Tired of the corruption in the LPO? Contact your county chair...

[wes.w...@gmail.com]

Here is a list of county party chairs:

Jared Ellefson, Benton County - jelle...@juno.com
Wes Wagner, Clackamas County - wes.w...@gmail.com
Helen McDaniel, Clatsop County - mcdani...@msn.com
Robert Taylor, Coos County - lpo...@hotmail.com
Stan Howard, Deschutes County - sg...@cornell.edu
Shane Savoie, Josephine County - echelo...@yahoo.com
Ray Bledsaw, Lake County - gray...@gooselake.com
Don Smith, Multnomah County - don.s...@comcast.net
Paul Delaney, Polk County - des4...@msn.com
Stephen Pearson, Washington County - stephe...@yahoo.com
Andrew "Buck" Leckie, Wheeler County - lila...@hotmail.com
David Terry, Yamhill County - dav...@onlinemac.com

If you don't have a county chair, send a message to me
wes.w...@gmail.com - I will send it or read it to the State
Committee.

-Wes Wagner

[r...@bendbroadband.com]

The basic 2-dimensional modelof Libertarian philosophy that puts economic freedom on one side and personal freedom on the other with a scal of 0 to 1 at each corner is imo flawed. A 3rd factor should be included. Yes we live in a 3-d world not a 2-d world. And that 3rd factor is, on the same scale of 0 to 1 is the human condition being advanced?

Ideally we would consider when all three factor move towards 1 the idea, law, belief, practice, etc to be most Libertarian.

An example, in China American corporations are trying to prevent chinese labor from gaining much in the way of higher wages, benefits etc. This might be perfectly Libertarian from the perspective of personal freedom and economic freedom, but it is dispicable in terms of advancing the human condition.

rsk

[Wes Wagner]

I think this is actually handled well by libertarian ideas - people deserve to own the fruits of their own labor, even the chinese - ergo, if we allow someone else to treat them like slaves and pay them instead of the person doing the labor (like say the chinese government) we are engaging in conspiracy to commit indentured servitude. We have thus violated the personal and economic freedom of the chinese people.

-Wes

[r...@bendbroadband.com]

I'm missing the part about how American corporations exerting pressure on China to interfere with workers rights is Libertarian.

As I understand it economic "freedom" as currently interpreted by Libertarians means that companies are free to pay workers whatever they should want. (this assumes that the contract is fair to both parties). Person freedom, people should be allowed to earn their living however they may choose. The problem is, globalization was passed off as a means to raise the standard of living of the rest of the world, but then these globalists act in pefectly Libertarian ways to maintain THEIR profits at the expense of the worker.

Typical capitalist exploitation. And this is Libertarian how?

----- Original Message -----
From: Wes Wagner <wes.w...@gmail.com>
Date: Friday, October 20, 2006 2:04 pm
Subject: Re: model flawed

> I think this is actually handled well by libertarian ideas - people

> deserveto own the fruits of their own labor, even the chinese -

> ergo, if we allow
> someone else to treat them like slaves and pay them instead of the

> persondoing the labor (like say the chinese government) we are

> engaging in
> conspiracy to commit indentured servitude. We have thus violated the
> personal and economic freedom of the chinese people.
>
> -Wes
>
>
> On 10/20/06, r...@bendbroadband.com <r...@bendbroadband.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > The basic 2-dimensional modelof Libertarian philosophy that puts
> economic> freedom on one side and personal freedom on the other
> with a scal of 0 to 1
> > at each corner is imo flawed. A 3rd factor should be included.
> Yes we live
> > in a 3-d world not a 2-d world. And that 3rd factor is, on the
> same scale
> > of 0 to 1 is the human condition being advanced?
> >
> > Ideally we would consider when all three factor move towards 1
> the idea,
> > law, belief, practice, etc to be most Libertarian.
> >
> > An example, in China American corporations are trying to prevent
> chinese> labor from gaining much in the way of higher wages,
> benefits etc. This
> > might be perfectly Libertarian from the perspective of personal
> freedom and
> > economic freedom, but it is dispicable in terms of advancing the
> human> condition.
> >
> > rsk
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
>
>

> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Oregon_Libertarian_Discussion" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> oregon_liberta...@googlegroups.comTo unsubscribe from
> this group, send email to oregon_libertarian_discussion-
> unsub...@googlegroups.comFor more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/oregon_libertarian_discussion-~------
> ----~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
>

[Wes Wagner]

My argument was that under our system of laws what we are doing is actually illegal and should be treated as such. Slavery and indentured servitude are big no-no's in libertarian ideology.

