merely pay: workplace comforts, vacation days, overtime hours, and other benefits could be affected without employers resorting to firings. So when Doucouliagos and Stanley note, “we only include those estimates which are elasticities [of employment with respect to the minimum wage] or can be converted to elasticities” as a means to filter the various studies, they are not observing the larger picture. Indeed, the larger picture can be nearly impossible to observe if employers had enough time to adjust their practices before the wage took affect.
And despite all that, the best Doucouliagos and Stanley can offer is “[after adjustments,] little or no evidence of a negative association between minimum wages and employment remains.”
Still, if we cannot settle this matter with empiricism (since the analyzed individuals aren’t fungible, and we’ll both nonetheless offer those studies which confirm our biases), then we must turn to reason.
To that end, the following questions demand answers:
- How can increasing the price on gasoline and cigarettes (through taxation) be publicized as methods to curbing their use, but the same does not hold with regards to the price of labor?
- If people are more willing to purchase things during a sale, why wouldn’t the opposite - less likely to purchase things after price increases - be true?
- If raising the price on something does not affect the quantity demanded, then why not raise it higher?
- How is an arbitrary price set by diktat an improvement over the emergent price from free individuals interacting and making mutually beneficial decisions for themselves?
- Why would any employer hire someone who is not as productive as their wage, and who therefore represents a loss?
- If a 3% “cut” on a budget increase (facilitated on non-consensual funding) is - per state-supportive individuals on the left - difficult to overcome, why are employers expected to adjust to a 24% increase in costs for their lowest-skilled/marginally-productive workers (precluding consensual exchanges)?
- If legislation was passed that required a minimum of $10 when giving money to panhandlers, would said panhandlers be better off?
- If you saw a desperate woman looking for work to keep her children fed - with poor language skills and a lack of education making her an unattractive employee at the minimum wage level - offer to clean houses at below the minimum wage, would you personally threaten her potential employer with violence for making such an agreement? Would you personally intervene and keep her unemployed and unable to provide for her family? And if you wouldn’t do so personally, why would using a surrogate - government - be any different?
- Why have minimum wages historically and throughout the world been supported by racists hoping to keep minorities from employment?
- Why was the last year that the black employment rate was lower than the white unemployment rate also the last year there was no minimum wage law?
- If those businesses that cater to poorer communities tend to hire minimum wage earners to keep prices affordable to the clientele in their area, then who would most be harmed by increasing prices as a result of a minimum wage increase?
- If employers have a monopsony, then why do most people (about 95% of all hourly wage earners) earn more than the minimum wage?
- If employers have a monopsony that in turn pays their workers less than their worth, then why don’t you start your own business that offers these low-skilled workers more? You’d clearly attract the labor and, if your monopsony model is correct, there is more than enough room for profit. And doing so would effectively break the monopsony stronghold. Win-win-win.
- If someone wants to work at a job he or she may not be qualified for but compensates for this by offering a lower wage in order to gain experience, training, and an opportunity to advance, and someone is willing to hire that person, what gives you the right to intervene?
Unfortunately, the only ritual being performed is the sacrifice of the well-being of low-wage workers (teenagers and minorities in particular) at the bloody altar of good intentions.
The latest from Matt Wuerker
I try really hard not to be cynical but sometimes I feel like society is just getting dumber.
You see, Nate, that without minimum wages and regulatory stipulations and mandatory benefits, employers would use actual whips on us as motivation, pay us in actual peanuts (hope you’re not allergic!), and might occasionally stab us with actual pitchforks when we underperform. Without the state helping us, we’d be powerless saps - at least according to the ‘progressive’ belief in the monopsony model of employment in which there is effectively no competition for labor.
Of course, if these progressives truly believed in what they profess - that employees are grossly underpaid, including health benefits offered, relative to their productivity - then why don’t they start their own competing businesses? They claim that there is more than enough room for profit while still paying a “proper” wage, and such higher pay would produce an increase in productivity that would prima facie offset that pay. So what’s stopping them? According to their own logic, it would be a boon to employees, a boon to consumers (who would naturally gravitate toward these probably more expensive but more “fair” products), and they could make a few bucks on top of it all. That’s a win-win-win, folks! So show us you mean what you claim to be true, progressives, and put your own money on the line.
