Wow, you would think they would just save some time and money and just put forward a memo that says "Fuck you."

$12.50 in 2020. What a joke.

The Tim Eyman thing could pass to be honest with you. Too many voters in the hicks like Spokane think a raise in the minimum wage ANYWHERE is a threat to them.

Time that Seattle starts it's own state.

Among the funders of the Forward Seattle initiative are the owner of Liberty, a bar in which I'm never setting foot in again. Except maybe on election night, to taunt the owner when his initiative goes down in flames because Seattle isn't going to stand for this right-wing bullshit.

@3 raising the minimum wage is very popular all over the state. Including Spokane.

What @5 said

This could backfire and result in a statewide $15 minimum wage in 2015

Why do the business owners (you know, the people who write the payroll checks) need an initiative? Why don't they put their money where their mouth is and just start paying workers $10.10 NOW? If they'd have just done that a year ago, there wouldn't be a push for $15.

The City Charter is Seattle's local constitution. It defines the structure of city government and how it should function. It is not a repository for specific legislation, issues like wages, hours and working conditions.

Legislative matters inevitably change from time to time and should be defined by ordinance, not cast in stone in the city charter. Since the 15Now folks first suggested putting this stuff in the city charter, it's not surprising the other side has chosen the same strategy.

Personally, I'm voting No on any amendment that puts legislative matters into the city charter.

If these right wingers believed their own ideology they'd jump at the chance to prove to the world that the minimum wage will destroy Seattle's economy. The thing that terrifies these guys is that it will not fail, and then it's going to spread.

I'd like an initiative to vote on Boeing's sweetheart tax deal. "We pay more so Boeing can pay less!" would be the campaign slogan. What do you say Tim? You on board?

@3: The voters aren't in Eastern Washington; I'd be more worried about the suburban voters who have passed Eyman initiatives in the past.

@7 Businesses aren't charities (unless they actually are charities). An honestly run business should operate to maximize profit. That means paying workers as low as possible while high enough to retain them and attract talent. I consider myself a socialist and I actually have no problem with running a business like that. What a lot of conservative voters don't understand is that if a business increases its profits, _there's actually no reason to increase worker pay because it is not a charity_.

Increasing minimum wages has a direct, positive effect on the lower and middle class. A single business increasing its wages out of altruism is going to unfairly put it at a competitive disadvantage and probably not help out the local economy that much. That's why legislated wage minimums are important. Progressive taxation is arguably vastly more important but this is WA soooo

There is nothing "right wing" about people wanting less government in their lives.

But I can understand why Rolf wants us to BELIEVE it is. SEIU has everything to gain by driving out low-skilled workforce. When they negotiate contracts, they dont want people in need of a job willing to work for less then their contracts. 15now is such an obvious attempt at the Unions making government play favorites to them.

What @10 said

@13

I'm trying to figure out how a state law telling cities what they can and can't do is "less governemnt" in people's lives. How about you run your city and we'll run ours? Taking away local control is called "big governemnt."

And yes, if your only motivation, without regard to the details, is "less governemnt is better", then you're a right winger. Trying to fool people by pretending you're something else doesn't work, so what's the point?

You guys would be having a stroke if socialists were pushing a minimum wage increase and not admitting they are socialists.

I’ve come around and support 15 Now. I think the city will be a much nicer place to live, work and play after the lower end of the service industry has been upgraded from less qualified and cheaper workers to more qualified and more expensive workers. Seems like it should be a huge boost to the gentrification of Seattle.

Re: Forward Seattle's proposal of $12 in 2020.
Hahahahahahaha! Good luck with that. If they even manage to get it on the ballot, it won't clear 30%. This has zero chance of passing.

Re: Tim Eyman.
*sigh* Of course that smug initiative-peddler will run a state initiative over the minimum wage. That's how he makes a living. It won't even matter if it passes or not, he'll make bank off running the campaign. What an asshole.

@13 wait, you talk about limited government and freedom of contract and then complain when we call you right-wing? You're like Rush Limbaugh if he complained about being labeled right-wing. If you don't like the term, don't espouse right-wing ideology.

@12 - All business is not the same. A corporation has a responsibility to maximize the profit to their owners. That is their goal and their CEO should be doing that. Of course I don't personally believe that maximizing profits means minimizing pay, but there are different business models.

Certainly Walmart could care less about service and Americans seems to agree, they just want their cheap stuff. Starbucks is an example, although they have become a pariah as of late, as a company that did well by their employees as a business strategy to deliver good service. Again, that works for them. People like Starbucks, and a big part of that is you are met with happy, friendly employees.