You are complicating the matter to try to make a point out of it, which is rhetorically disingenuous.

Trade with china and utilizing their workers who are employed by their government by force of arms is illegal. The argument need go no further than that.

[jdougla...@gmail.com]

That was a big leap for me. I don't see how buying products made in
China is illegal. Was that meant literally, or was it an assertion
that a Libertarian legal system would include laws against it?

DJ

[r...@bendbroadband.com]

and so considering what you just said - why wouldn't Libertarians be in favor of a global minimum wage ???

----- Original Message -----
From: Wes Wagner <wes.w...@gmail.com>
Date: Friday, October 20, 2006 5:34 pm
Subject: Re: model flawed

> My argument was that under our system of laws what we are doing is

> actuallyillegal and should be treated as such. Slavery and

[Wes Wagner]

No, because that would violate the rights of a person to sell their labor for less if they so chose.

The difference in China is that the workers do not work for the american company, they work for the chinese government as indentured servants. They have no choice. The american companies pay the chinese government for the labor, and the people get only what the government chooses to allow them to retain.

If we travel too far down the path of socialism in this country, we will wind up at the same destination.

The only way freedom works is if all people are all equally free.

[r...@bendbroadband.com]

Wes

you honestly think that we need to protect the right of people to choose to be paid LESS?

That's your strong point?

Big trend in that direction is there? People wanting LESS money.

Maybe it's just me but could cite at least ONE example of someone that has expressed an interest in being paid less? If not you are protecting the right of an imaginary person, and maybe we should protect the REAL people first, is all I'm saying.

----- Original Message -----
From: Wes Wagner <wes.w...@gmail.com>
Date: Friday, October 20, 2006 7:22 pm
Subject: Re: model flawed

> No, because that would violate the rights of a person to sell their

> laborfor less if they so chose.

>
> The difference in China is that the workers do not work for the

> americancompany, they work for the chinese government as indentured

> servants. They
> have no choice. The american companies pay the chinese government
> for the
> labor, and the people get only what the government chooses to allow
> them to
> retain.
>
> If we travel too far down the path of socialism in this country, we

> willwind up at the same destination.

[r...@bendbroadband.com]

I was just debating how a global minimum wage is or is not a libertarian ideal.

[Wes Wagner]

When you have a minimum wage that means that everyone who is incapable of producing that amount of economic value is then permanently unemployable. Same situation they have in Europe. Both productivity and unemployment is up because everyone who can't produce the minimum amount of economic value is permanently unemployable.

-Wes

On 10/20/06, r...@bendbroadband.com <r...@bendbroadband.com > wrote:

[jdougla...@gmail.com]

It seems like the two of you are talking about protecting the rights of
different people, i.e. the poor people whose work is worth barely more
than the minimum wage, or the poorer people whose work is worth less
than the minimum wage.

DJ

[Wes Wagner]

Well who else would minimum wage be designed to "protect" ? People who's work is worth more than minimum wage can ask for a higher rate of pay.

-Wes Wagner

[jdougla...@gmail.com]

Wes, I assumed from your prior posts that you want to "protect" the
poorer group - those who have nothing to offer for trade that is
valuable enough to meet the "minimum wage". If there is a minimum
wage, then they are f%^&$d.

RSK, it appears you want to "protect" the less poor people. Am I
misreading your posts?

DJ

[Wes Wagner]

I do not wish to "protect" anyone - it stagnates the soul and causes people to be lesser than their potential. I do however not wish to make the poorer group less free.

-Wes

On 10/20/06, jdougla...@gmail.com <jdougla...@gmail.com> wrote:

[jdougla...@gmail.com]

Wes, it appears that I used a word ("protect") that has negative
connotations for you. Sorry.