Is quite compelling, according to Sally Satel:
On Oct. 2, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services proposed a new rule that would…[designate] a specific form of bone marrow — circulating bone-marrow stem cells derived from blood — as a kind of donation that, under the 1984 National Organ Transplant Act, cannot be compensated. If this rule goes into effect (the public comment period ends today), anyone who pays another person for donating these cells would be subject to as much as five years in prison and a $50,000 fine.
Here’s why it’s a bad thing:
altruism has proven insufficient to motivate enough people to give marrow and, as a result, people die… Each year, 2,000 to 3,000 Americans in need of marrow transplants die waiting for a match. Altruism is a virtue, but clearly it is not a dependable motive for marrow donation.
Satel notes earlier in the article:
Locating a marrow donor is often a needle-in-a-haystack affair. The odds that two random individuals will have the same tissue type are less than 1 in 10,000, and the chances are much lower for blacks. Among the precious few potential donors who are matched, nearly half don’t follow through with the actual donation. Too often, patients don’t survive the time it takes to hunt for another donor.
Allowing compensation for donations could enlarge the pool of potential donors and increase the likelihood that compatible donors will follow through. So the [recent] ruling by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [authorizing compensation for donors] was promising news for the 12,000 people with cancer and blood diseases currently looking for a marrow donor.
I can see two potential problems: the first is that people might donate bone marrow out of economic desperation, and this feels wrong to us at first glance. But is it really? Particularly when both parties benefit so readily from it? Indeed, given the risks of bone marrow donation, don’t donors deserve to be compensated? This is an objection which could be readily met by setting a threshold for compensated donations, to ensure that donors are compensation fairly for their donation.
The second problem is a more difficult one. There is potential that for-profit donations may eventually crowd out uncompensated donations, since why would any stranger do for free what they can get paid to do instead? Particularly when they’re making such an essential sacrifice—their own body?
At the end of the day though, I think the balance of equities weighs in favor of allowing for-profit donations. I have enough faith in the goodness of people that crowding out will be minimal. If someone walked up to me tomorrow and said I could save someone’s life with a bone marrow transplant, but that they couldn’t afford to pay me, I like to think that my decision would not be based on the lack of compensation. Meanwhile, some people may be more likely to donate if they know their risks will be well compensated. Allowing for-profit donations seems to be the better side of the argument, from my point of view.
I of course agree with your conclusion, but you overstate the concerns.
To your first “potential problem”: “people might donate bone marrow out of economic desperation.” Your solution is government (ostensibly; you don’t specify but the implication is there) “setting a threshold for compensated donations” to ensure “fairness.” As in pretty much every other instance of “fairness” being set from without, whatever is decided would be completely arbitrary. If two people negotiate on a price and willfully agree, then the price is fair. Either one owns oneself and thus controls his or her body, or he/she doesn’t.
Some may conclude that “economic desperation” would lead people to accept prices that seem unreasonable. You do not want people to be taken advantage of, and I grant that is a noble concern. But if organ donation is made legal - that is, if the state does not interfere in the consensual exchange of free individuals - then the market for organs will function like like all other markets. As I often note, the laws of supply and demand is immutable. Does anyone doubt that there will likely be more people in need of organs (marrow, in this instance) than those willing to endure the painful procedure to give it away? Thus, there will be competition for marrow. This drives the price up. And as the price rises, it will incentivize ever more people to enter the market and offer their marrow. This increases supply! More marrow will be available to sick people in need. As the supply increases, the price again lowers as it trends toward equilibrium. This means greater access to the sick. All good things.
Furthermore, because caring people like you would still exist, non-profits would no doubt emerge to help offset the costs for organs and offer minimum prices at what the non-profits and their sponsors seem fair - further assuaging concerns of individuals being taken advantage of.
As to your second “potential problem”: “for-profit donations may eventually crowd out uncompensated donations.” To address this, we must look at the matter in a different way.
Would you agree that, while very helpful and important, organ donation is not the most essential factor for our survival, yes? After all, only a small percentage of the overall population needs an organ transplant, whereas every human requires food, clean water, shelter, medicine, other forms of healthcare, etc. But we can acknowledge that it would be foolish to think in terms of the for-profit farmer “crowding out” the one who donates his labor with only the thanks of strangers as his reward. And most would agree that it would be irresponsible to suggest that doctors not be compensated for their years of dedication and sacrifice and training and expertise and labor and risks, yes? Thankfully, slavery has mostly been outlawed in this country. So why would the selling of organs - a much more painful and dangerous process than plucking a carrot from the ground - be different?
