You had me at Jar-Jarmy.
I was going to type FORTH. Or colorFORTH because it has that wonderful colored interface.
Monopoly money? Had you typed Bitcoins, I would already be law enforcement swiss cheese.
Yes, I have a lack of the means to do the research. Please send me money, ASAP.
The book you cite was written in 1997. The description lists three dates out right 1991-1992 federal minimum wage increase, 1988 California minimum wage increase, and New Jersey's 1992 minimum wage increase. These years are all part of the bubble building to the crash in 2008.
Please pick a book with a bigger data set.
IMHO, "Pay to Play" may be true, but it's closer to "Credit to Play." Taking on large amounts of student debt is the norm for a large percentage of students because the credit is so easy to get. Colleges start relying on students to get the largest amount of student aid, which is debt to the students. Educators, government, and parents tell students to get a college degree. Students get cheap credit, ad infinitum.
I think this is a case of correlation does not imply causation. Somebody did a survey about how college grads do in life, sometime in like the 70s or 80s. "Hey they seem to do better in life. Let's get everyone to go to college, then everyone will do better." The students who were going to college were already motivated to learn and exceed. Now the students being wrangled into this "higher learning," may eventually get motivated, but they don't attack college with the same zeal. These students are just taking the next class. And now we're stuck with managers and HR departments that think this is the only way to go because they've been indoctrinated.
The debt cannot be discharged because most students would not be credit worthy for the loan in the first place. Who, with any business sense, would loan 28k a semester to a high school graduate?
Debt can equal enslavement, but I thought of the debt as an investment. I may have over paid, but for the most part the investment has worked.
If I can get a ballot, I am voting for Libertarian Gary Johnson. He would pull all the troops (Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, Germany, Japan, etc.) home right away and stop the drone strikes. That's enough for me. How do Democrats or Republicans expect people to believe in their government, when their government continues to murder innocent civilians in other countries?
Ah, so no matter what happens, the police are the ones initiating force, even if specifically requested by someone else. That's a convenient excuse, but they only act on the request of someone else, so I'd personally think the person pulling the trigger is responsible, not the bullet. As I would think the caller of the police more responsible for the initiation of violence than the police, even if the police are the actual actors, they are constrained in their choices and abilities.
If you consider calling the government to settle a contract dispute, yes Joe is the initiator of force. By your words, if Bob had called the government settle an anti-discrimination law dispute, then Bob would have been the initiator of force.
That's how it is almost always described to me, but when I restate that as "rich have more rights" I get complaints and objections.
"The rich have more rights" highly depends on what you think 'rights' are and how 'rights' work. This mis communication of 'rights' between you and others is probably where most of the complaints and objections arise.
There is a whole spectrum of libertarian ideas out there, not just 'initiators of force people.' You may enjoy these folks here: http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/
Holy crap! Just like the Ds and Rs, there is a spread of thought in the LP. They are not all Ayn Rand assholes.
This is where I think libertarians are full of it. That land is in turn granted to the "owner" by the government. That's right, who records the deed showing Joe's ownership? Who would Joe expect to come defend his property against a roving band of criminals? Who is expected the intervene should there be a legal dispute over the ownership (Let's say Larry shows up and says Joe is full of crap, I own this land...).
Libertarians are not anarchists. Most libertarians believe in limited government not the absence of government. Libertarians start the framework of government at the individual's level because without individuals there is no government. Most likely the government would record the Joe's ownership of the land. I assume Joe pays taxes because he called the police. Again assume Joe payed his taxes, the government would intervene. Ownership is nine tenths of the law.
Since the government is ultimately granting property rights and recognition, there are some meta-laws Joe has to accept. After all, he can't run a child slavery ring or kill people on "his" land. One of those meta-laws is not discriminating. If Joe doesn't like those rules, fuck him for being a scumbag but in general, the correct thing Joe should do is either declare his independence and dare the government to come blow his ass up, or move the fuck away to some remote island or third-world shit hole where he can pay off rival warlords to guard his property.
Either there are laws or there are not laws, there is no meta-law. If it were within the legal framework of the government, Joe could run a child slavery ring. I'm pretty sure flat out killing is outlawed in most countries. The correct thing for Joe to do is quit being an idiot. Regardless of the color of your skin, US money all spends the same.
I keep hearing "whoever initiates force is wrong" and the point of the government is to be a framework to resolve contract disputes, as well as step in after someone initiates force against someone else.
Joe calls the police and requests he [Bob] be arrested for trespass.
Logic indicates that Joe invited the public (including Bob) in, and throwing him [Bob] out is the initiation of force.
I am trying to answer your question, but you have Joe doing two different things in your story.
If Joe throws Bob out of the cafe, Joe initiated force. And without a context of rights or laws, we do not know if Joe can do this with in the framework of government.
If Joe calls the government (the police) to settle a contract dispute, the government will determine the outcome. If the law dictates Joe must serve Bob, then the government has initiated the force to make Joe cook Bob a meal. If the law dictates that Bob must leave the cafe, then the government has initiated the force to throw Bob out of Joe's cafe. In this case, I assume there's some sort of law the government decide upon and the outcomes are reasonable.
Libertarians holding to the "whoever initiates force is wrong" is a bit silly because the context of the initiation in the framework of the standing government is important. Murdering some one with your car because the person jumped out in front of your car is different than planning to murder and murdering some one because you think the person sneezes too loudly. The intentions of the murderer are paramount to the sentence.
Though one person did send me a link to a youtube video that explains that you can't have personal freedom without property, and it's the personal freedom that is the basis of property, but no explanation of why it works out that personal freedom on someone else's property is determined, in part, but the owner of that property. That circularly comes back to the freedom coming not from personal freedom, but from the property itself.
The act of owning the property is key. If you hop on top of my car while I am in it. I would ask you to get off my car because you are on my property. Your personal freedom is determined by the owner because you do not own the car. I have spent my labor earnings on said car, you have not. We have not entered into a contract verbal or written which states that you may hop on my car.
BTW: There is no true "Libertarian," just like there is no true "Scotsman."
What is your definition of 'a right?' What 'rights' of Bob's are being violated? Does Bob have the right to be served a meal by Joe?
If Joe just told Bob that Bob wouldn't be served. At the end of the night, Bob refused to leave Joe's restaurant. What should Joe do?
Another way: The open cafe is an open contract. Bob walking into the store is counter offering Joe's contract to buy a meal. Joe rejects the counter offer of Bob and tells Bob to take a hike. Bob insists that Joe accept his counter offer and refuses to leave. Joe then calls the police because Bob's counter offer has been rejected and Bob is now trespassing.
If Bob were a christian, he might listen to that christ guy. "If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, well fuck'em." Matthew 10:14
More like the PIIGS in europe.
Milwaukee to Detroit? Indy to Louisville? If these were profitable or even good ideas, they would have already been done. Do you think there's even the population density to support those routes?