I meant to focus the discussion on the topic of the pros and cons of a
minimum wage, which seems to be the topic on which RSK is focussed.

All laws reduce individual freedom, but not all laws are bad, right?

-------

Addressing one question at a time, I'd like to contemplate the minimum
wage only.

RSK's prior post rightly indicates that it is absurd to think that
people want the choice to make less.

My point is that those who want to "protect" the poor ought to be
against the minimum wage because people exist who are not capable of
doing anything that is tradeable at the minimum wage. A minimum wage
law takes away the freedom of those people to trade their goods and
services. They want to make MORE.

Can we only discuss the impact of a minimum wage in this thread and
start another thread about any other topic?

[r...@bendbroadband.com]

I am in favor of the minimum wage and I think there should be a global minimum wage as well in order to provide a base wage for all workers and to protect them from being unfairly exploited. I am for a level playing field so businesses have no incentive to chase the cheapest labor. I think the root of which goes back to slavery. Businesses should be moving towards paying people fairly instead of how close to zero (slavery) they can get away with.

----- Original Message -----
From: jdougla...@gmail.com
Date: Friday, October 20, 2006 9:54 pm
Subject: Re: model flawed

>

[r...@bendbroadband.com]

By definition there should be no work that is not worth the minimum wage. It is the bottom. It effectively establishes below that as unfair exploitation. That's whether you're flipping hamburgers or whathaveyou. No wage shall be paid less than that amount.

----- Original Message -----
From: Wes Wagner <wes.w...@gmail.com>
Date: Friday, October 20, 2006 9:45 pm
Subject: Re: model flawed

> Well who else would minimum wage be designed to "protect" ? People

> who'swork is worth more than minimum wage can ask for a higher rate

> of pay.
>
> -Wes Wagner
>
>
> On 10/20/06, jdougla...@gmail.com <jdougla...@gmail.com>
> wrote:>
> >
> > It seems like the two of you are talking about protecting the
> rights of
> > different people, i.e. the poor people whose work is worth barely
> more> than the minimum wage, or the poorer people whose work is
> worth less
> > than the minimum wage.
> >
> > DJ
> >
> >
> > >
> >
>
>

[Wes Wagner]

Many of the behaviors and unintended consequences of policy you observe are the result of a system that permits the free flow of capital without the free flow of people. If you free the people, the economic option to relocate causes localized wage disparities to diminish and approach equilibrium. (at least net aggregate purchasing power)

You should be less focused on getting an arbitrary ruling that someone has to provide more currency to another individual for their labor (which will only cause the currency to actually become worth less due to economic influences) and rather focus on liberating those people. If they are free to leave their country, their demands for real earnings will rise.

The issue we have with "slave labor forces" are really a result of colonial trade agreements that allow us to utilize the labors of people without establishing truly free markets. If you correct that problem, the other problems which are a result of it, star to go away.

-Wes

On 10/20/06, r...@bendbroadband.com <r...@bendbroadband.com > wrote:

[r...@bendbroadband.com]

Minimum wage is the topic of discussion

[r...@bendbroadband.com]

I'll give you that point... but it's not an either or situation. There's no reason why workers can't be protected and paid appropriately AND be free.

If what you say is true, then paying below market wages should = deflation but it doesn't does it? It = more profits

----- Original Message -----
From: Wes Wagner <wes.w...@gmail.com>
Date: Friday, October 20, 2006 10:34 pm
Subject: Re: model flawed

> Many of the behaviors and unintended consequences of policy you
> observe are
> the result of a system that permits the free flow of capital
> without the
> free flow of people. If you free the people, the economic option to

> relocatecauses localized wage disparities to diminish and approach

> equilibrium. (at
> least net aggregate purchasing power)
>
> You should be less focused on getting an arbitrary ruling that
> someone has
> to provide more currency to another individual for their labor
> (which will
> only cause the currency to actually become worth less due to economic
> influences) and rather focus on liberating those people. If they
> are free to
> leave their country, their demands for real earnings will rise.
>
> The issue we have with "slave labor forces" are really a result of

> colonialtrade agreements that allow us to utilize the labors of

> people without
> establishing truly free markets. If you correct that problem, the

> otherproblems which are a result of it, star to go away.