As illustrated above, selling organs would create incentive for people to offer theirs. The greater the need and the smaller the supply, the greater the price offered. The greater the price offered, the more people willing to exchange. Then, as now, most people with compatible family members will still receive donations from them. But those unfortunate souls without compatible family members will have more life-saving options available to them.
Allowing free people to buy and sell bone marrow is the only humane option. Not only does it represent a more just and civilized society (no state introducing threats of violence into the consensual decisions of free people), but it also means that no longer will so many people die every year hopelessly waiting for a matching donor.
And in that, I am very glad we can agree.
The NFL is a private company and can do whatever they want.
Indeed. That much was already noted in the original post. Of course they can choose who to associate with. The point is that there is an incongruity with its paeans to militarism that involves individuals using guns overseas to make us less safe while denying an ad that is about a father owning a gun at home to keep his wife and child safe.
This is dumb.
What is? Is it dumb to note the hypocrisy in the NFL’s stance? Is it dumb to note how outrageously anti-gun media voices must be to avoid public relations backlash from the ignorant and naive masses who would doubtlessly cry fowl at a commercial that has a man state “I am responsible for [my family’s] protection” and further imply that he can use a certain tool to do so?
I love DD but they can’t force another company to do what they want.
Of course they can’t. And not a single word in that post even suggested otherwise. Again, it was explicitly noted in the original post: “I support the NFL being allowed to choose to run whatever they want (or not) during their games, assuming that such decision-making is part of its contracts with the network airing the game.”
“Look at the difference: In 1977 I bought a small house in Portland Oregon for $24,000. At the time I was earning $5 per hour working at a large auto parts store. I owned a 4 year old Chevy Nova that cost $1,500. Now, 36 years later that same job pays $8 an hour, that same house costs $185,000 and a 4 year old Chevy costs $10,000. Wages haven’t kept up with expenses at all. And, I should point out that that $5 an hour job in 1977 was union and included heath benefits.”
an anonymous online commenter on the current economy. (via alchemy)
LTMC: When I was working at a gas station, I had an old-timer come in and tell that he used to make $2/hour at a factory job when he was in his late 20’s. He said he could feed his whole family for the night by buying a 24-cut pizza for $2. Fast forward to my gas station job, where I was making $8/hour, but a 24-cut pizza in my town costs closer to $20—2.5 times more on a dollar-for-dollar basis. He said he had no idea how I even survived on what I was making (I was insured through college at the time, but had no savings, and relied on family for large expenses).
This is what people mean when they talk about income inequality. The reason wages have not kept pace with expenses is because the nation’s previous method of wage redistribution—union representation—has declined substantially. Wage increases have subsequently been absorbed on an increasingly larger basis by corporate entities and the top 1% of earners. Strong unions used to serve as a soft redistribution mechanism to help ensure that increases in prosperity were shared equally. A critical mass of union representation in the labor force has always had derivative wage benefits in the non-union labor market. That critical mass no longer exists, however. Consequently, the decline of union labor has led to a concurrent decline in wages relative to expenses, because there’s no longer an institutional mechanism for redistribution of earnings increases in the economy. The critical mass of union representation is gone, and nothing has taken its place.
First, income inequality has nothing to do with poverty or well-being. People in, say, Beverly Hills may have large discrepancies (“inequalities”) in income but they are all fairly wealthy. And people in, say, some slum in Bolivia may have no income inequality but they are all equally poor. Indeed, the poor in the United States are wealthy compared to the poor in Africa. Relative wealth is absolutely meaningless. It falsely presumes that wealth cannot be created and that trade is zero sum. How wealthy my neighbor may be does not necessarily affect me unless I, frankly, allow envy to interfere with my happiness.
Second, the most relevant manner in which union representation has anything to do with “income inequality” is insofar as unions price out marginal workers from jobs through their government protections against “scabs” and their support for minimum wages. Unions have not been the great protector of the worker that the left makes them out to be.
There are many reasons why someone might conclude that most were better off in 1977 than today.
