Will the minimum wage be raised after the pandemic is over?

[cris01us]

Probably not in the immediate wake and in a Presidential election year.  The issue will certainly be pressed after the election, the emphasis to which it is given will depend on which party holds the Oval Office.

I'm not sure the wage fight will ever be over, even if a $15 or $20 wage was passed tomorrow.  It would only abate and delay the discussion until inflation made the new wage seem insufficient.  So long as there is tension between labor and capitalist this issue will be with mankind.

[cris01us]

Considering Libertarian ideology, it is worth repeating, that the goal is not a “paradise” or a utopia, or any sort of “finish line” for that matter.  The value is on maximum liberty FROM things (people, institutions, restrictions), to such a degree that it is feasible to maintain a functioning and coherent society.  Some might think fundamentalism, or constitutionalism, or any other host of ideas to bracket this in, but that is to aim incorrectly.  Rather, to over simplify:
1.   Maximum liberty for the individual (in every feasible and reasonable manner)
2.   The smallest means of government that is practical to achieve this (core functions of government)
3.   Emphasis on Negative Rights over Positive Rights. 

The important thing to remind oneself of when considering the Libertarian perspective is that it varies by a considerable degree and is occupied by ideas that range from neo-anarchists to minarchism, and in regards to economic, political, and social issues.  Which is why the gentlemen from California, who has posted on here, and I can both roughly call ourselves Libertarians, yet have notable differences in approach to policies. 

To attempt to answer your early questions directly and succinctly: It’s not a matter of valuing owners over others, but rather each party as an individual.  The question should be how do I guarantee maximum liberty and freedom of action to each party, and what is the role of government in doing so? How can I use the smallest amount of government to solve the problem, so as not to step on the individual? As far as a “pathway to libertarian paradise”, I have already asserted there is no “finish line” or “paradise” per say.  Rather, there is a means to produce a better society, and that is by raising the importance and protections of the individual over government, tearing down intrusive barriers, and emphasizing equal opportunity over equal outcome. As you elude to earlier, you start by getting rid of those laws that hamper economic freedoms, and reduce coercive institutions or policies.  Personally, I would not bother trying to “eliminate inequities from a corrupt pre-existing order” – because as you have already identified here, the pre-existing order is corrupt.  Its reform will come as a result of any change applied to it, and chasing down inequities becomes a never-ending game of policy creation and redistribution – two things that go directly against the aim here. Allowing people to “sink or swim” as harsh as it might seem, I think is the better approach, though I wouldn’t cast it in that light.  We should aim to afford equal opportunity, and reduce individual barriers, but not have the government be paternal to its citizens.  That is the way to a nanny or welfare-state. I do acknowledge society must provide a reasonable safety net, since there is bound to be a percentage of any population that will require it, but we should not cushion failure to the degree it takes away incentive or motivation.

[cris01us]

This is why I think better education for minority communities is the best first step; it shows that we are committed to equality of opportunity but not equality of outcome. If we want to credibly say that merit, skill, and creativity are all that matter in this new libertarian society, we will have to give historically disadvantaged groups a reason to believe that this is the case.

You raise a great point, and I think this one of those areas that I stumble at.  Here we find the conundrum of providing more for historically disenfranchised while not creating welfare-like, or redistribution-like policies.  How do we change the optics of the potential framework to so that it doesn't look like we are taking from some in order to give to others?  Furthermore, how do we implement controls so that any programs that do seek to "equalize the starting point" don't become bloated and bureaucratic like any other government program?  I also consider the school voucher program, and a deeper interest in growing privatized schooling, a significant component to the solution.  As it is now in the public market (public school system) there is no competition to produce top quality students - because there isn't a strong market incentive to do so.  Even if the school loses high taxpayers who take their kids elsewhere (due to poor performance/output/reputation), we find it can appeal to the state or even federal government to offset this consequence, and thereby the consequence of poor quality output.  This doesn't apply in all states or districts, sure, but it prolongs the crisis. I don't believe there is an easy solution in this area, but I would tread lightly into creating programs - lest we create the type of system we are trying to get away from.