Several months ago I designed several shirts. I had an online t-shirt store print them. One of the shirts came out looking crappy because they forget to print the white part of the shirt. This was the second time this company made this mistake so I have moved onto another t-shirt printing company.

About six months ago I ate at a Greek restaurant. The food tasted disgusting and was unappetizing. The service was terrible and so I tipped about 10 percent. The server decided that was not enough tip and reported to the credit card company that I had tipped more, about three dollars more. Needless to say I have not, and never will eat there again. Fortunately there is another greek restaurant that I now eat at.

I’m not a big fan of Wal-Mart. The place always seems dirty, fellow customers are rude, and I deplore the decor. Usually the only time I will shop there is when it’s late at night when none of the other stores are open. Even though things are a little more expensive I prefer to shop at Target because the service is good, the store is clean and fellow customers don’t seem as rude.

Starting in January, a new administration has been running our country. He has already enacted several polices that I vehemently oppose and has increased the budget by four times its previous amount. He is running a massive deficit. He is going to push for the mother of bad policy and try to get universal health care enacted. Suffice it to say, I would like to replace him with another administration. I would like to get a fiscal conservative as the president to help us weather this recession. However I can’t despite being told that politicians are more accountable then companies.

If companies are less accountable than politicians why am I able to change what companies I wish to do business with but have no recourse when it comes to political administrations. When those that run companies do things I disagree with I hold them accountable by refusing to give them my business. When political administrations do things I disagree with the absolutely best I can do is vote against them once every four years. However, even this is not a sure thing, since I voted against the current administration and they somehow still got elected.

How do I hold the current administration accountable for the wretched economic policy they are putting forth?

During the summer I have been using a parking garage near my lab. The only problem is that there has been extensive road work being done on the access road that connects the parking garage to the main road. Quite frequently, the construction requires reducing the road to one lane for both sides of traffic. When this occurs, a construction worker must hold a sign up that on one side tells traffic to stop and on the other side tells the traffic to proceed slowly. Working in pairs the two construction workers control the flow of traffic.

As I was being directed a thought occurred to me. What’s the market value of a guy standing in place and periodically rotating a sign? More to the point, does this job’s market value exceed the cost of a living wage? If I were to hazard a guess I would say no. The market does not put enough value on this skill to support life. If a person were to do nothing but direct traffic all day with a sign he would eventually die of starvation because he does not make enough money doing that to live.

It’s in this scenario that liberals argue that this is precisely why minimum wage laws should be implemented. Let’s take this apart.

Free markets determine the honest value of some good or service. Thus, when the market determines that the value of twirling signs to control traffic is below a living wage we can reasonably argue that people at their most honest are unwilling to pay these traffic controllers more than what is required to survive. I wish to be very clear here. Market value represents the closest measure of what people will honestly pay for some service or good.

When liberals respond emotionally to the worker being unable to support himself by demanding the state implement minimum wage laws, liberals are distorting the honest market determined value of the labor. In this analysis, consumers have expressed their desire to pay less and liberal have expressed their desire to pay more than the living wage for this kind of labor. It’s liberal belief versus consumer belief.

In setting up the analysis in this way I wish to emphasize which group is calling on state coercion to force their beliefs on to everyone else. The consumer, working through the free market, by definition, does not call on the state’s coercion to force people to pay less for traffic control labor. The consumer simply gives their honest response to how much they are willing to pay for that kind of labor, and in the aggregate the market determines that this value is not enough to support a living wage. On the other hand, seeing that consumers are unwilling to pay a living wage for this kind of labor liberals demand that the state use its coercion to force consumers to pay a wage that exceeds the living wage. In sum, liberals unhappy with how much consumers are willing to pay for some kinds of labor, call on the state to force those consumers to pay more for their labor.

Just in case there is doubt, it really is the case that liberals want to force their belief of how much labor should cost on to everyone else. For you see there is no law forbidding one person to give money to another person. If liberals were only concerned with these workers, then all they would need to do is pool their money together and distribute it to the workers. However, this is not enough for liberals, for they want the state to forcibly make consumers, who disagree with them, to pay more than they are willing to for this labor. No matter how liberals justify using coercion at the end of the day they are forcing their beliefs on others.