Regulations - ostensibly required for matters of safety and protecting the environment - have increased the costs of automobiles dramatically. Cars cannot simply be made as cheaply as they once were, and those that might be more affordable elsewhere are made more expensive due to protectionist import tariffs or outright bans. Furthermore, advances in technology have equipped cars in ways unthinkable years ago. That used mid-70’s Chevy Nova had none of the safety and luxury and comfort features standard in cars today. Those airbags, radios, and power windows aren’t free to produce, after all. Ergo, comparing the price of a cheap car in 1977 and a cheap car in 2013 is not comparing like goods. Instead, the 1977 Nova may have more in common with a brand new, barebones Tata from India which, if not for government/EPA interference prohibiting its import into the United States, would cost the American consumer about $3,000. And, adjusted for inflation, that $3000 today is much less than than the $1500 spent on the used Nova in 1977.
Housing is made more expensive mostly because of goosed demand facilitated by easy credit from government agencies and lowered lending standards facilitated by government decree. The housing bubble is decades in the making (though it really began its meteoric climb in the 1990s), and the recent correction didn’t come anywhere near correcting since the same activities that led to the bubble are mostly still in effect. A dramatic decrease in lending standards put people into homes that they could not afford, creating an increase in demand that drove the costs of owning a home upward.
Russ Roberts, in his paper “Gambling with Other People’s Money,” details the entire process of perverted incentives in the housing market that incentivized buyers to purchase more and bigger homes while protecting investors from the risks of making such loans - all which led to dramatic increases in housing prices, most of which are still artificially overvalued today. (Also relevant are Woods’ Meltdown, Sowell’s Housing Boom and Bust, and Norberg’s Financial Fiasco)
Furthermore, government involvement in education has steadily pushed prices of education upward while simultaneously devaluing the marketability of said education. Graduates, thus, begin their careers with a large amount of debt which affects their ability to save. The attempts to make education as market agnostic as possible has also led people into majors with little practical utility (while diminishing the prevalence of trade schools), further harming their employability in the marketplace.
And with minimum wages pushing individuals to enter the workforce much later than they once did, said individuals are thus that much behind in their ability to advance in their careers and move past the point in which a minimum wage would be relevant to them. (See here, here, here, here, and here for more on why the minimum wage is terrible for the economy in general, and marginal workers specifically.)
But the true culprit in devaluing the purchasing power of the dollar is the Federal Reserve.
This is why comparisons of prices and wages must always be “inflation-adjusted.” The minimum wage today ($7.25) is over three times what it was in 1977 ($2.30). Adjusted for inflation, however, it is actually 18% less. In other words, it is inflation that makes the income less valuable. But most people don’t understand what inflation is, and they just take it as a given.
On the contrary, economy-wide price inflation is a product of monetary inflation - that is, an expansion of the money supply.
At the start of 1977, M1 (total stock of monetary assets in the economy) was $306.9 billion. Today, M1 is $2.6 trillion. That’s an increase of 847%. Every dollar added, thus, makes every dollar in existence that much less valuable.
Strictly speaking, inflation is what happens when a government central bank — in our case the Fed — increases the supply of money and credit out of thin air. When these increase and the supply of goods does not, prices will generally rise — that is, the value of the dollar will fall — and it will take more money to buy things than previously. That’s common sense. If people have more money to spend, not because they produced and sold more goods, but only because the central bank printed it, prices will rise with the rising demand. Generally, a rise in prices is called (price) inflation, but it’s actually just the consequence of (monetary) inflation.
When the value of the dollar falls, our incomes fall, even if wages are nominally unchanged. With price inflation, one hundred dollars buys less today than it did last year. Or, to put our monetary history in perspective, what five dollars bought in 1914, when the Fed first opened its doors, today costs about one hundred dollars. A wage increase might make up some lost ground, but people on fixed incomes don’t get wage increases, so they’re out of luck. Also, prices typically rise faster than wages during an inflationary period. …
Because Fed-created money enters the economy at particular points (through banks and bond dealers), a select few people get it sooner than the rest of us. Those who are thus privileged are able to buy at the old, lower prices, while the rest of us don’t see the money until prices have risen. That is an implicit tax and transfer.
And the problem isn’t simply a rising price level. Relative prices are what provide entrepreneurs and investors the information required for rational economic calculation and service to consumers. Inflation changes relative prices. Thus, it distorts the price system and, in turn, the multidimensional economic structure. That means any stimulus is unsustainable because the inflationary policy will eventually end and unemployment must follow as the inflation-induced errors are revealed.
Inflation serves the governing class. Honest, hardworking people should abhor it.
On top of everything, the state keeps about half of what every person earns through social security, medicare, income taxes, sales taxes, etc.
Which brings us to the common thread amongst all these impediments: the state.