That is very different than a privately owned business. They don't have to maximize their profit. They have to make enough money to make it worth the time and risk. There are plenty of businesses that pay valuable employees well. Maybe not your definition of well, but far above minimum wage, currently $14 average non-managerial.

Personally I didn't give a lot of thought to wages when I started my business. I thought it would be a valuable addition to my neighborhood. I found good people. They told me how much they wanted and if they were reasonable I paid them. But as time went on and a couple years profit came and we grew I shared that, adding benefits and increasing pay. After six years in a high turnover business I've had only two people leave because they had to take over as breadwinner in their families and needed full benefits. I do not believe that I am alone or rare.

So our Mayor from Olympia made a bunch of shitty concessions for nothing then.

The fact that he thought getting a couple dozen to people to begrudgingly agree would head off a ballot flight shows some breathtaking naivety.

"Eyman would need about 250,000 valid signatures by year's end to send the anti-local control measure to the legislature in 2015"

That seems like a lot of signatures to gather, even with 6 months to work with.

@18: ... and to top that off, they appropriate anarchist terminology and iconography to do it. There's now two of them regularly posting here. I guess it shouldn't be surprising. The internet is their natural habitat.

The anti-government rhetoric is nice and all, but when you use that to take the side of businesses and capitalism over workers while flashing a circle A, you've achieved ultimate cognitive dissonance. And they ALWAYS take the side of the hierarchical-structured business, showing their ridiculous ignorance.

Get back to bitcoin mining, Nick CapHill.

'Fair & Balanced' - The Stranger, 2014

@22

As far as I can tell, Libertarians aren't right wing, according to the libertarians. For everyone else, it's a far right fringe. /shrug

@19 - Imagine two coffee stores, starbucks vs mom's coffee, are competing in the same space. Mom's is going to have difficulty competing in a lot of ways since she doesn't have the capital leverage that Starbucks has. Survival and profit optimization should not be seen as so different. To survive in a competitive space you have to play the same game your competitors are playing.

There's a lot of reasons local places would want to pay over minimum wage -- just the public perception of being a place that pays a fair wage would be a good advertising point. Keeping your skilled workers or just keeping the workers whose personalities you enjoy being around. But there's always a _good_ reason to do so. There's going to be a diminishing effect as you pay your employees more. Paying your baristas $5/hr more than the competition probably isn't going to be much more beneficial in any way than just $4 or 3/hr more than the competition.

I think of it this way: there's no obligation, moral or even business wise, to tie wages to profit earned. That is, if your profits increase dramatically, I don't think anyone needs to redistribute them proportionally to all of their workers out of altruism because that would put them at a competitive disadvantage -- the other guys are reinvesting that money and over time this charitable business model won't survive.

@24
So please do tell how being for gay marriage, for ending the war on drugs, for ending all wars of foreign aggression, for being against internet censorship, censorship in general, supporting separation of church and state, being pro-choice on everything including prostitution makes one a part of a "far right fringe".

And actually you're one of the few who believes that. Most people understand what libertarianism is and that's why it's growing by leaps and bounds: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post…

@15 - Here is why it is more government in all of our lives.

First as a business/employee you are governed by the federal laws and agencies. Often, in particular for business owners that requires more paperwork, compliance and threats.

Secondly as a business/owner employee you are governed by the state employment laws including the Washington Department of L&I and Unemployment Agency. Again, paperwork, compliance and threats.

Now the city steps in adds yet another layer. Then how about the neighborhood steps in and creates their own department of labor & industries.

At some point it is too much. We can debate where that point is, but there absolutely a point where it is too much government intervention, too many layers weighing down the system.

As well, it effects other outside of the city. As I understand if you come into the city to work for two hours a week, you become a Seattle City employer and need to comply.

All of this stagnates business and since the state needs their income too, they have a strong interest in not wanting the city to stagnate business.

As an aside, the law at the federal and state require me to keep two entirely separate sets of books because they disagree with how to handle certain things. Now the city will come in and require a third set of books? That seems like too much government.

@15
If the local government were to make it illegal for gays to be teachers and the state government banned such rulings, would that be okay with you? Of course, and rightly so.
It is NOT big government when the government restricts the power of itself. If a city WITHIN a state has to limit itself thanks to state law, that is small government. It is CENTRALIZED, but "centralized" and "big" are not the same thing. For example, unincorporated Alaska is run from Juneau, but Juneau does very little to restrict the individual rights of the people in those far off communities. NYC however is run by city hall which is near where most people live, but it restricts people's rights all the time (large soda bans and such)

If a central government overrules a local government and forces them to interfere LESS in people's lives, that is smaller government. Simple as that.

