Re: The poor are not getting poorer

> > Victimized? By these invented 'crimes' or something else?
> > Government -- LEGITIMATE Government -- secures rights <period>.
> And people with more money get their rights secured faster by
> government.
> So your problem is with Government.

And Libertarians don't want a government?
Since when?

There was no claim regarding Libertarians NOR whether they do or do not want Government.
You complained that 'money' achieves 'quicker' Government action.
As I noted, your problem is with Government.

> What MJ isn't telling you about Libertarianism:
> the fact that Libertarianism weighs the different rights afforded to
> people.
> i.e. Walmart (or any business) could put up a sign saying; Blacks Not
> Served (or any other variant to the theme).
> He would argue that people would decide where to shop, and that
> Walmart would suffer the consequences of doing so.
> Maybe, maybe not.
> But certainly people would be inconvenienced, and much more time and
> money wasted in compliance or non compliance than is currently.
>
> I said nothing about Libertarianism -- which does not 'weigh' rights anyhow.
> Not certain WHAT your example is supposed to relate.

You don't have to say anything about Libertarianism, call it whatever
you want, or just don't call it all, it's still Libertarianism.
My examples relate to realities people face, not Utopian theories.

ha-ha...which is why there is no Libertarian in office.
Ignoring something = ignorant.

<sigh>

"I think of myself as a realist, preferring to focus my attention on better and worse ways of accomplishing ends, mindful that our visions of the "ideal" will be forever changing and beyond our grasp. Focused experience is a far better teacher than abstract reasoning. I believe that drinking a quart of orange juice each day is better for your health than drinking a quart of Scotch. I believe that a market economy is far more conducive to our material well-being than is a socialistic system. I believe that respecting the lives and properties of others is a better way of living in society than is a life of predation; that contractual undertakings with others produce a better life for all than does confiscation or conscription. I know how the violent methods of the state are destructive of life, and that peaceful behavior is life-sustaining. Above all else, my experiences inform me that social systems grounded in politics, with its use of force, produce worse consequences for humanity than do those that are free of coercion.

"If I reject murder, rape, robbery, mayhem, and warfare as ways of dealing with others, does that qualify me as a utopian? Am I a hopeless visionary if I insist on not trespassing the interests of others as I pursue my own interests?

"In a world dominated by materialistic and power-seeking motives, there is often a tendency to confuse the expression of philosophic principles with the pursuit of visionary social systems. Has our world become so corrupt and morally bankrupt that we feel obliged to regard a fundamental examination of our thinking and behavior as unreal and impractical? Because so many of us identify our sense of being with existing institutional entities, does labeling critics of such systems "utopians" or "romantics" become a convenient way of dismissing adverse judgments without having to burden our thinking with disturbing questions?"  -- Butler Shaffer

I guess you cannot elaborate upon your example either.

> Sam Walton has a right to his life (yes, he is dead, but for the example ...)
> Black Patron has a right to his life.
> IF Sam Walton did NOT want to serve Black Patron, it is certainly his right. (That he is far more interested in 'green' would necessarily overcome such bias notwithstanding).
> Black Patron has no right to FORCE Sam Walton to 'serve' him (slavery).
> Similarly, Sam Walton has no right to FORCE Black Patron to buy from him.
>    "There is only one boss--the customer. And he can fire
>     everybody in the company from the chairman on down,
>      simply by spending his money somewhere else" -- Sam Walton.

And yet you're doing exactly what I said Libertarians do, they weigh
the rights.
Of course what I didn't mean was to suggest other political parties
don't do the same thing, they do.
It's just that you put a single entity above the masses of individuals
rights to acquire the same goods and services that anyone should have
the right to, and ignore the added costs and time to people to acquire
said goods and services.

There is no 'weighing' of rights.  Perhaps you do not grasp the ideal of rights -- your response certainly suggests this.
One cannot have a right to what another must provide.

In the Sam Walton illustration, you imagine anyone wanting Walton's wares has a RIGHT to them.
His wares, his decision with whom he trades. That he will necessarily trade with anyone for 'green' also escapes you (his goal will inevitably be to make money ... why forego a potential market?)
You seek a right to slavery.  Such is NOT a right.

Should Walton be able to FORCE people to buy his wares?
Why do you imagine Others should be able to FORCE him to sell to them?

It doesn't have to stop at Black Patron, it could be White Patron,
Christian Patron, not-from-my-town Patron, poor Patron, long-hair
Patron, people-who-wear-glasses Patron, etc. etc. etc.
So you're going to send cops to enforce all of those?
You're going to need a mighty big police state to do that.
Curious how such a large police state will happen after Libertarians
gut government?

There was no mention of Costumed Government crime historians.
If Joe opens a business and seeks only to hire 4 foot Asian women, why would he need cops?
If he only want to sell his product to Lesbians, why would he need cops?
You appear hopelessly confused.

> Minimum wage only ensures that someone MUST be paid at least X.
> > It does not guarantee employment.  In fact, those worth LESS than
> > X will not be employed.
> Half true.
> The part of the Civil War that many people overlook is the fact that
> many northerners were out of work precisely because of the low cost of
> slavery.
> Lincoln's War is irrelevant to the Minimum Wage.

It's completely relevant to employment though.

Lincoln's War is not relevant to employment either.


Regard$,
--MJ

If we assume that the individual has an indisputable right to life, we must concede that he has a similar right to the enjoyment of the products of his labor. This we call a property right. The absolute right to property follows from the original right to life because one without the other is meaningless; the means to life must be identified with life itself. If the State has a prior right to the products of one's labor, his right to existence is qualified. Aside from the fact that no such prior right can be established, except by declaring the State the author of all rights, our inclination (as shown in the effort to avoid paying taxes) is to reject this concept of priority. Our instinct is against it. We object to the taking of our property by organized society just as we do when a single unit of society commits the act. In the latter case we unhesitatingly call the act robbery, a malum in se. It is not the law which in the first instance defines robbery, it is an ethical principle, and this the law may violate but not supersede. If by the necessity of living we acquiesce to the force of law, if by long custom we lose sight of the immorality, has the principle been obliterated? Robbery is robbery, and no amount of words can make it anything else.
-- Frank Chodorov, Out of Step: The Autobiography of an Individualist [1962