August 10, 2004
Lincoln - Douglas Revisited?
“He is a man with tens of thousands of blind followers. It is my business to make some of those blind followers see.” - Abraham Lincoln
Will history repeat itself this year in the Illinois Senate race? This year the Illinois Democratic primary winner Barack Obama will face off against the newly appointed Republican candidate Alan Keyes. Keyes stepped into the race at the request of the Illinois Republican Party after the unfortunate withdrawal of their primary winner Jack Ryan. While many bemoan the entrance of Mr. Keyes into the race, it may just prove to be a historic moment.
In 1858, Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln challenged front runner and heavy favorite Stephen Douglas to a series of debates on the path the country was taking. Lincoln wanted to capitalize on his House Divided speech, and was able to lure Douglas into these historic debates. Lincoln had nothing to lose, and everything to gain. Douglas was the opposite, he had everything to lose but very little to gain.
In 2004, Alan Keyes and the Illinois Republican Party have nothing to lose. For Democratic superstar Barack Obama, there has to be a concern of what he may lose in getting caught in a national debate. Obama has gone literally unopposed this election cycle and has risen to a national spotlight, highlighted by his keynote address at the Democratic Convention in Boston. His platform and views have gone unchecked thus far.
Like 1858, both Keyes and Obama are fabulous speakers and devoted to their cause. But Lincoln's motivation is much like that of Keyes, to expose his opponent's beliefs to an essentially uninformed public. Illinois voters and the nation as a whole would appear to benefit from the full disclosure of ideas and a debate on their merits. Informing the public about the real issues at stake is of much more historical importance than just a race between these two men, just as it was in Lincoln's day.
The Lincoln-Douglas debates were a case of David versus Goliath, with Goliath winning the Illinois Senate seat. But while Douglas won the seat in the Senate, the positions he took in the debates later cost him the presidency. Douglas was forced to take a clear stand on the issues, which won him Illinois but lost him the South. Lincoln did not expect to win, but with his moral stance he was able to elevate the debate to a higher level which was beneficial not only to Illinois, but enriched the nation as well.
In this election, there are two candidates with visions at opposite ends of the spectrum. Where Obama feels the need for government intervention, Keyes believes that it is up to the individual to create their own destiny. Where Keyes feels that the ideals of Federalism are of utmost importance, Obama believes that the role of government is ever changing and must take a larger role in the daily lives of Americans.
Most will agree that Alan Keyes is not the most ideal candidate to face Barack Obama. The main reason being that he is a resident of Maryland. Others argue that he was chosen for his race. We must look past race, cries of "carpetbagging" and ad hominem attacks against both candidates. Let's listen to what they have to say. This is now a battle of ideas. It is in the nation's best interest for the debate to begin. The issues that face this country are very serious, and we must have an honest debate as to the solutions that will best suit our goals and ideals as a nation. Much like Lincoln, the expectation that Keyes can win in Illinois this year is unlikely for many reasons, but having the debate is essential.
Both Keyes and Obama have big shoes to fill in this debate. The only question is whether they will rise to the challenge? For the future of this country, we must all hope so.
Posted by Timothy Perry at August 10, 2004 12:54 PMI think Keyes sees this election in very much the same way- he has even paralleled Obama’s position on abortion with pro-slavery advocate’s views (a view I happen to agree with take on the abortion debate- but I do think we need to rehash that debate on this particular thread).
Unfortunately, from what I have read, Obama wants to downplay the role of social issues like abortion and gay marriage (disclaimer: I agree with Obama on gay marriage, and disagree with him on abortion). Obama has said, in response to Keyes’ points on abortion:
“As I travel around this state, I don’t get asked about gay marriage, I don’t get asked about abortion,” Obama said. “I get asked, ‘How can I find a job that allows me to support my family.’ I get asked, ‘How can I pay those medical bills without going into bankruptcy.”
I guess Obama is correct, and that is what most people care about these days. But if he and keyes would have some real clash over abortion and gay marraige, maybe people would begin to see that these issues are very important- and unlike economy- something that politicians will largely determine (people will get jobs soon or later- as the economy moves along, as it always has- meanwhile the issues of abortion and gay marriage are controlled by the goverment).
Some of the information in this post was from this article: http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/keyes09.html
Will history repeat itself this year in the Illinois Senate race?Short answer? No.
FWIW, I don’t think that Obama should waste his time debating Keyes. Basically ignore the guy, knowing that Obama has the Senate race in the bag, and go get out the vote in other key battleground states. Come back to Illinois every four our five days to shake a few hands and kiss a few babies.
Posted by: Erik Kosberg at August 10, 2004 02:24 PMErik,
Like the piece says, Obama has everything to lose and nothing much to gain. He will be forced into the debates though, where he probably wants to just take a knee and wait for November.
Regards,
Tim
“Will history repeat itself this year in the Illinois Senate race?”
The answer is no. Obama leads 67% - 28% in the latest SUSA poll. What a nail biter!
Keyes is a hypocrite. When Hilary ran for senate in New York he said, “I deeply resent the destruction of federalism represented by Hillary Clinton’s willingness to go into a state she doesn’t even live in and pretend to represent people there, so I certainly wouldn’t imitate it.”
Flip-flop?
Posted by: entertainment news at August 10, 2004 04:50 PMMisha, I have never understood the politically philosophy that states government must resolve issues over which the nation is deeply divided. In some cases where those divisions threaten the integrity of union, as in the 1860’s, it is justified. But, abortion is an issue for which there is no mandate on either side. Therefore, why should government act one way or the other hardening divisions and fueling counter movements.