@22
Who is forcing anyone to work for the evil hierarchy of the business? No one. Who is forcing people to obey the government laws? The government men with guns.

Anarcho-capitalism is the only real form of anarchism. Human beings will always rediscover trade, barter, and currency. The only way to prevent a market from every developing again would be to have some institution in place to stop a market from forming, and that institution would be a government. In a real stateless society, a free market would exist because only a state could keep a market from existing.

But in general the market offers alternatives while the state is one sized fits all. The market is entered into by voluntary agreements: no one is forcing you to eat McDonald's, no one is forcing you to work at Amazon as opposed to Microsoft. But government offers no alternatives and is forced on all by mob rule (democracy) and uses systematic violence to achieve its ends. In short:
http://i.imgur.com/IwSpg.jpg

And I'm not a complete anarchist myself and understand some government is necessary. However, the less of it interfering with our lives and telling us how to live, who to marry, what to do with our bodies and how and what to accept as starting salary, the better.

26: Civil libertarianism is equally valued by people on the left and libertarian right--libertarians hold no monopoly on liberal values. Anarcho-capitalism and the libertarian idea that everything should be privatized and deregulated because big business and mom and pop stores are the greatest things ever are the textbook definition of right-wing ideologies because they reject equality and fairness, holding views that can only be described as social Darwinist. Without the oversight of democratic institutions, capitalists would run roughshod over everything and everyone. There's more to being on the left than civil liberties (unless we're talking about the eighteenth century left)--there's a notion that everyone has a right to decent life, regardless of where they fall on the economic spectrum, and the the sense that government has an obligation to protect people from the excesses of the powerful. So what then are anarcho-capitalists and libertarians, especially those who have supported authoritarian regimes like Pinochet's because they could initiate their free market reforms without facing democratic opposition? Handing all power over to private owners and companies is the textbook definition of the anti-democratic, authoritarian right. Anyone who rejects public oversight and input into social, political and economic matters (seeing the one entity in which people have a say, democratic government, as a threat to the freedom of non-transparent private entities to whatever the fuck they want to) can only be described as right-wing.

@28: A state government overruling a local government's discriminatory ordinance would be fine by me, but I am not the one trying to limit government. I think your sole focus on the size and scope of government is misplaced.

Good governance is about public policy. Some policies are good. Some are bad. Governments should enact more of the former and few of the latter. There will be disagreements about which is which, and so we have politics.

Your approach is simplistic. You ignore the relative merits of public policies in favour of saying "If it increases the power of government, it is bad." It amounts to politics as practiced by toddlers: "You are not the boss of me." It is no way to govern a modern state.

#29: we already won the democratic battle. Now we're in the stage where the people with money try to undo the victory.

@33: "In a real stateless society, a free market would exist because only a state could keep a market from existing."

Oh really? Check out the way that drug cartels and gangs operate. Ungoverned people in a free market, trying to corner it by any means necessary, up to and including murdering their competitors.

I am not saying that all markets in an ungoverned state would end up that way, but damn that was a stupid argument. The only possible thing that could prevent a free market is a state? That is only true if one distorts the meanings of "free", "market", and "state" beyond all recognition.

@30, of course, not @33.

@22: "Who is forcing anyone to work for the evil hierarchy of the business?"

Those who want businesses to exist. Those who want capitalism to exist. In other words, you.

You favor businesses while forcing their workers to be enslaved at the whims of business. Under your faux-"free society", businesses could easily fire you if you choose to exert any of the "rights" you claim to support - abortion, drugs, who you decide to love, etcetera. Instead of a large government (i.e., the state) making decisions for you, small governments (i.e., hierarchical businesses) would make the decisions for you, at pain of losing your means of existence. Use some common sense. That's not liberty and freedom. That's slavery.

@31the short version. Anarcho-capitalism is Oligarchy.

@33 yep pretty much isn't making sausage fun.

@34 He did write that ridiculous drivel didn't he. I scanned right by that. Good catch. Let us turn now to Thomas Hobbes.

http://www.bartleby.com/34/5/13.html

Not everyone that believes $15 an hour to be harmful to the economy is a right winged neo-conservative. That's exactly the type of rhetoric that has furthered the 15now movement. When servers and bartenders spoke out about concern over losing their tips, which brings many of our wages up to as high as $35 an hour you know what they said? That we are the 1%. Turning a statement meant to be used to describe wealthy people into a description of people in the service industry making a decent living. It's insanity when I'm thinking, yeah, I could get behind a straightforward $12 an hour proposal to start next April and am labeled a right wig nut. I do agree that forwardSeattle needs to back a higher min. wage now, not in 6 years if they have any hope of gaining ground.... I say $12 now AND RENT CONTROL NOW.

