What do you mean, don't you know, governments don't look backward, they only look forward.

Don't you wish it worked like that for just normal people? You killed somebody? Just apologize, we don't look backward, we look forward, so with an apology you are free to go.

(same user, backup account)
---

- now you see, that's a flame.

- the only function of a government is to defend the citizens from an attack, defend their lives and private property. Of-course instead of that the governments are actually destroying freedoms and rights, murdering people around the world, where there is no business for any of that intervention and creating a gigantic police and surveillance state. Military defence can be paid for Constitutionally, with direct apportioned taxes and/or with excise taxes, and the illegal income tax is neither of these.

In fact in order to go to war or to do defence what government should do is this: Congress has to state what the defence budget is going to be and then apportion collection of taxes for that purpose directly, proportionately to the population of the states (direct apportioned tax). All was have to be paid for, not put on debt for the future generations to pay for and not via inflation either, government must not be allowed to print cash.

- yes, which is why government should stay out of business altogether, so that the society becomes wealthy due to absence of government in free market capitalistic economy and wealthy societies can take care of their water and air without government intervention. Governments have no business in clean air and water but they certainly destroy plenty of air and water, the bigger the government, the more dictatorial it is, the worse the environmental outcomes are, this is history. The wealthier the economy is due to less government intervention, the more money (production) society can allocate to these causes.

- no. The only thing that can actually keep weakest from falling too far is a wealthy growing free market capitalist economy, government has no business, no authority in any of these and there is no moral right to steal from anybody to subsidise anybody else, regardless of how weak they are and how wealthy somebody else is that you want to steal from.

- not a government postal system.

- not a government roads.

- not a government safety and standards.

- not a government firemen and not a government police force either.

- fuck you, you piece of shit (now that's a flamebait, definitely is, but you see AFAIC you are a piece of shit for all of your assumptions and for your conclusion, you are a piece of stinky excrement for telling people how they should live their lives, so you are an anti human, anti freedom POS from my perspective).

- wrong. Every person should want freedom, not oppression, and if you want oppression because you were brainwashed into it in the so called 'public schools', then you are not a human worthy of having a discussion with.

Free assembly is one expression of democracy (though I am against democracy, don't get me wrong, I am against mobocracy), however you are correct.

Another expression of democracy is free association. It absolutely 100% does not matter who is deciding not to associate with you, be it a girl next door, a club of interests or an employer for whatever reasons, that's completely irrelevant. I want people to be free to discriminate or not based on their own ideas and believes, and you are telling me that you can't handle that freedom, freedom of association.

Freedom of assembly is absolutely not impeded in any way by any private party, be it an employer or anybody else. Freedom of assembly can only be impeded by government. The entire concept of rights is completely misunderstood by vast majority of people that have gone through the public brain washing system, so called schools, that teach you nothing.

Rights are protection against government abuse, nothing else, everything else is either an entitlement (that nobody should have) or an obligation (that nobody should be imposed upon by any government).

Corporations are a front, a fiction, they are a fiction and behind every corporation there is a person or a group of people. AFAIC corporations shouldn't even be established by government laws, government has nothing to do with business, a corporation in fact is a self governing body, nothing else. You may want to figure out where the word comes from in the first place, the only purpose of government involvement in corporation is registration. Registration of corporation is what 'citizens devised' (and it wasn't citizens actually that devised it, you are wrong on that too).

However I am not arguing pro or against corporate charter here, I am talking about the reasons that people start their own businesses, corporations or anything else. A BUSINESS, a business for the purpose of generating profits, not a 'corporation' for the purpose of incorporating a legal entity. Government shouldn't have anything to do with people running businesses, that is my point. Whether corporations should be legal entities that are given any special treatment? NO! Owners of joint stock companies that eventually became corporations for the sake of simplicity of regulations shouldn't be hidden behind corporate facade from litigation.

I disagree as a general principle with the entire idea that there should be ANY form of protection of private individuals behind corporate facade in case the individuals (or the company) are sued or become liable in any way.