It would seem wise to me for the federal government to dump this issue back into the hands of the states. Let those who believe abortion should be legal move to states where it is legal, and vice versa. This will have the effect of reducing and alleviating the tensions and divisiveness of the issue for Americans. I truly believe politicians “love” such wedge issues for their own stategic and tactical benefit while harming the nation as a whole.
Obama, as I hear him, seeks to govern from common ground, on issues for which there is a mandate, and to budget resources behind policies which Americans largely agree upon and will benefit from. For that, he gets my respect, and would get my vote if I were in his district regardless of his party affiliation.
Posted by: David R Remer at August 10, 2004 05:18 PMDoes anyone honestly think Keyes stands to gain any substantial ground from these debates? While everyone seems to be praising his oratory skills, they are neglecting the fact that the content of his opinions and the inflammatory nature of his delivery will not resonate with Illinois voters which are far more important factors in “winning” a debate.
Furthermore, Obama’s calm-cool-collected manner will work like teflon against Keyes’ incendiary rhetoric. Think about it like this Republicans: who would look better to you in a theoretical debate, a rabble-rousing Howard Dean or an ice-water-in-the-veins Colin Powell? That’s roughly how I’d compare Keyes and Obama, respectively.
Anyway, I just wasted my time on that point because, let’s be honest, it’s 67-28! I know the Olympics are coming up, but if you ask me “Do you believe in miracles?!” the answer in this case is “no”.
Posted by: Andrew L. at August 10, 2004 05:58 PMI really wasn’t bothered when Hillary Clinton suddenly became a New Yorker so she could claim her rightful place in the Senate. I figured that was New York’s business and if that’s who they wanted, then God bless ‘em.
By the same token, I don’t have a problem with Mr. Keyes being reborn as a native son of Illinois. That’s Illinois’ business and shouldn’t bother the good citizens of the other 49 states (okay…the other 52 if you live in certain areas of California).
I really don’t know any more about Keyes than I do about Obama at this point, but my vote in November won’t be affected by either of their current mailing addresses.
NOTOTH
Posted by: NOTOTH at August 10, 2004 06:12 PMDavid- the position you just called for in relation to abortion would involve the overturning of Roe v Wade- and John kerry has promised to oppose any judge who would overturn Roe (after all, if Roe were overturned, the issue would be dumped back on the states; most people think that if Roe is overturned, abortion would be made elligal- that is not so. It would simply go into the political process, like many other issues). Personally, I believe that abortion, like slavery, is far too great an injustice to be left to the individual states. But if the choice is between today’s judicially impossed abortion on all states and a situation where people in some states would at least be able to outlaw most abortions, I would support the alternative that would have less abortions.
Also, I think it is interesting that you made this argument on a thread refrencing the Lincoln-Douglas debates. The reason I say that is that:
“It would seem wise to me for the federal government to dump this issue back into the hands of the states. Let those who believe abortion should be legal move to states where it is legal, and vice versa. This will have the effect of reducing and alleviating the tensions and divisiveness of the issue for Americans”
Is almost exactly Douglas’ popular soveriegnty position in relation to slavery. Douglas did not like slavery, but he believed that the country could best handle the situation why allowing people in each states to decide on the issue, and allow people ot move to states that they wished. I say this not to show you that you are wrong, but to point out how these things always go around in cycles- and similar arguments from brilliant men in the 1850s come back around again to face novel issues. very interesting indeed.
As for Obama, he would not garner my vote, with the abortion issue being one of the key reasons; but having said that, I do respect the man, what I know of him. He seems like a geniune person in the far too cynical politics of today. Let me put it this way- I would much rather have Obama be my Senator than either of the two men that currently represent me in that body (Kerry, Kennedy).
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at August 10, 2004 06:14 PMIf I were Keyes, I would not mind those numbers out of the gate for a few reasons.
1. The poll was taken before he entered the race and was taken of registered, not likely voters.
2. He is already getting 28% of the vote with absolutely no name recognition and without anyone knowing his platform.
3. Obama has run un-opposed to date and is the hero among Democrats. Almost everyone knows who he is after his keynote speech. He has had nothing but positive attention, his record and views have gone unchecked so far. Keyes will expose those not only to Illinois but to the nation. Will the rose still bloom by November?
While my piece mentions that most don’t expect Keyes to win, Keyes will make up ground in the polls. Keyes has nothing to lose and will be on the offense the entire time. Obama is trying to take a knee and wait it out. That’s a tough position to be put in and keep a huge lead.
Tim
Posted by: Timothy Perry at August 10, 2004 06:28 PMMisha, one of the reasons I left the Democratic Party is because of their belief that social issues must all be federally decided upon. This only divides the nation and weakens our politics over moral issues which should be private choices, like drug useage, abortion, and prostitution.
To federally legislate such issues from the federal level only creates victimless criminals who upon incarceration are environmentally shaped to become criminals with victims out of deep seated and overriding desire to live and survive. I would not have agreed with Douglas on the slavery issue, simply because of the language of the Constitution - It is self-evident that all men are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights.
Freedom from slavery without question adds order and civility to society. A slave class will always portend uprisings, violence and disorder if choice to own slaves is preserved. Abortion choice does not contain that dynamic, nor does recreational drug useage, or prostitution, until choice on these issues is taken away. The very act of legislating on these issues without the choice to move where such activities are legal, portends civil disorder (clinic bombings) and violence (gang drug wars and citizen-police wars), (marking prostitutes as inferior and therefore objects for venting rage and frustration).