#39 - Exactly!

@17,

Assuming normal inflation, the Washington state minimum wage will likely be $10.50 in 2020. Their proposal is a buck fifty more. Those guys are so generous.

For most small businesses in Seattle, its going to be $15 per hour in 7 years, not tomorrow. They just need to suck up and deal.

And I see the Slog's resident right wing looney tune -"Collectivism Sucks" - has twisted itself into such a pretzel of logic that it has teabagged itself.

@31
That has got to be the biggest loud of bullshit I've read in awhile. Libertarians ARE civil libertarians. The very definition of libertarianism is supporting fiscal AND social liberties, unlike the socialists who often have no interest in personal liberty.

As for Pinochet, a few economists went down to give economic advise while deploring the regime. Melton Friedman said he was against the regime but understood that if Chile was opened up to trade the regime would collapse within a decade or two. He was right. And not a single solitary anarcho-capitalist I have ever heard of supported Pinochet. That's absolute bullshit.

And we're against big business. I hate giant corporations and think most should cease to exist. If you bothered to do any research you'd see that it's the state keeping them in power and that the state and the corporations are one. When the state is beaten back and not allowed to help corporations the corporations will fall once they are forced to compete in a true free market.

@32
"Simple" and "simplistic" are two different things. Libertarianism is simple, but certainly not simplistic.
And I support good policies, as in protecting the environment, protecting people from aggression, enforcing laws against fraud etc. Libertarians don't want zero government tomorrow.

@34
The cartels are in power only because they have government in their pocket. Without government the cartels would be destroyed. For example: in Mexico, non-government militias are forming that are VERY anarcho-capitalist in nature. They are regular people voluntarily fighting against cartel aggression and winning: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_…

And my argument was against anti-property "anarchism". How can you have an anarchistic society in which people's property is confiscated? That's my point. If you have a true stateless society you would have respect for property. I am NOT saying that stateless necessarily leads to respect for property, just saying that if property is seized by an organized force, that organized force becomes, essentially, a state and we're back to square one.

That's why sudden anarchism is absurd: it didn't work in Somalia. But gradually reducing the size of government could and will increase human freedom and prosperity.

@36
Working for an agreed upon amount is not "enslavement." And I DON'T want workers to be forced to work for anyone because I don't want workers. I want a society in which everyone sells something; their knowledge, their skills, their labor, their products etc.

If people want to work for a collectively owned business, they will be free to in a libertarian society. People would be free to live somewhere and share everything and be socialist and live outside of capitalism, with no taxation or regulations to force them to act differently. Today, voluntarily socialism is difficult because of regulations and taxation, that we libertarians are against.

But here's the question: while a libertarian society would respect a socialist community within it, would a socialist society respect a libertarian community living within it? You say you don't want capitalism to exist. So if I engage in barter with someone on a regular rate, and use barter tokens to exchange for goods and services (i.e., I just invented money again) what would happen to me?

Capitalism will ALWAYS exist. Even in pre-Columbian America natives traded corn for goods. In pre-colonial Africa the Zulus and Shona used iron rods as commodity currency backed by cattle. Hawaiians used different kinds of shells as barter chips. How would you stop those things from arising again? By systematic force? That is government.

But honestly, how the FUCK is a business going to take away my right to an abortion or drugs? the only way business can do anything to us we don't ask them to is if government can help business and do businesses doing. I want to take those powers away from government and force the corporations to die. No need to "eat the rich": create a libertarian society, and without the bailouts and protectionism the market will eat the rich for us.

@37
How can libertarianism be oligarchy when we want to take away the bailouts, corporate welfare, regulations and protectionism that let corporations rule the world in the first place?

The government is run by corporations. We agree. The socialist would replace the big corporate owned government by one ruled by socialist elites. Libertarians would replace the big corporate owned government with limited government and maximized individual freedom. Which alternative to the current system is more "oligarchical"?

@45: " If you have a true stateless society you would have respect for property... if property is seized by an organized force, that organized force becomes, essentially, a state and we're back to square one."

As I said: your philosophy requires that you distort the meaning of state beyond all recognition. If three guys with big sticks coming onto your farm, beating you up, and stealing your cows, are to be considered a "state", then I am confident that your dream of a stateless society will never exist and has never existed.

