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

[John Dule]

What is the pathway to libertarian Paradise like? Do you just get rid of the bad laws and everything is okay? Do you first try to eliminate inequities from a corrupt pre-existing order and then institute policies that allow people to sink or swim on their own? What are the first steps taken?

It's a good thing because if a job is worth $5 an hour to a business but they're forced to spend $10 on it, they will do their best to automate, eliminate, or outsource it as soon as possible, and then that person will not be making any money at all.

[SevenEleven]

What is the pathway to libertarian Paradise like? Do you just get rid of the bad laws and everything is okay? Do you first try to eliminate inequities from a corrupt pre-existing order and then institute policies that allow people to sink or swim on their own? What are the first steps taken?

It's a good thing because if a job is worth $5 an hour to a business but they're forced to spend $10 on it, they will do their best to automate, eliminate, or outsource it as soon as possible, and then that person will not be making any money at all.

I understand that; I'm more interested in what sort of path it would take to reach your goals. I don't need spoken down to. Do you value current owners over everything else? We see this same struggle with marijuana legalization, i.e. whether big business or people who have already been doing this business. You answered none of my questions and I was pretty eager to hear your thoughts.

[John Dule]

What is the pathway to libertarian Paradise like? Do you just get rid of the bad laws and everything is okay? Do you first try to eliminate inequities from a corrupt pre-existing order and then institute policies that allow people to sink or swim on their own? What are the first steps taken?

It's a good thing because if a job is worth $5 an hour to a business but they're forced to spend $10 on it, they will do their best to automate, eliminate, or outsource it as soon as possible, and then that person will not be making any money at all.

I understand that; I'm more interested in what sort of path it would take to reach your goals. I don't need spoken down to. Do you value current owners over everything else? We see this same struggle with marijuana legalization, i.e. whether big business or people who have already been doing this business. You answered none of my questions and I was pretty eager to hear your thoughts.

Ok, I just wanted to clarify that because I thought your shift in topic was due to exasperation. I also have no hope of achieving a paradise of any sort, so I figured any answer I gave would be boring. But my first ideal step towards a more libertarian society is to completely overhaul the public education system to make schools equally funded and provide students with more resources to succeed ("adulting" classes, better career advisors, etc). I would eliminate teacher's unions but also raise teacher pay considerably, hopefully attracting more professional instructors. I would make community college tuition-free for a four-year degree and I would lower the requirements for getting into med school/law school. There should be more mechanisms for companies to recruit students straight out of college-- a student could pledge to a two-year internship at Apple, for instance, in exchange for Apple paying for their programming degree from a more illustrious university. I would stop funding public schools with property taxes and I'd ban the teaching of creationism and other garbage like it in class. The goal here is to create a new generation of extremely talented, confident, well-educated Americans who feel that they can succeed in the 21st century, which is a perfect breeding ground for libertarianism. I could go on (slashing welfare spending, slashing regulations, slashing corporate handouts, slashing occupational licensing), but I think my answer is clearly yes-- I would definitely want to eliminate inequities and create a more meritocratic society before moving on my other policies.

[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.

[Continential]

We should have a minimum wage based on inflation.

[John Dule]

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.

I agree with a lot of what you said in your post in principle, but I have never been able to endorse this from a practical standpoint. The truth is that a whole lot of people-- especially African-Americans-- will not see this new libertarian society as legitimate or meritocratic if the starting point is the system of distribution we have right now. 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.

[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.

[RINO Tom]

We should have a minimum wage based on inflation.

I actually don't think this is very controversial with anyone.  It's the manner of phasing it in that is of debate, as a sudden shock to small businesses would not be good at all.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Dems are gonna pass as much progressive legislation as possible. Due to what happened to them in 2010. They were coerced by Rs to not get rid of filibuster and Rs used it against them and got power back in 2010 and 2014. The Gorsuch nomination is a deep factor into the Dems getting rid of the legislative filibuster,  whom replaced Scalia instead of Garland

[MarkD]

When will the minimum wage laws be abolished? When will they be struck down by the Supreme Court (again)?