[jdougla...@gmail.com]

RSK,

I'm trying to comprehend what you wrote, but I am stuck, even
theoretically.

Let's say that I am tired Saturday morning from working my ass off all
week, but hey, I have a mortgage and kids' college to pay for..., so
I'll do it myself rather than pay $6 or more.

Four starving guys knock on the door and offer to cut the grass for $6
to $2. Each one has a starving family and needs the money.

Should the law be that I can't hire any of them....

DJ

[Wes Wagner]

There is no such thing as paying below market wages - a wage is precisely what the market will bear. At some point if the wages are not high enough for people to survive and maintain a resonable existence, necessity will cause them to seek other employment, or unionize.

If an employer cannot find someone willing to work for $4 because $4 will not allow a person to survive, they will have to raise their wage. If they can't afford to raise their wage, then they will raise their prices.

Also, an employer cannot pay arbitrarily low wages forever - otherwise competitors will offer their most skilled employees better wages, steal them away and outcompete them with higher productivity.

I just don't see the economic reality where any party benefits form a minimum wage. It seems it would just cause employers to invest in more capital equipment to improve worker efficiency which just might put a % of the workers out of a job onto the streets...

-Wes

On 10/20/06, jdougla...@gmail.com < jdougla...@gmail.com> wrote:

[r...@bendbroadband.com]

I don't believe it's considered employment when someone mows your lawn it could be done by what I guess you would consider a private contractor. Here is Libertarian paradise. You and that 13 yr old with a lawn mower wanting to earn a little spending money. You and him get together on a price, he mows your lawn. It may not be minimum wage and that is legal now so what was your point?

----- Original Message -----
From: jdougla...@gmail.com
Date: Friday, October 20, 2006 10:40 pm
Subject: Re: model flawed

>

[jdougla...@gmail.com]

I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know about the effect of a minor in the
scenario. Let's not confuse the issue with under-age workers since no
minors knocked on my door and offered to mow the grass....

You seem to be saying that it is ok for me personally to pay an adult
less than minimum wage to mow my grass.

Did I understand you correctly?

DJ

[Richard Burke]

Howdy, Randy!

Hope you are well.  I read your email and know what you are talking about.  Yes, corporations sometimes act like jerks.  And, in and of itself, this does not advance the human condition.  But there are mitigating factors that I think need to be considered, even though they are not emotionally satisfying.

I think that there are steps that a nation goes through which simply cannot be avoided when it shifts it's economy from agrarian to industrial, and industrial to post-industrial.  These shifts cause displacement and upheaval, and have in every society that has experienced them - including our own.  We had the sweat shop abuses when we became an industrial country, and a large wave of unemployment when we became a post-industrial country.

Before corporations invested in China, I would argue that opportunities for the average chinese person consisted of working in a state enterprise or working in a rice field.  Without outside investment, the only capital in the nation came from the state and those who controlled it.  State capitalism of this sort may be an option, but Hitler showed us that this doesn't do much for the human condition either.

Corporations come into countries like China because the labor is cheap and the regulations are minimal.  If you raise costs associated with labor (benefits, min. wage, ect), their incentive to invest is reduced.  Because such a huge upfront investment is necessary, they want profitability.  That is all they care about.  We can bitch and moan all we want that they are not advancing the human condition through such attitutes, and we'd be right.  But as right as we would be, they would not invest and our chinese person would still be working in a rice patty.

As flawed as it is, the fact is (and it is a fact) that in the big picture, corporate investment has created new opportunities for people in third world countries that didn't exist before.  Corporations may be reaping their profits by exploiting an undeveloped economy, but as the economies of these nations develop, people start demanding rights and they eventually get them.

There are already strong attempts at unionizing and regulating  labor in China and other countries.  Yes, the corporations fight this because that is what they do.  As was the case in the United States, corporate resistance will occasionally set this cause back.  But they will not be able to stop this process in the end.

If corporations didn't invest, there would be no labor issues to fight over.  The mere fact that there are issues to fight over is evidence that development is taking place - the question becomes one of distributing wealth that could never have existed if the corporations had not invested initially because of financially attractive conditions.