This is absolutely crazy! I hope everyone who wants this $15 hour measure to pass loses their job and any and all benefits. You make minimum wage cause you are a loser! You suck at life and have no education or skills so that you could demand more. If you do not like your pay, quit! Start your own venture. Become creative and "find a need and create a want". I am sorry you people are broke and can not afford to live here, that is not the "publics" problem. I do not want to see prices rise.
Business owners want to make their businesses successful, not make some pea-on nobody employee rich. You are my employee, I will you like a dog for the lowest amount of money possible, while making myself rich. Bus101

@48
Dictionary definition of the state: "politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; especially : one that is sovereign "
Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionar…
It says NOTHING about them being elected or not. If the current government fails and some warlord takes over (like Somalia) that warlord creates a state. If "anarchism", like the red-"anarchists" want then you would need warlords running around to stop people from trading (engaging in market capitalism). Those warlords would be, by the dictionary definition, a state.

As for a stateless society happening, it is unlikely, I agree. That's why I'm a libertarian and not a full fledged anarchist. I want government to be smaller and stop helping corporations as well as to stop bullying citizens around through laws against what we do with our bodies and endless surveillance. But anarcho-capitalism has existed before, right here in the Western Part of the USA. Before these were states they were loosely held together territories, many of which had large areas with no government but just people working together voluntarily while property rights were respected. That's the definition of market anarchism.
http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.…

Christ, the outright dogmatic zealotry of libertarianism. This guy is about as naive as the Christians believing in a real Heaven and Hell.

"Hey, guys, if only the state didn't help corporations, there wouldn't be any anymore! Its not like that kind of logic defies everything in capitalist economics! No! The unregulated accumulation of capital and the means of production wouldn't eventually lead to a few people owning much of the wealth and monopolizing the market because free market! Plus, even if that did happen, society would intervene and stop it! What kind of society? Well, I guess a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; especially : one that is sovereign.

Whats the definition of free market, you ask? Why do you want to know?"

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Everything you say you "believe", all those platitudes about protecting the "environment", and "freedom", and whatnot, don't mean shit when your philosophical premise is to have a free market. You obviously don't believe in a free market so don't even bother bringing it up. Its an imaginary construct that you built into your head. A fantasy land.

And this is why you serve food for a living.

@51: I know, right? What I particularly love is this:

"I want government to be smaller and stop helping corporations as well as to stop bullying citizens."

Corporations would LOVE smaller government. Fewer regulations, less oversight. And fewer protections for citizens.

There's a word for guys like c_s.

@52

Your head is not in reality.

There are two ways to grow a company to what we may believe as a "big corporation". 1. You have a huge amount of customers supporting your corporation. 2. You have government creating regulations to support your corporation.

In a stateless (or minimal regulatory society) you can only have #1 to be a big corporation. This is the point with "collectivism sucks". You can not have a big corporation without a huge customer base. And you can not have a huge customer base without you offering a product or a service that a huge amount of people want.

As for #2 - laws and regulations are your profit base. It is easily seen that companies like Monsanto (nationally), Boeing (nationally and locally), and even SEIU Union (locally) have everything to gain by making government favor their industry over that of their competition. Without the government, they have less money and less power to be an evil "big corporation". They would not exist in the form that they are in now.

@51
I serve food for a living, and you do NOTHING of a living, i.e., you live off of your rich parent's checks and your trust fund like most Seattle liberal hipster douche bags.

Second, I NEVER said corporations would cease to exist. I only said they would be a lot weaker if government didn't help them through regulations (that usually hurt their smaller competitors) and cronyism like bailouts.

Third, a free market system is as follows: government only intervenes to protect people and their property from aggression. By "aggression" we libertarians also include fraud, like saying a workplace is safe when it really isn't. By "property" we left-libertarians include the environment, which is everyone's property. We are born owning the air, water, trees etc. A "market" is by definition a system of voluntary agreements: I'll trade you this for that, I'll work for this, we can go into this joint venture together etc. Aggression is the antithesis of voluntary agreements and hence, aggression is anti-market. So, polluting, which is aggression against everyone's property, is just as bad robbery or property (stealing a car) and is anti-market.

The moment a firm or company engages is fraud, pollution, physical violence etc it has violated the non-aggression principal, which is the bedrock of all forms of libertarianism, and hence someone needs to go to jail.

These ideas are clear, straight forward and most people who have actually worked a day in their lives and didn't go to art school on their parents dime (i.e., not you) can understand them.