I honestly can’t see how this is different from conservatives that want to force their morality on to other people. Religious folk find abortion morally objectionable. Since this procedure is open to the free market, we find that is has market value since consumers are willing to pay for the procedure. Conservatives are unhappy with some consumers being able to pay for an abortion since it will lead to the death of a human. This is similar to the outrage liberals express when our sign twirling traffic controller starves to death because he is not paid a living wage. Conservatives call on the state to force other consumers to not use this procedure, in the same way that liberals call on the state to force other consumers to pay more for traffic controlling labor.

It’s in this regard that I can’t see much difference between liberals and conservatives. They both wish
to expand state power simply to coerce people to behave in a manner they prefer.

Darwin writes in response to my last post:

As I said, the basic problem is that we have way more labor avaialble than is actually needed

I don’t understand what ‘more labor available than is actually needed’ means. If the country can employ about 95% of the citizenry it seems to me that supply and demand of labor is being met.

As always, in your calculation of social welfare you leave out large variables. Arguing that minimum wage does not harm those in the middle class is wrong. Increased minimum wage means either reduction in jobs, which hurts the poor, or increases in price, which hurts the poor and everyone else. Admittedly, forced increased pricing in labor will harm the poor more than the middle class but nevertheless you seem to be oblivious to this harm. If you force an increase in labor value that increase has to come out of somewhere. More likely than not the adjustment for the increase will harm the poor more because they have less resources to absorb it.

There is a reality here you seem to be in denial about. People will only pay so much for minimum wage labor. It turns out that value in labor is not enough to support the person to a degree you seem comfortable with. Quite honestly, how much money do you think a person that can put keyboards on a shelf should be paid? Should such a basic skill that practically everyone can do fetch a ‘living wage’? Turns out when we ask the market, which is most likely the best measure for the value of labor it turns out no. People are unwilling to pay a living wage for basic labor.

Sensing an injustice, you demand the state step in and take care of the problem. You support an expansion in state power to forcibly take money from people unwilling to pay what you deem is appropriate for basic labor. For all your talk about fearing corporations it seems odd that you happily grant the state, the entity with a monopoly on coercion, more power simply to improve what you consider to be a social ill.

And let’s not beat around the bush. You want people with guns to take money away from people without guns (you deny the 2nd amendment don’t you?) and give that money to people you deem worthy. You justify one injustice by ‘curing’ another supposed injustice. It’s okay to steal from one group when you are helping another group. Unless of course you’re rich, then it’s wrong to steal from the poor.

And that takes me to this statement:

Your position seems to be that they should get paid what their labor is ‘worth’, as though the realities of a free market are actual moral imperatives rather than empirical facts that we can employ towards moral ends when appropriate.

I make no claim about moral imperatives. I simply make the observation that the market is the best measure we have of the value of labor. Attempts to ‘remedy’ that value will require moral justification. It’s you department to morally justify why it’s okay to use coercion to make people do your bidding.

Last night I was watching my favorite show Hell’s Kitchen on Hulu when an advertisement by the state played. It was a commercial telling me to put my seat belt on because its the law.

Let me get this straight. The state forcibly takes my money and then uses it to create moral segments, which it plays during my favorite show. Effectively, I’m paying to be moralized to. Its like giving money to the church expect for the giving part. Because when it comes to the state you are compelled to pay.

Hey I have an idea. Let me keep my money and since I’m a big boy, I will decide whether I should wear my belt or not. I honestly can’t believe some people think a massive federal government is the solution to people not wearing their belts. News Flash: Its not.

It was recently reported that

Apple has announced that music sales from its iTunes Music Store now eclipse CD sales from Wal-Mart as the impact of the music download era hits home.

The latest data released by the NPD Group in February indicates that iTunes has over 50 million customers, cumulative recorded sales exceeding 4 billion, and a music library over the 6 million song mark.

Its almost like Wal-Mart does not have the coercive power to force people to buy their music from them. Odd.