The state is what makes goods artificially expensive. The state makes employees much more expensive for an employer to hire than what the employee will ultimately be paid (I’ll have a post on this soon). The state devalues the purchasing power of every dollar we hold.
Now, I absolutely grant that many rich have gotten richer at a higher pace than the rest of us for some years now. While not necessarily a problem in and of itself, it is the truth - and a symptom of a larger issue: this is precisely because of the generous benefits afforded them by the leviathan state the left views as the savior of the common man.
And, again, the Federal Reserve is the biggest facilitator of this massive theft from the common man to the wealthy and connected: that’s the state’s true redistribution of wealth. Expecting the state to be otherwise is pure naiveté.
So long as there are centers of power, those with means will aim to wield that power or work it in their favor. And there’s no greater power than the state’s monopoly on force. The state, therefore, will always serve the interests of the connected few above the masses.
As I’ve noted:
If government cannot impose taxes or offer tax breaks, impose tariffs or offer subsidies, impose regulations or offer liability protections, impose fees and licensing or offer interest-free loans, impose wage and price controls or offer bailouts - then what good is it for a corporation [or the rich] to control the government?
It is the state that is zero-sum. What it gives it must first take, and the givers and takers are usually decided by the connected.
The state is no friend to the poor, nor - as I’ve hopefully shown - no friend to the common man. Turning to monopolized authority to centrally plan people out of poverty and hardship only leads to more poverty and hardship.
As much as I hate that this happened, and I recognize police brutality is a huge problem, the fact remains that all the facts are not know AND America has something y’all seem to remember for people like the Boston Bomber but forget when it comes to policemen: innocent until PROVEN guilty. He has not been proven guilty and the investigation by the police department has not finished. You cannot abandon this principle.
- "all the facts are not know (sic)"
Cop tasered boy with his hands up and walking away, causing boy to hit his head on the ground when he fell which lead to brain damage and a coma. What more need be known?
- "innocent until PROVEN guilty."
Such a principle is an important element in a properly functioning criminal justice system, but the point is that one need not be proven guilty in a court of law to be fired. If this were private security in a private school, the security guard would have been - at the very least - suspended immediately and the school would have dealt with the private security firm swiftly so as to please the parents and students. After all, unlike cops and public schools, private security and private schools are dependent on the voluntary patronage of willing customers. Parents concerned that their children might be killed by over-zealous security would no doubt find a new place to send their kids.
- "the investigation by the police department has not finished."
Considering the overwhelming majority of such investigations tends to absolve officers of wrong-doing, I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for a just outcome.
Proving that idiocy truly has no bounds, Spain issued a “royal decree” taxing sunlight gatherers. The state threatens fines as much as 30 million euros for those who illegally gather sunlight without paying a tax.
The tax is just enough to make sure that homeowners cannot gather and store solar energy cheaper than state-sponsored providers.
Via Mish-modified Google Translate from Energias Renovables, please consider Photovoltaic Sector, StunnedThe Secretary of State for Energy, Alberto Nadal, signed a draft royal decree in which consumption taxes are levied on those who want to start solar power systems on their rooftops. The tax, labeled a “backup toll” is high enough to ensure that it will be cheaper to keep buying energy from current providers.
Spain Privatizes the Sun…
The state’s thirst for control again exceeds any pretense of limit.
N.B.: I think C4SS’s assessment incorrectly referring to this state action against private individuals as “privatizing" may stem from their typically Marxian/Proudhonian interpretations of property.
Of course, sunlight cannot be privatized. Resources like sunlight, oxygen, and gravity, are referred to as “background conditions” or “non-economic goods” because, as the name implies, they are not (typically) economic goods. There is no inherent rivalrous, perishable scarcity as there would be with economic goods such as iPads, gold, labor, or coconuts.
As Carl Menger explained in his Principles of Economics:
[A]ll the various forms in which human economic activity expresses itself are absent in the case of goods whose available quantities are larger than the requirements for them, just as naturally as they will necessarily be present in the case of goods subject to the opposite quantitative relationship. Hence they are not objects of human economy, and for this reason we call them non-economic goods.
Using the term “privatize” in this case, with regards to the sun - or, more appropriately, sunlight - only serves to sully the concept of privatization. I am afraid, considering the source, that may have been the point.
Republicans are up in arms that fewer Americans were able to sign up for Obamacare than anticipated.
But don’t let the fake outrage fool you. They’d rather see nobody sign up.
I’m all for mocking republican politicians, but this is a stretch of a straw man.