And I did not come up with this "in my head". These ideas have been around for ages and are gaining more and more steam everyday. Georgism, the philosophy of Henry Georg, is a very old left-libertarian philosophy that is well established: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism

And the bottom line is you're losing. Libertarianism is the future: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/p…

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post…

And I find it funny that you have to point out that a fine dining waiter.manager "serves food for a living", as if it's an insult, but you defend the adult fast food workers arguing against every law of economics. You can't have your cake and eat it too, you white privileged hipster fuck.

@52
First the question NO ONE who accuses libertarianism of some how being good for big corporations can answer: if that is the case, then why is it the only Republican presidential candidate to not get any corporate money was Ron Paul, the libertarian? And no, it wasn't because he had "no chance of winning," because Michael Bachmann got money from the Koch brothers but not Ron Paul even though Ron Paul was much higher in the polls then she was.
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/201…

So, if libertarianism is good for corporate America, why is it corporate America NEVER supports a libertarian-minded candidate? No need to answer: you people never do.

There is a word for people like you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champagne_s…
And corporations are actually the ones who push for regulations. Why? A big corporation can hire a team of lawyers and use their vast wealth to stay on top. A small company can't and is hurt by regulations. It is a none fact that THE LAST THING corporations want is real capitalism. No more bailouts? No more help from the government? They would end up *gasp!* having to only make money by honestly providing goods and or services!
A few links that I found in all of three seconds to prove my well known and well understood point: http://ivn.us/2012/08/04/corporate-lobby…

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/20…

From the first link: "By contrast, corporate retailers (like Menards, Lowes, Home Depot, Wal-Mart, Kroger, and other regional and national giants) are capable of lobbying for regulations like the ADA and zoning restrictions, and are able to obtain tax breaks that would not be available for small businesses or lesser competitors for a simple reason– the big players can afford lobbyists and afford to give campaign contributions to candidates who if elected, might be able to pull strings to get beneficial circumstances for those contributors."

In short, the corporations don't want capitalism, they want CORPORATISM, which is just as bad as socialism and libertarians are just as opposed to corporatism as we are socialism.

@51
Oh, and natural monopolies RARELY ever happen without government help and when they do they are short lived. Nice strawman.

@54: You argue that the government should intervene to protect people against "aggression" (as you define it) but you simultaneously argue against the government having any power to intervene. ???
Also, why do you say that BJiB is a trustafarian? Do you know him? Do you have any evidence? I suppose to expect that you do would be a bit much...

@55: Allow me to paraphrase: "The Koch Brothers don't like Ron Paul, therefore Libertarians are anti-corporate!" The simplicitude astounds.
And then you quoted an article written, sans references, examples, or citations, by a community college student pursuing a Business Administration degree in fucking Indiana. As they say on the Internet: "wow great argument fagtron, you sure convinced me with those hot opinions". The Mother Jones article is decent, but it doesn't say what you're saying! Rather, it comments on the tendency of corporations and their lobbyists to subvert government regulation, which naturally serves as a check on Big Business, so that it is effectively neutered. Your solution to corporations cutting loopholes in regulation...is to do away with regulation and save them the trouble! Well, at least you'd put some lobbyists out of a job, which isn't exactly a bad thing.
You can claim you oppose corporatism, but the fact is that your actions serve it. Actions speak louder than words, and you have made yourself deliberately deaf to anything that goes against your opinions.

@56: [citation needed]

@57
If you bothered to read you would see that I WANT GOVERNMENT TO HAVE THE POWER TO PROTECT PEOPLE FROM AGGRESSION. They SHOULD put CEOs in jail for polluting, committing fraud, hurting workers etc. That's AGGRESSION and should be punished. Now, if someone agrees to mow a lawn everyday for ten dollars an hour as opposed to fifteen, they have an AGREEMENT and no one is hurt. That should not result in someone going to jail.
This is a concept most children can understand: if you hurt someone, you are punished. If you and someone else agree to do something without hurting anyone, no punishment. It is a telling fact that children understand this concept, but liberals seem to have trouble with it...
And again, I never said "just because the Koch brothers didn't support Ron Paul corporations hate libertarianism." What I said, DIRECT QUOTE, was: "So, if libertarianism is good for corporate America, why is it corporate America NEVER supports a libertarian-minded candidate? No need to answer: you people never do."

No one has answered that question. I only used Ron Paul as an EXAMPLE because he was a libertarian candidate that had a real chance at winning so the old "they don't support them because libertarians never have a shot at winning" line is invalid.

As for your ad hominen against my reference (being from Indiana invalidates research how?) you never bothered with the second reference...or is the Washington Post also "written by a community college student from Indiana"?