In Iraq, the federal army is pushing out the Mahdi Army which is the the Militia of al-Sadr.

The good news is, Iraqi forces are heavily engaged with the Mahdi Army with U.S. troops in a supporting role, all over the place. The weird part is, al-Maliki has supposedly taken a lead role in directing operations against his erstwhile bedfellow al-Sadr. The key question, in all matters requiring an element of trust in either al-Maliki or al-Sadr, is which one can you throw farther? The Sadrists are claiming it’s all political, to cut them out of provinicial elections, and if al-Maliki’s that interested, there’s got to be a sleazy political angle to it. On the other hand, if it in fact has the effect of ending Shiite infighting and lawlessness, and edges out Iran, then there is a distinctly unsleazy strategic angle to it. Al-Maliki has given the Mahdi Army 72 hours to lay down their weapons. Disarming illegal militias is a legitimate act of government.

For those of you less than enthralled with defining the state as the entity with a monopoly on coercion I ask what purpose does the Iraq federal goverment serve in disbanding this militia? Why should the federal state force a local armed force to put down their weapons and obey the state?

Just to head off the obvious criticism, the argument is that the essential definition of the state is it’s monopoly on coercion. Its clear that the state can be defined in many different ways, but if you strip away all the properties of the state which property do you find present in every state? Most certainly the common property that connects states together is their monopoly on coercion.

Over at personal responsibility Darwin states:

For normal employees, it’s important to allow employees to unionize because consumers don’t have much control over how employees are treated; therefore unions are useful to make sure that the balance between employee rights/pay and corporate profit/efficiency is maintained.

Seriously, are you fucking high? Do you smoke crack? Companies are constantly pressured by consumers to change. If they don’t adjust to consumer demands they will very quickly find themselves out of business. Companies are not like the government, they cant force people to do their will, they actually have to appeal to the people.

When thinking about this kind of thing, one must be wise enough to understand that a successful company already has a base of consumers willing to support the actions of that company. Those that take objection to the company are most likely in the minority. Or at the very least, are unpersuasive in convincing other consumers to stop supporting the company.

Given that the objectionable actions of the company have not already put them out of business, and the groups of people that object have been unpersuasive with those that do support the company, it seems reasonable to assume those against the company do not have a majority. This is precisely why they seek state regulation. To get around the problem of not having consumer support, which is a much better determinant of the people’s will then a democratic vote.

In choosing the state as the means to regulate a company, the activist is very clearly attempting to force their values down the throats of consumers. Environmentalists demand increasing taxes on gas guzzling SUVs as a way to reduce how many are produced and in turn ‘help’ the environment. The fact that these companies sell them year after year implies that there is a consumer base that supports this kind of vehicle. This means two things. First that a large groups of people support SUV by way of purchasing them, and secondly the environmentalist arguments for not purchasing SUVs are unpersuasive. Thus, the environmentalist decides to shove their environmental values down the throats of the SUV consumers via the state. This is the kind of attitude that liberals have, and it is what I most strongly object to.

Because capitalism does not use coercion, it is the best measure of the people’s will. Activist that don’t like the people’s will seek the coercive force of the state to format people’s will to be more consistent with their own values. In the case of Darwin, he supports jailing people that believe in the value of self protection by firearm.

Using Experts to Justify Shoving Your Values Down Someone Else’s Throat

No doubt you will want to counter by stating that the SUV is bad for the environment. Let me entertain this argument and in the process bring Dan into the discussion. Since supporters of SUV are likely to be unconvinced by environmentalist’s arguments that the vehicles does harm to the environment, the environmentalist will bring in the ‘expert’. Since he is an expert, he knows the ‘truth’ about SUV causing harm to the environment. Since he is ‘knowledgeable’ and has done ‘science’ its clear that he should be the arbiter of truth regarding SUV harm. Remarkably his conclusion’s support the environmentalist’s claims.

But let’s say that with use of the expert, the environmentalist wins the day and state legislation is passed increasing the tax on SUVs. This is an interesting precedent. Its okay to call on the state to shove your values down the throats of others so long as you have an expert that says the benefits are ‘true’.