I would take Obabma over Keyes any day, though I have respect for Keyes adherence to his principles. Keyes however, would invoke his Christian and Puritanical principles on others. Obama would invite others to follow his. A significant difference for me, being a Buddhist and believer in separation of church and state.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 10, 2004 08:07 PM
David- it is interesting that you said:
“Keyes however, would invoke his Christian and Puritanical principles on others. Obama would invite others to follow his.”
I find this sentiment rather common among those to the left of me, and I must admit it confuses me. For example, Keyes believes that gay marriage is wrong- so he would impose those principles upon us, and we would disagree with him. On the other hand, Obama believes in an expansive role for the government in areas like medicare, minimum wage, social security. So even if I did not want to participate ins ocial security, or I wanted to work for minimum wage, Obama would impose his beliefs upon me and would do it proudly.
Government is about force, and all those who wield that force want to impose their beliefs upon the governed (note that neither Obama nor Keyes can impose his beliefs on us without the assent of the majority). I, for one, do not think that someone has the right to impose his beliefs upon me, unless his beliefs are grounded in principles of justice. That is, unless my actions are hurting other people, no one has the right to tell me how to live my life- be it whether I work for less than minimum wage, want to marry someone from the same sex, ect. ect. That is, I guess, why i am a libertarian.
The left would impose its views on me just as the right would- so I pick the person whose imposition I find most in common with my libertarian principles I state above.
As for slavery and abortion. Those in the south did not believe that “all men are created equal” applied to black people- after all, they were not “fully human” in their view. In the same way, many today believe that the decleration does not apply to unborn children, also calling them not “fully human.” Its too hard to look through the prism of history at our present day, but I believe some day we will look at so-called pro-choice arguments just as we look at the arguments of the great acolytes of the south in the 1850s. We will understand that the arguments came from a place of belief and self interest, but that they were fundamentally flawed and at odds with our founding principles. (Note the constitution does not talk about inelianable rights, it is the Decleration that does. I think both are binding on us as Americans, however, but in different ways).
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at August 10, 2004 08:29 PMI think Keyes will get his butt handed to him. I mean, the voters know the only reason why Keyes is running for the seat is the Republicans want to look like they’re giving opportunities to Blacks too, and because they want to neutralize the race relations value of it. What they fail to understand is Obama’s charm is not in the affirmative action aspect of his candidacy, but in the affirmative nature of his rhetoric and delivery. Keyes can’t match his Charisma. If Obama is Kennedy, Keyes is Nixon.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 11, 2004 12:17 AMYou know that Nixon nearly beat Kennedy (and if it wasnt for some funny ballot counting in a couple of states, he might actually have won)… Also, Nixon did win the presidency of the United States twice, and was also vice president twice. I would say in terms of winning American elections, Nixon is the second most succesful at getting votes in the 20th century (after FDR, of course). Ok, that was kind of random, sorry.
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at August 11, 2004 12:29 AMMisha, the difference in the examples you provide are night and day. Keyes, personal values, Obama social values. Keyes, not everyone agrees on the personal value of gay marriage. Everyone does agree we don’t want dead and dying elderly in our streets (social security).
If a gay couple marries it does no harm to heterosexual marriage. If everyone does not contribute to Social Security or a comparable policy plan, we all suffer dead and dying elderly in the streets.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 11, 2004 06:26 AMMisha - “I, for one, do not think that someone has the right to impose his beliefs upon me, unless his beliefs are grounded in principles of justice”
That’s just the point David is making. Obama’s principles are based on a social justice, while Keyes views stem from his religiousity and are aimed at that constituency.
I believe that the two opposing views are needed to keep the other in check, there is after all, a balance to be struck. In the long run, however, Obama’s beliefs are more progressive, and will lead to a healthier society and more pleasant place to live.
While obviously not the last word in this arguement, recent survey’s would suggest that societies which believe that they are only as strong as their weakest members (i.e. a hint of socialism) seem to boast a higher quality of life for all.
Posted by: Bob Hope at August 11, 2004 07:45 AMMisha, I’m aware of the closeness of the race. I cite the debate that went on before the 1960 election, not the 1968 or 72 elections. I cite that particular debate because it was important for Kennedy’s slim lead. He came off as more telegenic than his opponent. I just think Obama is more personable than Keyes. Besides, Obama is a native son, where Keyes is a carpetbagger par excellence. The Republicans picked him out of a sound political notion that they wanted to neutralize the race factor. The notion that’s half baked is that the race factor is the major factor in Obama’s popularity. It’s not. The Guy is just a better speaker and presence on the political stage. When people saw him at the convention, he was just about the best speaker out there. He had even David Brooks saying that they had seen history made. Has Keyes ever impressed anybody like that? I don’t think so.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 11, 2004 08:34 AMOh and Misha, I think election fraud was a bipartisan pastime in those days. (what was Watergate about, if nothing else?)
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 11, 2004 08:36 AMDavid and Bob- I know you think you answered my questions completely, but I still do not see it. lets take minimum wage v. gay marriage. There is no moral principle that can tell you that “working for X dollars an hour is wrong”, just like there is no moral principle that can say “marrying X person of the same sex is wrong.” Both are equal impositions of your values upon your fellow citizens. Both play to a particular constinuency and both are done at the expense of the freedom of the minority who happens to disagree. Buzz words like “social values” and “social justice” cannot obscure that fact.