Here's another survey from Pew Research showing that a polarity of people have a favorable opinion of libertarianism, while a polarity of people have an unpopular opinion of socialism: http://www.people-press.org/2010/05/04/s…

I guess you'll say the janitor at Pew is originally Kentucky, so that study is also invalid, LOL!

So again, how are Sawant's socialist policies more popular than a libertarian policy? Oh, and most Americans DON'T WANT a 15/hour minimum wage. From the survey: " Independents fall in between, supporting an average minimum wage of about $9.40 an hour. All three groups set their preferred minimum wage higher than the current $7.25, but far below a $15 wage sought by some worker advocates."
Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/e…

As for calling someone a trustfundarian, I have no reason to believe otherwise. This is the same douche-monkey who accuses me of being a "right winger" even though I'm pro-gay marriage, pro-drug legalization, pro-choice, anti-war, pro-stronger environmental laws, anti-corporate welfare, and support nationalizing all of our natural resources and sharing the proceeds with the people equally (Georgism: the libertarian idea that everyone owns the Earth and it should be shared equally that Thomas Paine also believed in)

At least I have no reason to believe he isn't a typical Seattle white trust fund hipster socialist.

Are you done making comments without a single fact to back them up, or would you like me to continue humiliating you for all to see?

@58: You have stated many times that you oppose government regulation of industry based on the dubious reasoning that such regulation unduly favors big established businesses. I put the following question to you:
If our government does not regulate industry, how exactly is it supposed to defend workers against the aggression of exploitation, consumers against the aggression of market manipulation, and citizens against the aggression of pollution? You claim to favor two things which are mutually exclusive!

By your logic regarding agreements, bribery and price-fixing should be legal. If two industry leaders (who together dominate a market) agree not to recruit or pursue workers currently employed by the other, it's an agreement, right? Nobody is getting hurt? Except that their workers ARE getting hurt, as the agreement artificially insulates their labor from market forces, preventing their employers from having to offer them good raises or risk them being poached by a competitor. In short, such "agreements" with which you are so enamored represent an assault on competition and the free market at the thought of which a staunch capitalist like you should blush. Leaving a market uncontrolled and unregulated doesn't make it free, any more than ridding us of all laws would make us as persons free.

I never said what you quoted me as saying. That is absolutely a strawman. You claimed that Libertarians oppose Big Business and listed as supporting evidence the fact that the Koch brothers didn't give Ron Paul any money. That is circumstantial evidence at best and irrelevant at worst.
Ron Paul never had a chance. Michele Bachmann actually performed better than he did in most polls comparing the two, and she had the connections within the (somewhat) mainstream Republican Party to make her a viable candidate. Care to hear why big business groups don't donate heavily to Libertarian lawmakers? Because of the 535 voting members of Congress, the 50 Governors of this state, the 1,972 State Upper House legislators, and the 5,411 State Lower House legislators, not a single one is a member of the Libertarian Party. There are a total of 147 persons holding elected office on the Libertarian ticket (source), all of them municipal officials. THAT is why you guys don't get the love from the Chamber of Commerce: because you don't actually get elected. (Oh yeah, the GOP probably represents their interests somewhat better as well, but the Libertarians would be just fine with them on most counts.)

My argumentum ad hominem (that's "hominem, not hominen) against Mr. Maier is perfectly valid. You presented his article as if it were an expert source, written by someone with knowledge of and experience in the issues we're discussing here, which it patently is not. He has NO BACKGROUND on the issue and should not be considered any more knowledgeable or reliable than you or I. Nor did I attack solely his person! I pointed out that he fails to cite any supporting evidence and presents only rhetoric instead. (I will concede, however, that his Indianan origin is beside the point.)
If you had taken the trouble to read the post to which you claim to respond, you would have seen that I did in fact address your "second reference"! Read what I wrote again and actually pay attention this time.

I have very little idea what your referenced Pew poll is supposed to mean. I would be surprised if Americans as a whole did NOT have a more favorable image of a word with "libert-" in the name than a word that we spent most of the Cold War years vilifying! The bottom line is that the American public's opinion of potential "snarl words" means nothing with regard to national policy.

Your use of "again" mystifies me once more. Since when have we been arguing the merits of Ms. Sawant and her socialist policies? This angle of attack is a flagrant strawman argument on your part. I do not support pure socialism as a system of government, nor do I support immediately raising the national minimum wage to $15/hour, nor have I espoused either viewpoint ANYWHERE EVER on SLOG. (I wholeheartedly support President Obama's proposed $10.10/hour rate.) Don't try to pretend I'm arguing things I'm not just because you have no counterarguments to the words I actually do put forth.

