Here's one for you... just read somewhere that the minimum wage was approved to go up to 7.25 an hour (woohoo). What do you guys think is going to happen to prices when that occurs? Do you honestly believe that you will see a cost of living increase? I know at my company there will be no such increases, as the owner already said so. And then he raised his prices... seriously.

Actually I expect prices to go up, the number of low end low paying jobs held by US legal residents to go down, the number of jobs in the US held by illegal aliens to go up and I expect the number of illegal aliens crossing into the US to go up dramatically.

The proposition that increasing the minimum wage will affect what the low end wage earner will be paid is largely dependent on the idea that we have an above board and legal wage earning system. We don't. It's very leaky and getting worse every year. Without closing down or penalizing the use of the alternative illegal labor pool, we can simply expect businesses to shift from the legal to the illegal labor. Of course, I would make it very easy to check the legal status of an employee and then simply shut down any employer who failed to check legal status and act accordingly (And I would check and seize businesses that failed to do so)...But that's me. Unfortunately, politicians of both parties benefit from illegal immigration.

The real question for me on these points is whether I *want* my democratic share of power (responsibility) over foreign policy.

If this means giving everyone in the U.S. an equal share of power over our foreign policy then I don't want it. I'm sure we have all seen the tests of basic geography. Significant numbers of US citizens can't find things like the pacific ocean and the U.S. on a map. Yet every single one of them thinks it is their duty to vote. If you are uninformed, it is your duty to either become informed or to not vote. I definitely do not want these people deciding foreign policy and they outnumber the people like me who bother to learn something before voting....

Truthfully, the reason democracy is such a relatively good form of government isn't that it makes good decisions, it's that it keeps large numbers of people relatively comfortable and content, thus providing significant amounts of stability. It has nothing to do with representing the views of the people...

Not to get religious, but even the bible states that God holds the people of a nation responsible for the actions of their nation.

Satan also offered up all the nations of the earth to Jesus. Jesus didn't deny his ability to do so. From this, were I religiously minded, I could conclude that Satan in fact, effectively owns all the nations of the earth.

Some people fail to realize that our 'enemies' don't necessarily hate us as the citizens

A common fallacy is encapsulated in this. For a fanatic, it's not about us at all, it's about them.

The fanatic:
How do I strengthen my commitment and faith to God? Does everyone else believe the same thing? If they don't believe the same thing, how can I force them to be in line with God's wishes?

And for the true fanatic:
Have I tried to kill all the infidels who do not share my exact view of God and the world today?

It is folly to try to reason with someone who as a matter of faith believes it is their duty to kill anyone who does not think the same way they do. The fanatic never asks if what he is doing is really Gods will, if it wasn't, God would have told him. The fanatic never questions, it is impossible to be wrong. God wouldn't let him be wrong, therefore everyone else must be wrong.

Before you can defeat your enemy, you must understand him.

I could go on with the logical extensions of this and what you have to do to eliminate this mentality, but I have probably irriated enough people by now.

Awaiting the flames....

Well you should want it,

I have to disagree here. What does the average citizen know about foreign policy or relations for that matter? Half the U.S population has no clue where Chicago is, let alone Korea. Would I want everyone who has a vote in state and country elections to have a say in such an important theater? May the majority prevail in foreign policy? Would I want every racist, bigot, war monger, tree hugger, peace nick, hill billy, red neck, Democrat, Republican, arm chair quarterback, gang banger, Entertainer, and religious / nonreligious fanatic (Did I leave anyone out?)to have a say on how we handle foreign policy?

I think not.

(Edit: Started post before Purge but due to work reasons had to deviate for a bit.)

Awaiting the flames....

hehe. You may get some but not from me.

Well you should want it, I have to disagree here. What does the average citizen know about foreign policy or relations for that matter?

Sorry guys, I wasn't thinking about the 'masses' of uninformed people who unfortunately do outnumber those of us who wish to keep our minds 'enlightened'. When you put it that way, you are quite correct. I didn't look outside of my perspective on things before posting that comment.

Well you should want it

I should do a lot of things, like stay on the billable clock instead of typing here, eat better, get more exercise, beat my kitties more often, etc.

And, yes, I *should* want my vote to have a nanogram of influence on US foreign policy. But the ignorance problems is real, even for us overeducated types. I doubt I could correctly fill in all the state names on a blank US map any more, much less be certain which tiny Persian Gulf nation is which.

the reason democracy is such a relatively good form of government isn't that it makes good decisions, it's that it keeps large numbers of people relatively comfortable and content

Back at my perfesserin' podium, I have two things to note about this quote: 1) the US is a democratic *republic* (limited gov't) and 2) the material comfort level is from a fairly free continent-wide market.

Democracy and capitalism are not necessarily dependent on each other, no matter how often people say it. A "pure" democracy could vote free markets out of existence at will, and largely authoritarian govt's (e.g. Nazi Germany, modern Singapore) can give lots of liberties to private producers & traders.

1) the U.S. is a democratic *republic* (limited gov't) and 2) the material comfort level is from a fairly free continent-wide market.

No argument on on #1. I think I was in part argueing the superiority of a democratic republic over a pure democracy. Let the people think they have power, but really they only have limited influence...

I would argue that #2 is a chicken and the egg scenario. We partially have such a large and free market because we have had lots of stability. Parts of the world that are politically unstable are incapable of producing large and free markets.