You can say its more “pleasant” to live in a semi-socialist society- but that is just your opinion, just like it Keyes’ opinion that its more pleasant to live in a society free of gay marriage. This is why I dont deal in plesantries or apperances- I deal in moral principles. I can understand “we will use force on you to stop you from blowing up buildings and killing people because killing innocent people is wrong”; But when you say “we will use government force to impose our value about minimum wage on you” you are being no different than the conservatives you say want to impose particular values on you.
Stephen- I am not saying Keyes will win- in fact, he is gonna likely get crushed. I just think because of watergate, a lot of people (not yourself, obviously) have an ahistorical view of Nixon.
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at August 11, 2004 10:17 AMMisha:
I disagree with you on the subject of minimum wage. I think we can both agree that working for zero dollars an hour (slavery) is wrong, can’t we? If we can decide that, and it’s not just a matter of “pleasantness”, then can’t we also decide that working for an amount of money that does not permit you to support yourself and/or your family properly is also wrong, not just “unpleasant”?
Posted by: Jarin at August 11, 2004 01:13 PMum, yeah, I actually have a couple of friends who are working for nothing this summer. I guess judicial clerkships really ARE slavery :) (or any unpaid internship I guess would be slavery in your boook…)
The reason slavery is wrong is because one person is using force to compell another’s labor- even if the slave was “paid” minimum wage or even a high wage, it would still be equally wrong (that is, the owner could compell the slave to do the work, but could compensate him for it). Isnt it the force, and not the lack of compensation, that is wrong with slavery? dont you agree?
There is no moral principle that garantees you particular compensation for particular work done. The level of compensation you deserve for doing work is comensurate with the demand for your labor and the scarity of that labor (now if the businesses use artificial means to mess with this balance, then there would be an injustice- but that should be corrected by going after the business, not by imposing a minimum wage).
I want you to offer me (and defend) a moral principal that says that a person deserves a particular ammount of money per hour- no matter how little demand there is for his services and no matter how little money he makes for his employer. I think its unfortunate if someone cant support their family with a day’s work, but it is not morally wrong. Its just like it is unfortunate if my house gets blown down by a hurriance, but it is not morally wrong that it occured. People who suffer misfortune are subjects of charity, to which I give gladly (and would give more if i wasnt so far in debt)- but this does not mean that everyone else has to have their freedom limited.
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at August 11, 2004 01:44 PMMisha:
You neatly sidestep my basic contention by offering a flawed analogy. We are talking about a minimum wage for employment, a system which already allows for such unpaid volunteer work. The importance of minimum wage comes into play when one is working to support oneself, which is a very different matter. When one is attempting to use ones skills to support oneself and one’s family, compelled by necessity to have enough money for food and shelter among other fundamental needs, not being compensated for work done would be wrong. That is what we are discussing.
Under your proposed supply-and-demand driven system, any kind of work done which does not require a great deal of skills to do should receive almost no compensation. After all, the source of new workers to do it will always far exceed the demand for them even if the demand is large, so why pay a large amount for their daily wage? Why even pay the workers enough to support themselves? If they die from starvation or disease or exposure, there will be more workers to take their place. And they will do so simply because some money is always preferable to none. And there will be no other companies to go to that offer significantly better wages for the same work for the simple reason that it would not be in the companies best interest to offer higher wages when the market is saturated with potential employees willing to work for whatever scraps that the companies are willing to give them under this system. Are you seriously saying that their deaths would be unfortunate, but that they are preferable to a minimum wage system that “limits everyone else’s freedom”?
Posted by: Jarin at August 11, 2004 02:27 PM1. I side-stepped nothing- I was showing that there is no PRINCIPLE that will explain your FEELING that working for nothing (if it is of your own free will) is morally wrong. That you find nothing wrong with someone doing an unpaid internship shows that you agree that no such principle exists.
2. “Under your proposed supply-and-demand driven system, any kind of work done which does not require a great deal of skills to do should receive almost no compensation.” - Imperically that is very untrue. I have worked some of the least-skilled jobs throughout my short life (waiter, cab call taker, bag boy at a supermarket, dishwasher), and only one of those times was I ever paid minimum wage (that was when i was a 14 year old working at a supermarket and that lasted 1 month before I got a raise!). This illustrates that without any sort of government force, people who have no skills whatsoever will make over the minimum wage. After all, I made 10 dollars an hour working at the cab company, and the only skill I needed was to be able to answer a phone and then type the destination of the cab into the computer. The reason they paid me 10 dollars an hour is because I was worth 10 dollars an hour to them.
3. “even pay the workers enough to support themselves?” Because they will go work for someone else, as I would have if the cab company or the dish washing place or the resterant had tried to pay be so little. The fact that most low-skilled jobs do not pay minimum wage shows that your argument is based in rhetoric and not in the actual labor practices of companies in this country.
4. I am still waiting for you to articulate a moral principle upon which you can justify your argument that EVERYONE, no matter how unvaluable their labor, deserves to be paid X dollars, with that ammount being determined by the majority. I have attempted to answer your points as well as I could- and I woudl appriciate if you would attempt to articulate such a principle for me…
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at August 11, 2004 02:54 PMMisha said, “There is no moral principle that can tell you that “working for X dollars an hour is wrong”,”
Yes, there is, Misha. If a person in the wealthiest nation on earth works 40 hours a week, and does not make enough to sustain themself in a lower middle class manner, - if they can’t afford health care or insurance, if they can’t afford to marry and have children, if they can’t afford a decent place to live, one free of rodents and pests and nightly violence outside the front door, that is immoral.