Yes, I am against special privileges that government provides to anybody, anybody at all, including all people, all living or dead creatures, all legal or illegal entities. Of-course I am completely against the very concept of having any federal power over people in the first place and hopefully over time, given the facts of life, such as freedom of movement of information (the Internet), freedom of movement at all (transportation, immigration, emigration) eventually people do away with federations, with dictatorial entities that are trying to steal their property and lives from them.

Governments' "Limited Liability" garbage is what created possibility to create gigantic faceless entities, known as modern 'corporations' that removed private liability from the company owners. This is a moral hazard that government created and this moral hazard is what makes it possible for the modern stock market to exist not by virtue of the real business value, real earnings, long term goals, but by virtue of government created guarantee and protection that destroys the principle of running a private business that incontrovertibly adds value by its activity in a normal free market rather than extracting capital from unsophisticated 'investors', who are really unaware of what is going on around them. This is a moral hazard and it was created by governments.

Apple and Google or anybody else must be within their absolute rights (and I am an atheist, otherwise I would have added 'god given' there, as is I would say 'nature given') to come to any agreement among themselves to not hire you or anybody based on whatever criteria that suits them and you shouldn't be compelled under any circumstances to take any position within those companies.

The patient gets plenty of benefits from this, one being not having to go to the clinic and wait in line, not having to drive somewhere, not having to interrupt your day. With mobile Internet you should be able to connect to a doctor on the go.

There are costs associated with setting the system up and training the stuff to work with it, to maintain and support it, but the benefits are for both, the hospitals, clinics and for patients.

In any case, you are not forced to use it.

False, the reason you are modding down every one of my comments (and a few others like you) is because I am too effective at expressing the opinions that you are personally against, which only means you have a bias that is not based on rationality of legality, you have a different type of bias that requires that anybody with the opinion that destroys all of your arguments flat is silenced.

The only reason to mod down every comment in a row i s to silence the opposition, there are no other reasons here.

I am not against unions that do not derive their power from government, so if you want to start your own union, you should be able to, however as an employer, I should not be compelled to work with a union, so I should be able to fire all people in the union, it's my discretion. Agreement between two companies not to hire employees from each other is suboptimal, but nowhere near the scale of damage that government causes with rules and regulations and taxation and inflation. As I said, the problem here is not that Apple and Google decided to agree not to hire from each other, the problem is that there are so few companies in the first place that such agreements can even be noticed.

How small and pathetic is the true state of USA economy when such irrelevant to the larger picture agreements become items of discussion? I will tell you how sad, small and pathetic the true state of USA economy is.

34% of American households feel they are worse off now than in 2008. So more than a third of American households feel that during today's so called "recovery" they are worse off than during the year 2008, the year when the economic crisis hit USA.

Again, the problem is so few employers are out there and unamerican unconstitutional decisions like this one by this court will not help at all, not even a little, it only makes it worse.

---
Anyway, enjoy my last comment here, I had to use my backup account to leave this one. The moderators are already in full swing right now all over my comments, as they often are, making sure that I cannot participate in this discussion. Once they push the 'karma' low enough, I'll not be able to continue leave comments for a while, which is the point I take it, to ensure that the echo-chamber is unchallenged.

Free market (market free from government regulations) capitalist (as in, private ownership and operation of property) economy sets prices that are most efficient in that economy, and labor costs (wages) are also prices. Without government interference they are set where the market is willing to set them and this price discovery is what is important to allocate scarce resources correctly to push businesses towards productive output that the market desires.

You are saying that a business that does not pay your artificial price floor for labor is "a parasite upon the economy", however you are still assuming that people are willing to work for the price (wages) that employers are hiring at. If the business is unable to hire people at lower wages and the same business is unable to raise consumer prices to match its expenses on wages, then what you have is a market pressure for that business to find way to cut costs in some other manner or in fact to shut down, and that is exactly what economic activity requires: FREE MARKET ALLOCATES SCARCE RESOURCES IN THE MOST EFFICIENT MANNER. Without your government intrusion, free market signals to all the participants in the market as to what businesses should exist, what economic output is valuable and what the prices should be.