And so the economies will evolve.  Like ours has.  I don't know of a single nation with a large population has been able to avoid this process.  The only countries that have seemed to pull this off are ones with low populations and rich resources (like Sweeden).

And nobody has put forward a plan that regulates wages, benefits, and other worker issues in a developing third world country which hasn't scared the bejesus out of corporations causing them to invest elsewhere.   Do you have one?  At least under the current model, most chinese people have options other than the rice patties.  Their overall wealth is rising, and the institutions that support labor are beginning to evolve.

I have no problem with bashing corporations.  But those who do so have a moral obligation to come up with an alternate model which does not destroy incentives for investment and risk necessary for the creation of wealth.  So far, I haven't heard one yet.  Do you know one?

What do you think?


Happy to not be working in a field,
Richard

On 10/20/06, r...@bendbroadband.com <r...@bendbroadband.com> wrote:

[r...@bendbroadband.com]

You almost got it. I was referring to the law and whether or not there was a law that required a private person to pay another private person minimum wage for some sort of contract labor - mow the lawn, baby sit, shovel snow. I brought the under-age aspect into the discussion because it's not likely that an adult would mow lawns or baby sit for less than the minimum wage. In most cases I would hope that the worker and work is valued enough to pay generously. At the very least the minimum wage provides a guideline in such circumstances that aren't considered full or part time employment, rather contract labor, the minimum wage is a reference/benchmark.

Whether or not you could pay someone less than the minimum wage vs. should is a whole nother argument. You could walk out of a resturant and not leave a tip or just tip 5%. Should you?

----- Original Message -----
From: jdougla...@gmail.com
Date: Friday, October 20, 2006 11:58 pm
Subject: Re: model flawed

>

[r...@bendbroadband.com]

Hey Richard

Okay here's me go at it.

What is needed is a 180 degree paradigm shift. It's time we once and forall realize that the slavery model (how little can I pay someone to get their labor from them) needs to be replaced by what I would call the (you ain't seen nuttin yet) move.

The capital of the future is less and less physical labor, instead of seeking to exploit people, people will be considered the ultimate resource. The next big leaps forward in technology is going to come from ideas. What needs to be challenged is the basic assumption that people are fundamentally lazy . The flip side of that is that everyone has something to contribute. Looking at people like creative resources that they are instead of like some form of animal is the paradigm shift. Instead of how much can the corporation extract for how little, how much will people produce when they are adequately nurtured?

I'll say again, the capital of the future is ideas!

To think that only the rich or even the better educated are the total source of this future capital is way wrong.

Too abstract???

I would start by moving to the 32-hour 4-day work week ASAP.

As we are in the post-industrial world there really has been no consideration as to whether the 40-hour work week is abritrarily causing unemployment.

The truth is we don't need as many people and this trend looks to continue.

The intresting thing is what would happen to the economy if everyone had one more day to themselves. I suggest that it would be VERY beneficial to the economy in many ways.

In otherwords the model of the future will be polar opposite to today's how much can i get for how little thinking to what is this human resource capable of producing under optimal conditions.

Now tell me how un-liberarian this is, or surprise me and tell me how Libertarian it is.

rsk

----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Burke <rpb...@gmail.com>
Date: Saturday, October 21, 2006 6:21 am
Subject: Re: model flawed

> Howdy, Randy!
>
> Hope you are well. I read your email and know what you are talking

> about.Yes, corporations sometimes act like jerks. And, in and of

> itself, this
> does not advance the human condition. But there are mitigating
> factors that
> I think need to be considered, even though they are not emotionally
> satisfying.
>
> I think that there are steps that a nation goes through which
> simply cannot
> be avoided when it shifts it's economy from agrarian to industrial,

> andindustrial to post-industrial. These shifts cause displacement and

> upheaval, and have in every society that has experienced them -

> includingour own. We had the sweat shop abuses when we became an

> industrial country,
> and a large wave of unemployment when we became a post-industrial
> country.
> Before corporations invested in China, I would argue that
> opportunities for
> the average chinese person consisted of working in a state
> enterprise or
> working in a rice field. Without outside investment, the only
> capital in
> the nation came from the state and those who controlled it. State
> capitalism of this sort may be an option, but Hitler showed us that

> thisdoesn't do much for the human condition either.