Any worker who works 40 or more hours a week in this country pays taxes, and contributes to the economy, and deserves in return the items I mention above. For without those items above, there is no security, little dignity or self-respect in one’s station, nor is there much incentive to feel obliged to society’s other demands upon its citizens.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 11, 2004 03:06 PMI am still searching for the PRINCIPLE in your post, David. All I see there is emotional appeals. I guess this argument has hit a dead-end and is going around in circles because I cant seem to get my quesiton answered (maybe because people dont really know what I mean by principle)- oh well- maybe we’ll do better next time.
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at August 11, 2004 03:26 PMMisha:
You are ignoring the difference between doing something of your own free will and doing something because you have no choice. If working is the only way to get money, and all companies follow your idea of giving almost no compensation for unskilled workers, then you are forced to either work for this small amount of money or go without any money at all. That is clearly not choosing to work for nothing of your own free will, when other alternatives are available.
And relying solely on competing companies to get into bidding wars with each other to try to drive up the wage to something livable just doesn’t work in practice. Look at history, the ages of the robber barons or charles dickens. Look at the first formation of unions, the first movements for workers rights, and look at the conditions that preceded them. That is what you are advocating going back to.
And no, you’re not waiting for me to articulate a moral principle because I have done so already, you’ve just chosen not to accept it: When one is attempting to use ones skills to support oneself and one’s family, compelled by necessity to have enough money for food and shelter among other fundamental needs, not being compensated for work done would be wrong.
Suppose your taxi company had paid you what your labor was actually “worth”, given that they only needed one of you and the potential workers for the job number in the millions. 10 cents an hour, let’s say, not even enough to buy a loaf of bread. And let’s say that every other taxi company in the country paid comparable wages too. Let me guess, you’d switch industries? But wait, those industries would follow the same principles so if your skills remained so low there wouldn’t be an increase in your wage unless there was a vast increase in the demand. Or a vast decrease in supply. The only way to get the kind of bidding war for employees you’re talking about to work to the extent that it would raise the wage to acceptable levels is if every person in that pool of potential employees simultaneously agreed that it would be better not to work than to work for such low wages. Every one, from a pool of millions. That’s not very likely.
Here’s a second principle for you, if you’re not willing to accept the first: The common laborer should not be placed into a position where, without fault of their own, they are powerless to support themselves while providing the valuable service of their labor to an employer. (Your argument that their labor might be without value is irrelevant, since obviously it’s valuable enough for someone to hire them to do in the first place and this discussion is about minimum wage for people who are already employed, not about forcing companies to employ people to do work without value.) The tool of the common laborer against being forced into such a situation is governmental controls on industry, and specifically the minimum wage.
Posted by: Jarin at August 11, 2004 03:36 PMMisha:
I think you might be right, we don’t know what you mean by principle as you are using the word. I am taking it to mean a rule or standard… a moral principle being a rule or standard arising from the collective conscience or sense of right and wrong. Perhaps you are asking for something different, and the problem is one of language.
Posted by: Jarin at August 11, 2004 03:40 PM1. By principle I mean an idea of justice that has its foundation in something universally true for all people at all times. What you are articulating is not a principle at all (or it may be a principle, but you would first have to JUSTIFY it as a principle based on more than that is how you FEEL the world ought to be). Just because something is displeasing to you does not mean it violates a principle. but lets forget about these philosophical points and deal with what I wrote bellow….
2. Your argument about the free market is fundmentally flawed as it conflicts with the actual, real world we have in American today. most business pay even extremely UNSKILLED signifigantly more than minimum wage. Why do you think that is? Do you think its because they are beign good hearted? Heck no! Its because of the same competative principles you are scoffing at and say never work. Yet its going on RIGHT NOW. My work WAS worth 10 dollars an hour to the cab company- do you know how I know that? because that is what they paid me. Had it been worth less to them, they would have paid me less. That is the great thing about the free market- it creates so many jobs and oppertunities that companies must pay good wages for even unskilled work in order to staff their companies. The robber barrons lived at a time when the business had control of government and could artifically mess with their supply and get the results they wanted (note by the fact there free trade did not exist then- the tarrifs were HUGE). Today we will in the opposite world. What we need an equal playing field, where neither sides uses the government for its end, and everyone competes with each other by the same set of rules.
3. Labor unions are part of the free market, as long as they do not use force to get their ends.
4. Being compelled by a person to do something against your will does violate a principle of each man being equal and thus no man can compell someone to do something against his will (See decleration of indepedence). Yet, having your economic condition so-called compel you to do something violates no principle at all (as principles are interpersonal guidelines). Its like say my house is destroyed by a hurricane and I have nothing. Has something MORALLY WRONG occured? No! Something very unfortunately has occured, but I have not been wronged by anyone and thus no one owes me anything as a matter of right (of course they can choose to help me out- but that would be out of the kindness of their heart).
5. You say it violates your principles when someone is “not being compensated for work done would be wrong.” But how do you determine what is compensation? Say I make my company only 4 dollars an hour of work. If the company is forced to pay me more than 4 dollars an hour so we can achieve your feelings about the ideal society, I am not being compensated for my work, i am being overcompensated because of government force (or, more likely, they will just lay me off, and then you can put me on welfare! Hurray for government!).