You are saying: let's force all businesses to pay artificial prices for labor and pretend that this does not hurt efficiency, does not hurt the actual market. It does, it eliminates free market price discovery, creates inefficiencies, prevents employment, prevents scarce resources from being allocated in the way, that market approves of most.

You are creating the parasite economy, not free market without price controls.

Since I do have artificial /. limits on the number of posts per day, I will reply to you from my backup account. Don't worry, I won't pretend to be somebody else, that's not what this account is for, it's the same user, just under a different name.
----

Spending money on consumables does not grow the economy, especially the USA economy, which buys those consumables from abroad. It doesn't increase competitive pressures in the USA economy to produce, the only competitive pressures in the USA are in distribution and sales, but that's where a small number of very large economies of scale, such as WM dominate, specifically because they hire people at lowest prices and push suppliers to sell to WM at lowest prices as well.

Customers that get their income from welfare or from laws that steal that money from somebody else first are not real customers. The real trade is done between parties that produce, the so called trade between those, who live on welfare (or are benefiting from any type of theft, including taxes and borrowing that go towards minimum wages) is not real trade.

You see the point of trade is to exchange something, it makes sense for me to trade my productive output with others, who also have productive output, where I can get something from them I myself do not produce - comparative advantage is the name of the game.

When governments tell me (as an employer) that I must hit their artificial price floors, I cannot magically expand my overall earnings to provide any more money to anybody that I am already paying. I actually have a number of people that are paid below what you would consider a legal 'minimum wage', while vast majority of my employees are paid much more than any such price floor. The reason is very simple: productivity.

I don't throw people out if I can use their labour at the price, at which it makes sense for me to buy that labour. If the labour price is artificially raised, I would rather not hire anybody in that category at all, I would only be considering people that are definitely more productive than those, who are barely making it to the artificial price floor. There is a substantial difference between a worker that can produce high output and a worker that can barely move, however I can find use for those who barely move but they will not be making anywhere near what you think 'minimum wage' should be. They are fine with it, those are students and they do in fact need these jobs, they are getting experience that will help them to find better jobs later. Some of my student workers are very good, making more than what you think minimum wage should be.

My point is this: I will not have people at minimum wage, that doesn't even make sense. I will have people much below it and people much above it. Minimum wage is an artificial construct that has no meaning to me as an employer, there is nobody who is worth specifically that amount that I employ.

Now, the people that you are talking about, they are mostly in services industry, they are cleaners, stocking personnel, people with very little skills, not anybody with any real skills, those people command higher than minimum wage salaries. Placing artificial government price controls on labour price does a very simple thing: ensures that fewer people in that category are hired and those who are hired are going to be in higher categories of workers.

I definitely can see some business hiring an overqualified person with no job experience even to clean toilets, rather than hiring much less 'learned' counterparts, so the only thing that minimum wage does in that category is it prevents people without experience and without any extra qualifications from entering the work force.

Of-course the modern 'mainstream economists' will muddy the waters and try to sell you all sorts of nonsense as to how they think the economy works and how higher minimum wages will grow the economy, it's all nonsense and propaganda for the political elite that is in power, it has nothing to do with the actual economy and hiring and pricing. The actual economy will find a way to work around these price controls - hiring people that are much more qualified than necessary for jobs that shouldn't need those qualifications, ensuring that jobs go to the more connected people rather than considering people from the entire job market, etc.

As to your 'negative sum' and all that, sure, one way to deal with the increase in minimum wage is to raise your prices. Well, that IS happening. What do you think news like this are all about? It's inflation and all the price controls and laws and regulations, taxes, that's what it is. And Hershey's raising prices by 10% that just one tiny drop in a bucket of the overall prices going up, they are going up much faster than any government numbers indicate or admit to.

Product quality and portion sizes are going down, prices are going up, gov't can even claim that this is somehow indicating a 'growing economy'. But if you spend 10% more on Hershey's it doesn't mean your standard of living is better, the exact opposite is the case. To listen to the mainstream nonsense, you are in danger when prices fall. Well, I hope you are getting your fill of the great economic news, prices are not falling, they are going up just fine, so don't be scared, your wallet won't be emptied slower, it will be emptied faster, so you are all good.