>
> Corporations come into countries like China because the labor is
> cheap and
> the regulations are minimal. If you raise costs associated with labor
> (benefits, min. wage, ect), their incentive to invest is reduced.

> Becausesuch a huge upfront investment is necessary, they want

> profitability. That
> is all they care about. We can bitch and moan all we want that
> they are not
> advancing the human condition through such attitutes, and we'd be

> right.But as right as we would be, they would not invest and our

> chinese person
> would still be working in a rice patty.
>
> As flawed as it is, the fact is (and it is a fact) that in the big

> picture,corporate investment has created new opportunities for

> people in third world
> countries that didn't exist before. Corporations may be reaping their
> profits by exploiting an undeveloped economy, but as the economies
> of these
> nations develop, people start demanding rights and they eventually
> get them.
>
> There are already strong attempts at unionizing and regulating
> labor in
> China and other countries. Yes, the corporations fight this
> because that is
> what they do. As was the case in the United States, corporate

> resistancewill occasionally set this cause back. But they will not

> be able to stop
> this process in the end.
>
> If corporations didn't invest, there would be no labor issues to fight
> over. The mere fact that there are issues to fight over is
> evidence that
> development is taking place - the question becomes one of distributing
> wealth that could never have existed if the corporations had not

> investedinitially because of financially attractive conditions.

>
> And so the economies will evolve. Like ours has. I don't know of
> a single
> nation with a large population has been able to avoid this process.
> The
> only countries that have seemed to pull this off are ones with low
> populations and rich resources (like Sweeden).
>
> And nobody has put forward a plan that regulates wages, benefits,
> and other
> worker issues in a developing third world country which hasn't
> scared the
> bejesus out of corporations causing them to invest elsewhere. Do
> you have
> one? At least under the current model, most chinese people have

> optionsother than the rice patties. Their overall wealth is

> rising, and the
> institutions that support labor are beginning to evolve.
>
> I have no problem with bashing corporations. But those who do so
> have a
> moral obligation to come up with an alternate model which does not

> destroyincentives for investment and risk necessary for the

[r...@bendbroadband.com]

(more)

If today's capitalism looks something like this: how small a grain of sand must we use to deposit into a oyster for the purpose of getting a pearl. Not bad. It's served us pretty well these 100+ years. I'm saying the next thinking will be more agrarian in that the fundamental question that businesses will be asking themselves is - what are the characteristics of the is the optimal grain for the oyster to produce the most valuable pearl. We should know full well from agriculutral theories that what is needed is not the minimum for optimal production but the ideal. Are humans less than the fields of corn?

When human beings are considered as a kind of crop, a resource, instead of the tractor, we'll be thinking about what is optimal and ideal instead of minimums and the extreme of how close to slavery society will tolerate.

One way is the future, the other is the past.

[jdougla...@gmail.com]

I think your question gets to the crux of the issue, i.e. whether or
not one person ought to pay another less than a decreed "minimum wage".

Back to my hypothetical example, if the cost to me is the minimum wage,
then I will choose to mow the yard myself.

If nobody is willing to mow my yard for less than minimum wage, then
fine. It's "no deal" because all parties chose not to trade. I'm
satisfied mowing my own yard and saving the cash, and the other parties
are satisfied by spending their time doing something else that they
value more.

On the other hand, let's assume that at least one person exists who
would PREFER to mow my yard and receive 1/2 minimum wage rather than
not mow my yard and receive zero.

Which alternative is better for both parties, for me to do it myself
(due to law or conscience, as you suggested) or to trade with him at
the price that we each value our own labor?

I think that both parties are better off if they reach a deal that was
their own choice, instead of being prohibited from making a deal.

It seems that your position is that all workers whose work is not worth
the minimum wage should not be allowed to trade their labor.

DJ

P.S. I chose yard mowing for no particular reason. Any product or
service that a buyer would chose not to pay for could be substituted.