Being U.S. centric for a moment...There isn't any real impetus to break up into little nation states (Europe seems to be operating under the opposite influence recently). Most people do recognize to some degree that they are benefiting from all the trade that occurs within the U.S. according to a relatively fixed set of rules. This is a reasonable expectation that those rules will not change suddenly. These are all factors of stability. They do not necessarily require democracy, but they, historically, are easier with democracy. Notice no mention of the word capitalism. Rule of Law is at least as important as capitalism, and probably more important. I wouldn't build a two legged stool as the support underneath U.S. success, but rather a three legged stool of democracy (representative), rule of law, and capitalism.

There is also a big break between what will work for a small homogeneous country and what will work for a large country.

That being said, China seems to be intent on having both limited capitalism and a large authoritarian state. So far they seem to be pulling it off with great success. I have heard China referred to as a "mature fascist state" and if you look at the social and economic policies of the national socialist and then look at China, this does appear to be a fair characterization.

Rule of Law is at least as important as capitalism, and probably more important. I wouldn't build a two legged stool as the support underneath U.S. success, but rather a three legged stool of democracy (representative), rule of law, and capitalism.

I would make that a 4 legged stool and add an element of morality (Judeo-Christian, thank you very much, or at least Natural Law based) that must permeate society or else we would descend into quite a nasty mess...

I have heard China referred to as a "mature fascist state"

Oh yeah, speaking of the devil...

(flame away)

Cheers!

PS: Wishing I could find more time to address sooo many interesting topics in this wriggly little thread!

WTF!?! Is this site still having problems?

Okay, guess I have to repost...
I see that this thread, as well as the "Mumble made me do it" has died and I felt that it was time to resuscitate it once more since these little breaks from game talk are needed from time to time and it also allows us to see a little more of our fellow forum member's character, lending a little bit of a personal atmosphere to the very impersonal internet as a whole. So now without further ado...
The other day at work we were talking about thieves in general. Almost everyone had a slightly different take on it, with some saying a thief is a thief while others contended that there were different levels of 'thievery', each holding it's own attributes and requirements.
My opinion is that there are different levels. A kid who steals a bottle of whiskey from his parent's stash isn't necessarily a thief, even if his action fits the definition perfectly. I will leave it with that and see if anyone else cares to add their two cents worth or at least add something to this so that we may keep the spirit of debate and conversation alive and well in here, without touching on the game so much in doing so.

Hey, Evil S is stealing my thread!

Counter-digression: I liked seeing this thing sprawl and live long also, but maybe some new OT threads would be fun, like "What's a Thief?" It'd certainly save some time catching up for anyone who took an interest mid-sprawl.

Back onto Evil's digression: I'm a recovering postmodernist (not recovering so well, alas), so I usually end up thinking both that "a theif's a thief" and that stealing might be OK (or even good) sometimes. OK is something like stealing food from an abundant supply for your starving family. Good is something like stealing all the C4 from your crazy uncle's basement so he can't blow any stuff up and you don't have to get the cops involved. Might be good to steal the keys to the gun cabinet on the way out...

I am in the same camp as GW on this one as well.

Back onto Evil's digression: I'm a recovering postmodernist (not recovering so well, alas), so I usually end up thinking both that "a theif's a thief" and that stealing might be OK (or even good) sometimes. OK is something like stealing food from an abundant supply for your starving family. Good is something like stealing all the C4 from your crazy uncle's basement so he can't blow any stuff up and you don't have to get the cops involved. Might be good to steal the keys to the gun cabinet on the way out...

This is an example of the "human dimension" I mentioned earlier. Terms can be coldly defined, penalties can be legislated, but Justice requires viewing these things as an organic whole, taken in the proper context.

Now, this doesn't mean that I am a moral relativist by any stretch of the imagination...

For instance, are there circumstances when killing another person is morally acceptable? Are there practical consequences for such actions, like stealing from an abundant source to feed your family given as an example above?

In our rush as a society to be "diverse" and "non-judgemental", we (I can only speak for general conditions in the USA) have eliminated any reasonable standards and definitions, leaving the next generation barren of some core moral precepts that we have taken for granted for millenia. It may be true that we are born to a certain degree with a "moral compass", but a compass is only useful when there is a North Pole to be measured against...

While we're digressing, we are also breaking down the protocols for effective communication by allowing language to be rendered meaningless. If we are to be a society founded on the Rule of Law, it would be prudent to maintain a healthy respect for language and the meaning of words, lest we slip into a dictatorship of unelected Judges...

Cheers!

Justice requires viewing these things as an organic whole, taken in the proper context.

Ahhh, but isn't lady justice 'supposed' to be blind?

Counter-digression: I liked seeing this thing sprawl and live long also, but maybe some new OT threads would be fun, like "What's a Thief?" It'd certainly save some time catching up for anyone who took an interest mid-sprawl.

You post them with such eloquent titles that I was kind of leaving it to you G.W. to open up that door!

Hey, Evil S is stealing my thread!

Quite sorry G.W., you know I had no 'evil' intent with this... but you were leaving this poor post to rot on the side of the road so I indulged myself!

Yay FireFox has a built in spellchecker.
It helps so much. It takes ten minuets to get Maximum.
It is very useful.

Grammar nazis point out grammar and spelling mistakes because they otherwise have nothing of value to contribute. It's really that simple.

Good grammar usage and spelling lends an air of professionalism to a post. A post that has something controversial is more likely to be taken seriously if the poster uses proper English.

So in other words: Someone who isnt an english native speaker probably wont be taken seriously because english isnt his first language?

Internet is global so I think aslong as you can make yourself understood then I dont see reason to care about proper grammer and such.