I take it you believe that everything should fall right on your lap the moment you START a business? This is the game - you start a business and ONE of many businesses will succeed and it takes YEARS to succeed. I know that majority of you here don't understand such concepts as long term vision and you believe that you have to be rich already to make it in the world, but damn, when did this change occur, WHO told you that you should become a millionaire 4.5 years after starting a business exactly? Majority of business owners only make it into the black by around that mark.

By the way even without talent hard work beats talent that does not do hard work. I am not confirming anything that you wrote, I am telling you straight out: your claim (and this subsequent comment) doesn't make any sense. Nobody becomes a millionaire or a billionaire right away in business, it takes years, possibly decades if your business is even viable and profitable in the first place.

any sufficiently truthful statement is indistinguishable from flamebait.

Yes you do, you become rich by working hard. You become rich by building your own business, you need capital savings to start a business, which is why you will have to get that money somehow. I did it by working on contracts for 10 years before starting my own business. I am not 'rich' as in millionaire rich, I am rich by doing what I like, building products I choose to build with a team I hire and maybe over years it will make me enough money to put me in a category that you define as 'rich' or maybe it won't work out. One thing is for sure, if I do make it, some total asshole will be posting comments somewhere how I must have stolen something from somebody rather than building my own business over years of actual hard work. My employees have weekends and holidays and a steady paycheck, something I do not have, that's my risk and that's my choice.

Ford, Carnegie, Rockefeller, Jobs, etc. Millions of people got rich (or at least rich enough for them) by building and running their own businesses.

You are totally mistaken, nobody depends on USA economy except for the welfare recipients and there is no more such thing as a 'USA economy' anyway. USA doesn't produce enough to have an economy.

It's the exact opposite that is the case, China, Germany and many others FEED USA, USA is the welfare recipient of the world and nobody depends on them for their economy. Economy is not consumption without repayment, economy is trade of goods that all sides participating in the trade produce and USA has been running 500Billion USD / year trade deficits for over 20 years now to claim that it has an economy that anybody relies upon, that ship has sailed together with the gold dollar.

What would actually HELP all of the countries suffering from the USA initiated inflation is to stop throwing money into the bottomless pit that is the USA welfare state. Germany needs to get whatever gold it can back from the USA Fed in a short order otherwise it will never see any of it again.

Since I hit the posting limit wall on my first account, I am going to reply to you from my backup one. ...

False choice! HL NEVER TOOK ANY FREEDOMS AWAY from anybody, government took freedoms away from HL. HL compensating their employees in currency rather than in whatever government tells it to compensate employees in is a freedom that HL AND employees must have and that government must not be able to steal.

Freedom to negotiate a contract between 2 parties is an essential freedom that cannot be impeded by government and nobody should lose those freedoms regardless of whether they become an employer or whatever.

By the way, thinking that HL is 'dictating choices' is a gigantic misconception! HL is not coming to anybody's house and not looking for contraceptives they don't like and not preventing people from buying the contraceptives with the MONEY THAT HL PAYS THEM. This is a huge lie perpetrated upon the population stupid enough not to understand the simple concept: you get paid and then you buy the products you want regardless of what anybody thinks.

- just because somebody is rich it does not mean that they should be forced by the government (and thus guns and prisons) to pay for your life. You can buy your own goddamn contraceptives and as to 'welfare kids', there are private charities for that and welfare shouldn't exist in the first place.

Same user, second account.

- and that is the actual problem, isn't it?

Government making it a Constitutional entitlement to protect whatever it is you want protected. Why not a McDonalds having Constitutional entitlement to prevent competition from opening another fast food place within 10 miles of each of their stores?

This is the same thing: what you do in your life and on your time is none of government's business in any way, you shouldn't be attacked by government and you shouldn't be given any entitlements by it either. I guess whoever managed to stick that particular item into the USA Constitution had interest in patents but not in fast food stores.