No one is faking outrage that “more Americans didn’t sign up for Obamacare.” I think they are, like the rest of us, (1) enraged that so many are not be able to keep the coverage they liked despite the false promises, and (2) enjoying a bit of schadenfreude in light of the fact that those of us against Obamacare correctly predicted that huge, centralized, monopolized bureaucracies predicated on force are inherently inefficient, unsustainable disasters.
Now, it might very well be true that the republicans in power don’t care that people are not being able to keep their insurance except insofar as it is politically expedient for them; they are, after all, the same party who pushed through Medicare Part D and put up for election in 2012 the man whose health plan for his state was the model for Obamacare. But that’s quite different from your nonsensical claim that republicans are pretending to be outraged that “more Americans didn’t sign up for Obamacare.” And if it is true that no republicans want Americans to sign up for Obamacare, then they’d be holding the correct and moral and economically sound position despite whatever motives they may have for holding said position. After all, the insidiousness of the [Un]affordable Care Act goes beyond poorly functioning websites, loss of insurance coverage, and huge increases in prices - it also distorts incentives and will ultimately lead to decreased access and lower quality care. So for all of our health, it’s better that no one signs up.
If anarchists had any balls that be dead or in prison.
Easy to say when you’re a bitch to the queen.
i don’t want to be dead or in prison
Monarchists don’t have balls…
Because I don’t believe that me and every other anarchist running up to the white house with guns will change anything. The state has a monopoly on violence. Myself and everyone else would probably get murdered and the violence I participated in would only create more violence.
Violence is easy. Name calling is easy. Blaming other people for why everything sucks is easy. And all the above are ultimately futile.
It takes big balls to engage people non violently. Especially when violence is being used against you. It takes big balls to sit down and have a conversation with someone and try to change their mind with words, not guns. It takes even bigger balls to raise your children with the same values and instill in them at every opportunity the ability to understand why all those things are important.
Monarchism, nationalism, reactionism, fascism and all that palingenetic ultranationalism crap won’t accomplish that. Those things don’t produce free men. They create slaves. Suck it.
Yes yes, I understand, you’re unwilling to sacrifice for your beliefs.
All I’m saying is that if anarchists were anything more than venting, angsty, stick-it-to-the-man preteens, they’d live by their principles and not recognize authority over them.
Yet, alas, they do.
"Police officer, I was attacked and mugged and kidnapped and raped and beaten."
"O rly? And you are against those things?
"But you seem to be alive."
"I wasn’t murdered, but I was all those other things."
"If you really were against those things instead of just being angsty, you would have stood up against it. Alas, you didn’t. You lack balls."
"But he had a gun."
"Right. And you’d be dead."
"… um… yeah? … and… I… don’t want to be dead."
"Yes yes, I understand, you’re unwilling to sacrifice for your beliefs. But then I’d know you were actually against those things. Since you are alive, that means you recognized the authority over you."
"That was not recognizing authority, that was preferring to live."
"Run along and go vent somewhere else, I have a royal penis to clean.”
I laughed really hard reading this. It’s difficult to take seriously.
You changed the title to say “Defending Brutality.”
Technically, I didn’t change the title; the post had no title as it was originally a video. And I chose a title befitting my response; see below.
Can you point out the part where I was defending brutality? No? Big surprise. After all, I didn’t do that.
Your post presumed to give the officers the benefit of the doubt. You questioned sources and demanded further context, and you downplayed the actions of the officer in question.
If your default position is to defend cops, then you are defending brutality.
The title was about defending the brutality inherent in a flawed system. Not reading the actual post naturally leads to misunderstanding.
I outright said the officer pushed her and she hit her face.
You cannot deny, as much as you may want to, what the cop did. The video is clear. But again, here you are with almost passive voice: “she hit her face.” No. The cop threw her face-first into the room.
Let’s be honest. You changed the title because you’re attempting to misrepresent what I said rather than address the content of my comment. That’s a logical fallacy, by the way.
You read what you wanted to read so you would have an excuse to go off on your angry little rant. You openly admit you hate an entire group of people based on exceptional cases.
So although you falsely believed I “misrepresented what [you] said,” here you very clearly do so to my argument as I did not “openly admit” that my hatred and disdain for cops is “based on exceptional cases.” Again, if you had only read the post - you’d understand that (1) the cases are far from “exceptional” and (2) the problem with cops are systemic.