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at August 11, 2004 04:03 PM1. So, you’re asking for the impossible in other words? A universal principle of justice that all men have agreed on for all races and all times? Even the example you cite of “all men being equal” has not always been agreed on, it has arisen solely from the conscience, from mere feelings of right and wrong.
2. Do you have data to back up the assertion that most jobs pay significantly more than the minimum wage? And please remember that average wage data generally deals with the mean average, and we are discussing the modal average.
Frankly, I keep hearing about companies moving overseas to get away from minimum wage laws. I keep hearing about companies keeping employees on part-time status rather than letting them become full-time workers to get out of having to pay for benefits or give them vacation time. I don’t hear about extensive bidding wars to get people to work for them. Why is that, if your assertion is true? If you’re right that bidding wars alone will drive up the average wage sufficiently, why is the existence of a minimal wage even an issue? After all, by the principles you claim exist all wage would automatically rise higher than that rate as the bidding on potential employees continue and employees migrate to the companies that will pay them best.
3. If unions (workers banding together to get fair compensation from their employers) are part of the free market, why isn’t minimum wage (the result of workers banding together to to get a fair compensation from their employers through political means)?
4. You keep saying that no one has wronged you, but if you are being paid wages insufficient to properly compensate you for the work you have done and therefor cannot support yourself, then the person paying you has done a wrong to you.
5. Compensation means receiving something of equivalent value to the work done. This used to involving things like trading a certain number of cows for a certain number of chickens, now it involves trading pieces of paper that represent a certain number of cows or chickens. If I’m still giving you 5 cows, but the paper you give me is only worth three chickens when the fair rate is three chickens per cow, then you are not compensating me and you are stealing four cows from me.
We’re not talking about overcompensation, we’re talking about keeping the compensation for work commensurate with the price of certain staples such as food, clothing, shelter. We’re talking about getting the right number of chickens for the cows you put in. (I realize the metaphor is awkward, but it was the most concrete example of equivalent trade I could think of.)
Posted by: Jarin at August 11, 2004 05:15 PM1. I am not talking about universal agreement, I am talking about true principles. If you believe there is no such thing as a true principle (true regardless of whether all people or no people agree on it), then I do not see why you care at all. I care about politics and right and wrong because I believe there is a right answer. Right regardless of what people say. For example, even when most people thought slavery was right, it was wrong. It remains wrong today, regardless of whether a lot more people recognize its wrongness. If you want to know what I mean about arguing from principle, you should look at something liek Kant’s categorical imperative.
2. Unforuntely, I do not really have time to look for that data at this moment. When I get the chance, I will take a look. I do know from personal experience that I have only worked for minimum wage one time in my life, and that was for 1 month as a 14 year old before I got a raise. And I cant imagine people working far less-skilled jobs than I have worked. Again, this is obviously not an answer to this question, and I urge you to conduct your own research on this topic if you get the time before I do.
3. I am glad you asked this. That is the difference between getting something through a trade and getting something through using a gun. Labor unions organizing and demanding higher wages is a part of the market- there is no force involved. Once they co-opt the government and force employeres in compliance with their wishes, they are imposing their will on others through force. Mutual exchange and government force are the exact opposites of each other.
4. Ok, I want you to answer this please. Say I have a factory and I am deciding whether to hire you or not. You have little and really want the job (lets say, you even need it). If i DO NOT hire at all, have I wronged you? I would assume you would admit that I have not. Now lets say that I offer to hire you, but only if you work for 4 dollars an hour- and you accept the job. Now I have wronged you? You would say yes. So in the one case, where I decide to offer you no job, I have done you no wrong, but in the other case, where I have offered you a job at a low wage and you have accepted, I have done wrong? isnt that extremely bizzare? do you actually believe that?
5. You honestly think that politicians, who are paid for by special interest groups and are trying to get their people the most money (and are NOT trying to balance what is fair), are a better determinate of deserts than mutual exchange based on mutual benefit?
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at August 11, 2004 05:31 PMI thought greed was one of the seven deadly sins. Does that quality as a moral principle? Or is that just something we say to kids to dupe them into sharing?
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at August 11, 2004 06:10 PMThat is supposed to be “qualify”
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at August 11, 2004 06:13 PM1. Alright, I think I’m starting to understand what you’re asking for. You would accept as a universal principle, then, the statement that people should not lie because if everyone lied then nobody would ever trust anyone else and society itself would be harmed?
If this is the type of principle you are looking for, then I say again: workers should be given wages for the work that they do sufficient for them to support themselves. This is because if all workers were not given wages for the work they do sufficient to support themselves, either no work would get done or no workers would survive to do the work. Neither of these outcomes is remotely desirable. Do you accept this as a universal truth or not?
2. Alright. While we’re looking, I would appreciate it if you would address my other point, about why the bidding wars you predict do not seem to be taking place and why a minimum wage is even an issue since you claim all wages should inherently rise above it due to such bidding wars. If that is so, why is the existence of any minimum wage a problem, since nobody would ever be paid subsistence wages in the first place if they’re free to move to other companies?
3. Sorry, but I just don’t see it. Either way they are forcing employers to comply with something or not get the workers they want. The only difference is the avenue by which they are leveraging this force, so if one is a normal part of the market the other must be as well. It is hardly comparable to robbing someone with a gun, since employers still have the choice of offering acceptable wages, or going elsewhere for workers.