Well then knowing that, let me introduce you to a website Diatribe came across documenting over 200 studies showing the ‘truth’ about children being raised in single parent home. The experts show that it’s ‘harmful’ to the child, and in turn society in general, to grow up with a single parent. A savvy Christian that believes that God’s wish is for children to be raised in a two parent home would be wise to employ these experts in showing this effect to get legislation passed forcing single parents to give up their children.

Something tells me Darwin would oppose the state forcing this Christian value down the throats of single parents. But on what grounds? The experts have determined the ‘truth’. Single parent households are harmful to children. When ‘experts’ use ‘science’ to determine ‘truth’ there is no more debate. Those that oppose the legislation must relent because the ‘truth’ has been settled.

There is no doubt there would be a significant drop off in gun violence if the state forbid raising children in a one parent home. Yet I doubt Darwin would see this as a fair trade, however he would gladly take away your constitutional right to firearms just to reduce gun violence.

Experts are useful, just not when they are used to justify using the state coercive force to shove one group’s value down another groups throat. In the context of this blog, this is almost always the way I’m attacking experts. When it comes to minority groups trying to force their will on others it best to ignore their experts. Even when the experts are the scientific consensus on global warming.

On Failing to Convince the Consumer

Highly vocal critics of some corporations always seem to forget that in many cases there is a much larger silent consumer base that does not object to the company. Those on the left seem painfully unaware of this large ‘voting block’ which enjoys a great deal of control over the corporations that need their money to survive. Companies that have a tin ear towards their consumers will very quickly find themselves out of business. Companies that have a tin ear towards activist will not find themselves out of businesses. It’s this indifference towards the activist that leads to dumbass statements like this:

consumers don’t have much control over how employees are treated

Its not that the consumer doesn’t have control, its just that they don’t care about the activist hang up towards this company and continue to support it, and its practices towards labor. Furthermore, consumers are right to be dubious of experts telling them their actions are ‘harmful’ and should object on principle to using experts to justify value coercion. Believe me, when the consumer base that supports a company decides against the company, that company will make changes or be filing for bankruptcy in short order.

In the end, its not that the activist lacks control over the company, it’s that the activist lacks control over the consumers that support that company. Failing to convince the consumer, the activist’s next move is to bring in the state to force the consumers to follow the values of the activist. I object to this both from the liberal and the conservative side. The only question in my mind is why you draw exceptions for liberals but join me in resisting conservative attempts at value coercion.

Over at Asymetrical Information, Megan writes:

The Washington Times on the fate of Virginia’s “Tax me more” fund:

RICHMOND — State lawmakers can rule out Virginian’s offering up more of their hard-earned money to fix the $1.4 billion budget shortfall Gov. Tim Kaine announced this week.

At least that is what a peek at the so-called “Tax Me More Fund” suggests.

Since its inception in 2002, the fund has collected a total of $10,217.04.

This is what economists call “revealed preference”. What most of us are really in favor of is higher taxes on other people. If we wanted higher taxes on ourselves, we’d give the money to charity.

Its a nice reminder that taxation is absolutely a form of coercion no matter how good the liberal’s intentions are when they take the rich people’s money away from them.

Demonstrated by some ultra liberals. Over the last thirty years liberals have become quite adept at using coercion.

I have for years been saying that the state has a monopoly on coercion. Imagine my happiness when I read this today:

The monopoly on the legitimate use of violence (Gewaltmonopol des Staates, also known as monopoly on legitimate violence and monopoly on violence) is the definition of the state expounded by Max Weber in Politics as a Vocation, and has been predominant in philosophy of law and political philosophy in the twentieth century. It defined a single entity, the state, exercising legitimate authority or violence over a given territory as territory was also deemed by Weber a characteristic of state.

Woo hoo. Turns out there are many people that agree with me that the state has a monopoly on coercion. Depending on their politics they would be more or less inclined to agree with using the term ‘coercion’. Looks like that Max Weber, the guys who first used this definition, is almost as smart as me.