You’ve made it clear you’re neither willing nor capable of rational discussion.
Speaking of logical fallacies, I was hoping you would have a legitimate rebuttal instead of ad hominem. This entire reply (1) objected to my title and (2) objected to my bias - two things that would be unlikely after a proper reading of my admittedly angry rant (I get angry when people side with violent bullies). After you go back and actually read my post, maybe you can come up with an actual argument to support your claim that you desire “rational discussion”?
She was not thrown. She was pushed. I don’t know if she lost her footing, or if she slipped, or if she was so drunk she had no balance. It doesn’t matter.
She was pushed back into her cell and she went face first into the bench. It sucks and it’s awful and I wish it didn’t happen, but it did.
But every time something like this happens, it’s the same shit. The video gives us limited information. Other information provided is lacking in a source, or if a source is given it’s of questionable integrity. Or it’s full of speculation.
And then everyone that is ignorant of law enforcement and hates cops shares it around. We get it. You hate cops. Whoopdedoo.
But in the end she’s still hurt and a lot of people are using this to try to confirm their confirmation bias because they hate cops, and ultimately they don’t give a fuck about the woman who was unintentionally injured.
No. Note what I was objecting to: that she “fell.” Falling implies an accident or some lack of control. And placing the word “fall” in a separate sentence from “push,” created some division from the action and perpetrator, and the consequence. Additionally, because (1) he exerted force well beyond whatever may have been necessary to move this 110 pound woman into her cell and (2) he was still holding her hands behind her back whilst doing so, his physical application of force exceeded what may simply be termed a mere push. And that is one definition of “throw”: to not just push someone or something away but to violently push someone or something from one physical position or location to another.
There’s no more context needed than what you see in the video. She very calmly walks out of the cell, a few moments later she is being forced back into the cell. Does she resist? Perhaps she locks her needs for a fraction of a second - a natural response to being manhandled. But she is a small, unarmed woman with no shoes - there is nothing she could have said or done before the moment of that “push" that would have merited such an extreme physical assault. That is not how human beings are treated. That is how someone treats someone else’s trash.
"Every time something like this happens, it’s the same shit"? Well, yeah. That’s because this happens all the damn time.
And yes, I hate cops - but you’re the one who is “ignorant of law enforcement.” It is wholly unnecessary to brutally attack non-violent innocents because they violate some arbitrary legislation. And even if you believe that some legislation is just, this repeated savagery is still excessive.
So, again, I do hate cops. Because they are animals. But no, no… Not all of them, of course. We must not generalize! Right? We must always stipulate that this is just an “isolated incident” - like those many, many, countless others. It’s a never-ending string of isolated incidents and at no point must we ever determine that the problem is systemic, must we?! But even those cops who are not power-hungry sociopathic bullies who think themselves above the law they ostensibly uphold, are still enforcers of an unjust system. Show me a cop who has never harassed, ticketed, or arrested a non-violent person (a person who did not harm another person or property, but merely violated some government edict), and I’ll show you a cop on his first hour of the job. Furthermore, as if being the armed extension of an unjust system weren’t enough, they have been given a unique monopoly on force, that is further reinforced by various protections from liability of their actions (compounded by the fact that the “good” cops never speak out against their own). It’s a sad truth that cops who suffer consequences for their brutality are far more rare than the brutality itself - and, more often than not, the consequences are suspensions with pay. Very rarely is an officer fired, and rarer still is an officer brought up on criminal charges.
The police aren’t merely the avatar of the state’s primary interaction with its citizens, it is the actual boot with which the state uses to stamp the face of mankind. They are the day-to-day agents who physically keep us subservient and in line. When those lights are approaching on the rear view mirror, the average person isn’t washed over with the calmness that comes from being protected - they tense up with justified fear as to how these thugs may wreck their lives.
So, yes - indeed - I hate cops… because that is the natural consequence of hating fascistic, authoritarian bullies. And if you spent just a few minutes scrolling through my cops tag you will see victim after victim after victim after victim after victim after victim after victim after victim after victim… And at every post consider: what would happen to the cop if he did this as a private citizen? What if a private citizen did this to me or someone I cared about? Would I be justified in physically defending myself or my loved one? Would I be justified in using lethal force against this private citizen to save my life or the life of my lived one? If you can ask these questions honestly, you will see that the cops are placed in an elevated, protected class.
