Oxymandias wrote:He didn't simply not give a reason like you said he did nor did he snootily call it welfare. It seems you just skimmed through it. Here is his proposed solution:
This is the person you claim is essentially a bleeding-heart libertarian.
And yet you refuse to mention the reason why he said the things he said. I will quote again. Note that if you actually decided to read it carefully you should know this. The guy didn't just make a claim and not give a reason for believing in that claim.
I read it, and obviously did not like it. If you want to continue to say you think I only skimmed it, you can of course keep doing that, but at that point saying that I've been accusing you of autism is hypocritical at best.
I saw his option for job "welfare." He doesn't rule out the initial option of replacing people.
Libertarian manifesto guy wrote:But if fast food workers get $15 not because they do $15 worth of work, but because we feel sad that they’re living on too little money, then once again it’s welfare.
And once again we can give them that welfare in one of two ways. We can send them a check, or we can pressure fast food places to pay them more.
If we send people a check, it goes to everyone, whether employed or unemployed. If we pressure fast food places to pay more, then it’s only employed people – the people who need money the least – who get anything.
^ He
literally argues that raising the minimum wage is, essentially, welfare. Further, he has some sort of issue separating social benefits from wages, where he has a problem thinking about welfare and thinking about minimum wage. While it's generally true that someone with a job is going to bring in more income than someone on any form of welfare, he seems to not realize how dismal minimum wage income, especially low minimum wage, is.
Furthermore he has a good point in the next paragraph. I'll italicize the part that's the most intriguing:
"If we send people a check, who gets the check is presumably determined by need. If we pressure fast food places to pay more, then who pays more is determined by media exposure and political clout. Fast food workers seem to have good union and good public visibility, so they can demand their wages get raised to $15. Garment workers aren’t as well-organized or are less sympathetic, so their wages stay at $8. It encourages a system of “squeaky wheel gets the grease” in which “squeaky” means “go on strike a lot and act miserable”."
Those horrible, awful, greedy poverty-line workers demanding a raise in their wages.
He only used the term "Martians" because he doesn't trust his audience to think of any minority seriously
He wrote things like this:
Libertarian manifesto guy wrote:There are other problems as well. Some jobs may have legitimate reasons not to hire Martians – maybe Martians make lousy pilots because their single lidless eye gives them terrible depth perception. Certainly a Martian actor is unqualified to play Abraham Lincoln in a historical biopic. One could offer to let these jobs apply for exemptions, but this means a costly bureaucratic process, and is likely to end with large companies with good lawyers obtaining the exemptions, small companies with poor lawyers not obtaining the exemptions, and no concern about fairness to Martians in any case.
I don't happen to think he's a racist, and I'm not on board with affirmative action either, I'm pointing out how he has a problem expressing himself, like he can't filter himself or think first before he writes something. An example of this is when he brings up ISIS as a source of (minor) inspiration. It doesn't make him a member of ISIS, but it's an
incredibly stupid thing to do when you're trying to sell something. Monumentally dumb. If you don't understand how that's stupid, I don't know how to help you.
And he didn't even call it a manifesto.
He literally calls it a manifesto.
You're just grasping for straws.
He's a bad writer, he doesn't understand minimum wage, welfare, or basic politics, he doesn't understand why saying he's inspired/similar in some views to ISIS is not a smart idea, and so on.
Why are you harping on so hard about this guy and his shitty "manifesto" thing? And why are you taking it so personal when people think it's bad?
"I don't know if you're a detective or a pervert."
"Well, that's for me to know and you to find out."
[ Forum Rules ][ Newbie Guide ][ Mission Statement ][ FAQ ]