Peter Hume

"You need to prove your argument yourself"
Sadly the word and posting limits preclude such discussions which is why I keep pointing you to http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnAnarchistFAQ just like you have in the past pointed us to the mises institute. Which I have visited and read a lot of.

"That's not a proof, it's a rant."
Peter that is just blind ignorance of the world around you. You can spout all the magical economic theories you like but it will never change the fact that the reality does not fit your theories. I note you didnt try to refute any of my statements just attacked the man as usual. I dont care if it was government or business that caused the problems they are two sides of the same coin as far as I am concerned.

"you assume in your premises what you are to prove in your conclusion."
What? Logic musnt be your strong point Pete. My conclusion is based on the reality of the world we live in not some fantasy dreamworld from the nightmares of mises. I note you didnt refute any of it other than to spuriously blame your partners in oppression, the government.

"let us assume for a moment that there is no inequality in wealth and power"
No I wont assume that because it is another of your fantasy word games and another example of the fatuousness of right wing thinking. I dont even understand what you are leading towards. Are you saying that economic activity cannot take place without inequality and unequal power relations? What a load of rot.

"So you're arguing that the only way employment could be *not* intrinsically exploitative, is in conditions in which human society has never existed, does not and could never exist. "
Rubbish. Am stating that "employment" is always, and by its very nature exploitative.
"The proprietor producing neither by his own labour nor by his implement, and receiving products in exchange for nothing, is either a parasite or a thief.

"You still have not answered why it is unfair for employers to employ people below the minimum wage, but it's okay for governments to do so"
I never said that. I just said it would be better than the current system.

"Employment under capitalism has made people richer than they've ever been"
What people? Not the vast majority of us thats for sure. And how long before the galloping inequality ends with a few masters and the rest of us slaves? We arent far off that already.

"Make up your mind!"
More distortions and lies. I dont agree with your statements and never said them. Capitalism has not made the vast majority rich it has just made them slaves in return for a few trinkets and heart disease, depression and obesity.

"So a guy who does dangerous, dirty, hard work will get paid the same as one who does safe, comfortable, easy work?"
Or will the current system continue where it is the person doing the dirty, hard, jobs that get paid a pittance while the lazy fat cats in their ivory towers get paid millions. Like I keep saying ignore the high priests of the religion of economics and look to the evidence all around you that they have failed. It is inescapable.

GJetson
It would all work the same way it does now when someone is sick or disable.
You are inventing imaginary problems in an effort to avoid arguing your case properly. Is it better to work for your money or just get a handout? Would the unemployed be better off just sitting on their bums getting money for nothing or would they benefit from giving something back to society? Does society benefit from the divisive, dog whistling, demonisation of the unemployed? They are the questions up for debate here not what might happen if someone is ill or unable to comply.

Easy welfare reform:
No more cash handouts.
Vouchers/coupons for subsistence living requirements only.
Trading in vouchers/coupons punishable by incarceration.
All life's basic requirements met, just.
Prefer a few luxuries...
like smokes, alcohol, lotto tickets, DVD's, mobile phones, plasma screens, fast foods, etc?
Get a job.
Welfare is a disincentive and an addiction.

mikk
What you're saying is simply illogical: employment is exploitative because it's exploitative. There's no use asking me to refute your beliefs because a) they're circular, and b) you yourself have said that there's nothing that could convince you otherwise.

But let's cut to the chase. If employment below the minimum wage should be illegal because it's exploitative, why should not employment above the minimum wage be illegal for the same reason?

Lieutenant Colonel Allen B. West,
U.S. Representative-elect for Florida's 22nd congressional district:
“Every child born in the USA (read also Australia) gets a ladder.
There is no top rung on that ladder.
You can climb as high as you want.
Sometimes you do fall off that ladder.
There’s a safety net.
But we want you to get back on that ladder.
I think that the other perspective is...
that you’re just given a hammock.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ST08kNZETNE&feature=player_embedded#!

"What you're saying is simply illogical: employment is exploitative because it's exploitative."

No I am saying it is exploitative because of inequality in wealth and power that allows capitalists to profit from the productivity of those that have no option but to sell themselves into slavery for a given period each day. But then you miseophiles believe slavery is ok dont you? See I have read the ravings on mises.org. At least i try to understand where you are coming from. Try opening your mind to other ideas, if only to be better able to refute them, rather than just mindlessly spout the dogma of neoliberalism.

"why should not employment above the minimum wage be illegal for the same reason?"
I dont seek to make it "illegal" I seek to open peoples eyes to the con and educate them in the reality of capitalism so that they will refuse to bow down and allow themselves to be subjugated by the greedy mega rich capitalist elites. And doesnt it scare the hell out of all those who currently ride on the backs of the workers and the poor.

It is your blind faith in "markets" and small government all the other articles of faith of the capitalist religion, despite the glaring evidence of its failings, that is "illogical" Peter.