I care very much about the people who are injured - not only could they very well be my wife, or my sister, or my daughter, or some other loved one… but I care about injustice against all innocents (a primary reason I am, ideologically, what I am).
We’ve seen police officers get away with everything: They beat, they harass, they entrap, they invade, they steal, they abduct, they sexually assault, they terrorize, they kill… they do this to men, women, children, elderly, pets… and they do so with the impunity that comes with the badge, and because of the public defense and cover people like you afford them.
This militarization of protection is not how a free and just society would operate. And I, for one, will not tolerate the evil and brutality that is concomitant of the dual dangers of monopolization of force and unjust legislation against peaceful activity.
If Obamacare is removed from the government budget, presented, and voted on as a separate bill, Obamacare can be defunded by the House. If that is the case, then the Senate and the President has no constitutional authority to override the House’s decision.
Harold Pease’s original article is here …
if that were the case, they would already have done it, wouldn’t they? and if it is and they haven’t then how to explain the inaction?
Because aside from the rhetoric, most professional Republicans have no problem with ObamaCare existing, they just want it tweaked here and there and ultimately worked in their favor. They are not to be trusted any more than Democrats. They are, for all intents and purposes, the same. Democrats have shown they love warmongering like the Republicans when they were in power. And when Republicans were in power, they passed the largest entitlement in the history of the country up to that point (MediCare Part D). And they both love the war on drugs, and domestic spying, and corporatism, and everything else. With the two-party status quo, whether the red team or the blue team wins often won’t make much difference anyway.
You are all getting played.
It is completely obvious that you don’t have the first clue about how websites work. It’s really easy to write a script to immediately redirect to a pre-built site, since they HAVE shut down before.
I swear, non-IT people make me insane.. but keep me paid, so there’s that.
That these were redirects and not actual shutting down of servers was, in fact, noted - and part of the argument (perhaps reading the full post may be in order?). It may be “easy,” but it is less easy than simply leaving the site(s) up. Leaving the site be, in almost all cases, requires no work and no additional overhead. And that is exactly what most of these are: redirects that do nothing to change the fact that the data is still being hosted and served. (Also, these sites may have gone down frequently, but they have not been taken down as part of a government “shutdown” - as noted in the redirect page.)
Ergo, doing so is not a cost-saving measure but simply a ploy to cause inconvenience in order to agitate the uninitiated into frothing about the so-called “shutdown.”
House Republicans are demanding to sabotage Obamacare in exchange for keeping the government from shutting down. It’s time to stop playing political games and pass a clean budget.
But… your job - along with every government job - is paid for by ransom. You hold our very lives ransom when you demand payment: we pay you or you kidnap us and put us in cages away from our families and property where we are likely to be malnourished, assaulted, and possibly raped, and if we resist we will be beaten or killed.
You’re not one to talk about ransom, Barry.
In regards to the last post, I just wanted to point out this passage right here from the New York Times link: →
Even so, House Republicans on Saturday appeared ready to let the government shut down, at least for “a very brief” time, said Representative Doug Lambron, Republican of Colorado.
Representative Virginia Foxx, Republican of North Carolina, shrugged off the drama. “The federal government has shut down 17 times before, sometimes when the Democrats were in control, sometimes with divided government,” she said. “What are we doing on our side of the aisle? We’re fighting for the American people.”
You can “shrug off” the basic functioning of the federal government?!? Like, that’s not a big deal? I’m not sure what to say about that.
That’s heartless, Nate.
Do you not recognize the countless politicians, bureaucrats, corporations, and other special interests whose livelihoods are wholly dependent on the state’s largesse? Do you expect them to simply engage in voluntary, mutually beneficial behavior? Who will be there to suppress their competition, force us to pay them, punish us for non-violent behavior to their financial benefit, give them cheap loans by devaluing our own savings, subsidize their businesses, manufacture unnecessary wars for their gain, and - ultimately - protect them from their failures?
And what about the rest of us? Who will make the decisions for us on what to ingest, where to go, how to get there, what do buy, who to employ, what to think, how to learn, what we’re worth, and who to marry? Furthermore, do you simply expect that we’d be able to come up with ways to protect ourselves from the unsavory and unscrupulous among us without those select few hundreds to thousands of miles away who won popularity contests funded by the rich and powerful to force certain behaviors for “our own good”?
Completely irresponsible of you to suggest such a thing, Nate. You should be ashamed. What do you think we are - free-thinking individuals with subjective preferences and discrete priorities over our own lives?