4. If you haven’t hired me at all, you can hardly be responsible for my situation. It is, as you said before, merely unfortunate. However, once having hired me if you do not pay a fair amount for my services then yes you have wronged me even if I have agreed to it. Getting someone to agree to an unfair deal because it’s the best they can get does not make the deal any fairer, nor does it magically change the fact that you are taking advantage of them and cheating them.
5. Do you honestly think that corporations, which exist to maximize profits and pay people the least money they can get away with, are following principles of mutual exchange based on mutual benefit?
Posted by: Jarin at August 11, 2004 06:43 PMNOW I DON’T THINK THAT I’LL BE THE ONLY REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE IN THE STATE OF ILLINOIS TO PROTEST THE PRO-SODOMITE “SAME-SEX”-MARRIAGE ADVOCATES AND “BABY-BUTCHERING” ABORTIONISTS!!!!!!! I COULD’VE BEEN HELPED BY REPUBLICAN “CONSERVATIVES”—WHEN I PROTESTED THE SODOMITES AT THEIR “GAY” PRIDE PARADE THIS LAST JULY (2004) IN CHICAGO, IL; BUT THEY WERE ALL LEWDLY AND OBSCENELY MARCHING IN THAT SIN-SICK PARADE—ALONGSIDE THE “GOMORRAHITE” LIBERAL (SO-CALLED MODERATE) ILLINOIS STATE CHAIRMAN[-WOMAN(-IT?)] OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY: STATE TREASURER JUDY BARR-TOPINKA!!!!!!! NOW, AT LEAST U.S. SENATORIAL CANDIDATE ALAN KEYES WILL BE CAMPAIGNING/PROTESTING ALONGSIDE CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE TONY CISNEROS; IN VEHEMENTLY OPPOSING AND VANQUISHING THE “SODOMITES”, “GOMORRAHITES”, AND “BABY-BUTHCHERING” ABORTIONISTS—NOT ONLY AGAINST THE UN-DEMOCRATIC “DEMOCRATIC PARTY”; BUT ALSO AGAINST THE LIBERAL, “LOG CABIN”, LICENTIOUS/LETCHEROUS “LOONIES” OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY AS WELL!!!!!!!!!!!!
YOURS FOR THE ELECTION OF FUTURE CONGRESSMEN ALAN KEYES (SENATE) AND
TONY CISNEROS
CANDIDATE FOR CONGRESS
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
4TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
STATE OF ILLINOIS
REPUBLICAN
1. I do not accept that as a universal thruth, because it does not come from any foundational principle. OUTCOMES cannot possibly be a basis for principle, because there are contingencies that can make them false. That is- a worker who produces nothing of value to anyone cannot be said to deserve to be paid for that production (i am not saying that many people are in this class- if any. But it is logically possible, and therefor invalidates the possibility that this can be a true principle). I do, however, thank you for attempting to put foward the principel I asked for.
2. The minimum wage is not actually a problem in the United States at the practical level- you are correct. The reason for that is, as you astutedly noted, very very few people actually make minimum wage. It is a problem on the principled level, as an imposition by the majority of its values with no universal principle that can be defended underlying it. It would be like if we had only 3 gay couples in the entire country, but gay marriage was elligal. It would affect very very few people, but it would still be wrong in principle.
3. Well let me put it another way. Say I dont like the Micheal Moore’s movie. I can either found an organization that boycotts anyone theatre that would show the movie, or I can use my political power to force the government to declare the movie elligal and shut down any theatre that shows it. That is the difference between organized labor and the minimum wage. DO you see my point?
4. I find that answer truely amazing. So if I offer you NO job- I am ok and didnt do anything wrong. yet if I offer you a job that makes you better off than having no job at all (if it did not make you better off, you would have rejected by completely voluntary offer!!), I have done you wrong? I dont believe you can actually hold to that argument…
5. Corporations that do not use the government to get special rules can ONLY operate upon that principle. Say I am a corporation that is super greedy and want to make the maximum ammount of money. Now say I need to higher you and 3 other workers to develop this new product that will make me filthy rich. The ONLY way I can get you to work for me is to make it worth your while. As a result, I will offer you a salary that makes you better off than you are in your present situation. So there we have it- mutual exchange based on mutual benefit- and all thanks to the free market. Greedy is just a dirty word for benefit. If both parties to a transaction are optimally greedy, they will reach the optimal result, becasue each will fight as hard as possible to get the best deal. And if you think you cant really fight on your own, you can form a union, and then the negotiations can take place between the union and the company.
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at August 11, 2004 09:22 PM1. If the work is truly of no value, then no one would want him to do it in the first place and so he would not be employed. If he is employed, his work is worth being payed an adequate wage for, therefor your counterexample falls apart.
2. See, the thing is you’re not suggesting a way that those who would end up making less than minimum wage under your system would be protected from not making enough to live. Therefor, you’re replacing the wrongs done to few corporations with wrongs done to individuals. And there are more individuals than corporations. Making gay marriage legal for those three couples would not replace the wrongs done to them with wrongs done to others. Therefor, the situations are not analogous.
3. I’m guessing to your way of thinking we also shouldn’t then have environmental policies, citizens should instead form a great many watchdog groups and only support companies which adhere to minimum standards? I don’t think this hands-off approach to industry regulation is workable, history has shown that it only leads to abuses from the corporate sector.
4. Yes. “Better off” and fairly compensated are worlds apart. If I give a starving man a few dollars he’s “better off”. If I give him that few dollars for doing backbreaking labor for half the day, he’s still “better off” but he’s hardly been fairly compensated. Taking advantage of the desire to become “better off” does not remove the onus of having wronged the person by not giving fair compensation for work done. If you’ve given him no job, you’ve taken nothing from him and thus bear no onus for his situation. Once you take something from him, in the form of his time and labor, however you are obligated to provide fair compensation in exchange.
5. So your solution is that both groups need to be out to screw the other in the biggest possible way in order for a fair deal to be reached? Interesting philosophy, especially since you claim it is dictated by moral principles but doesn’t resemble anything moral at all to me.
Posted by: Jarin at August 11, 2004 10:08 PMThanks Tony. That’s why I love the GOP. If you guys weren’t so wacked out, we wouldn’t even need a Democratic Party.
Misha’s arguments are a good example of why there are so few Libertarians in this country - and why there likely never will be.
I believe you either have to come from an extremely privileged background, have the potential for an extremely privileged future, or just be completely heartless to hold such dog-eat-dog positions.
I also find it ironic that he could claim:
“Government is about force, and all those who wield that force want to impose their beliefs upon the governed.”
And yet, Misha would like for abortion to be made illegal for women - whether or not they are teenage girls who are still children themselves, or women who can’t afford to take care of a child properly, or are girls/women who were raped by some psycho.
Misha:
“I, for one, do not think that someone has the right to impose his beliefs upon me, unless his beliefs are grounded in principles of justice.”
As if those who claim their beliefs are guided by principles of justice could never have a political slant or an ulterior motive!
How about a majority vote, instead?
If so, women would be able to continue to have sovereignty over their own bodies when it comes to deciding whether or not to become a mother.
Misha:
“That is, unless my actions are hurting other people, no one has the right to tell me how to live my life-”
Ah, but with abortion a woman is forced to make a Choice. Either they hurt the _potential_ life of a bundle of multiplying cells within their own bodies, or they hurt their own future and chances for happiness.
Outlaw abortion and you potentially ruin the life of a girl who hasn’t even finished high school, or the life of a woman too poor to give a child a decent life, or the life of a female victim that has endured a vicious and brutal male crime.
And then - if Republican’s and Libertarians get their way - you must also remove any sort of social services that will help that mother and child survive and see how well they do when they try to exist on minimum wage or nothing whatsoever. Life is about Personal Responsibility, after all…
Christian Republicans and Libertarians of Misha’s stripe want a future that will be littered with bloody coat hangers, neglected children, and prostitutes and panhandlers on every corner.
These views make absolutely no sense - but no doubt such people believe they are only guided by Principles of Justice.
Misha’s arguments are a good example of why there are so few Libertarians in this country - and why there likely never will be.
I believe you either have to come from an extremely privileged background, have the potential for an extremely privileged future, or just be completely heartless to hold such dog-eat-dog positions.
I also find it ironic that Misha could claim:
“Government is about force, and all those who wield that force want to impose their beliefs upon the governed.”
And yet, he would like for abortion to be made illegal for women - whether or not they are teenage girls who are still children themselves, or women who can’t afford to take care of a child properly, or are girls/women who were raped by some psycho.
Misha:
“I, for one, do not think that someone has the right to impose his beliefs upon me, unless his beliefs are grounded in principles of justice.”
As if those who claim their beliefs are guided by principles of justice could never have a political slant or an ulterior motive!
How about a majority vote, instead?
If so, women would be able to continue to have sovereignty over their own bodies when it comes to deciding whether or not to become a mother.
Misha:
“That is, unless my actions are hurting other people, no one has the right to tell me how to live my life-”
Ah, but with abortion a woman is forced to make a Choice. Either they hurt the _potential_ life of a bundle of multiplying cells within their own bodies, or they hurt their own future and chances for happiness.
Outlaw abortion and you potentially ruin the life of a girl who hasn’t even finished high school, or the life of a woman too poor to give a child a decent life, or the life of a female victim that has endured a vicious and brutal male crime.
And then - if Republican’s and Libertarians get their way - you must also remove any sort of social services that will help that mother and child survive. It’s all about Personal Responsibility, after all…
Christian Republicans and Libertarians of Misha’s stripe want a future that will be littered with bloody coat hangers, neglected children, and prostitutes on every corner.
They make no bloody sense at all. Both figuratively and literally.
THIS ONE IS FOR “‘american’ pundit”, “misha”, and “whosoever-will”:
I THANK ALMIGHTY GOD THAT I’M NOT THE ONLY REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE IN THE STATE OF ILLINOIS TO PROTEST THE PRO-SODOMITE (ANTI-HETEROSEXUAL) “SAME-SEX” MARRIAGE MORONS/WIERDOS AND “BABY-BUTCHERING” ‘BASTARD’ ABORTIONISTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THIS GOES A ZILLION-FOLD FOR THE UN-DEMOCRATIC “DEMOCRATS”—AS WELL AS THE LIBERAL, LICENTIOUS AND LETCHEROUS “LOG-CABIN” LOONIES IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! CAN I GET A WITNESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
YOURS FOR THE ELECTION OF FUTURE SENATOR ALAN KEYES,
TONY CISNEROS
2004 CANDIDATE FOR CONGRESS
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
4TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
STATE OF ILLINOIS
REPUBLICAN