"I have no reason to believe otherwise" just about describes your way of thinking in general. You're not as full of argument-from-incredulity as Seattleblues, but it's getting there. For the record, Georgism is nice in theory, but I'd recommend you consider Garrett Hardin's ideas before you go there.

You have consistently failed to address the points I present, opting instead for going off on tangents, misrepresenting what I write, and generally making a mess of your own arguments. If you think this is "humiliating [me]", by all means continue. We all know who's really coming across as the fool.

@59

|"You have consistently failed to address the points I present"

No. He has addressed it. Venomlash, you fail to understand free market principles.

-|"If our government does not regulate industry, how exactly is it supposed to defend workers against the aggression of exploitation

The worker does not choose to be exploited. If you study history, it is not government whom protects workers from exploitation, it is workers. Government protects business. Government at first ignores workers, then resists, then beats down, then accepts it at law. It is always the workers whom change things for the better. Not government.

-|consumers against the aggression of market manipulation

You can not have market manipulation without market regulation. Just as you can not have illegal pot smokers without making pot illegal.

-|...and citizens against the aggression of pollution

With this statement you are already convinced that regulatory environments are the solution to pollution. If you look across the globe, it is precisely the most socialist, communist, and heavily regulated societies that commit the worst of the worlds pollution. Such a simple fact that always seems to go unnoticed. "Environmental" Socialists would regulate industry as to drive up poor peoples cost of living to such high numbers as to create great amounts of suffering. Free Market advocates would seek to develop new technology to fight pollution and drive up the quality of life.

-|"...bribery and price-fixing should be legal"

Yes, it would. So what. If two companies corner the market in Orange Juice and price fix it to be $20 a gallon, it would open up the demand for a third company to sell it for less.

-|"If two industry leaders agree not to recruit or pursue workers currently employed by the other, the agreement artificially insulates their labor from market forces"

Then since you have no laws or regulations stopping you, you get a job somewhere else. Or create your own startup that can potentially be their competition. Or Unionize. I really dont understand how this concept is so hard to grasp?

@60: "No. He has addressed it."
He claimed I didn't even mention the Mother Jones article he linked to, when I actually did. This is just one example of many in which he entirely ignores my points because he'd rather not address them, or even dismiss them.

"It is always the workers whom change things for the better. Not government."
That's an awfully ignorant statement right there. How did workers change things for the better? They, with their popular support, brought the machinery of government to bear on the forces of corporate industry, enacting occupational safety laws, legislating protection of the right to unionize, and forcing employers to deal honestly with their workers. You can't separate the struggle of the working man from the means by which he attains victory.

"You can not have market manipulation without market regulation."
Suppose in an unregulated, entirely free market, two industry leaders agree to sell their product for no less than a certain amount. They have just manipulated the market, artificially inflating prices for their own benefit, where competition would normally exert a downward force on prices. You're a pretty gawdawful capitalist if you don't understand that.

"If you look across the globe, it is precisely the most socialist, communist, and heavily regulated societies that commit the worst of the worlds pollution."
This is objectively false. Using the metric of tons CO2 emitted per capita (source), you'll see that the United States of America is 12th on the list, with 17.2 tons per capita. The European Union is pretty socialist, right? The European Union as a whole emits 8.1 tons per capita. The UK, 8.5, Japan, 9.5, and Russia 11.0 tons per capita. Are you seeing a trend here? Take your total fabrications and shove them where the sun doesn't shine.

"Yes, it would. So what."
I'm sorry, I just can't get past the fact that you just called for the legalization of bribery and price-fixing.

"Then since you have no laws or regulations stopping you, you get a job somewhere else."
Yeah, that's right! The solution to price-fixing and wage-fixing ACROSS AN ENTIRE INDUSTRY is to go get a job somewhere else, or start a new company to compete with them. Sure thing! Instead of simply banning such collusion, let's force the industry to tear down all its current leaders and spawn a bunch of new companies to try and take their place!
That's entirely unfeasible in the many industries where R&D is the driving force behind new and better products, where a company must stand for decades at least in order to provide innovation to the market. It's also a recipe for massive unemployment every few years, as industries become shot through with price-fixing and must be reworked from scratch.

@61

-|"two industry leaders agree to sell their product for no less than a certain amount. They have just manipulated the market."

This is not market manipulation if a third competitor of those two companies can exist and sell the product for less.

If you and I ran a blowjob business on Broadway and Pike and we decided to fix the price of a blowjob to $1000 on that corner, whats to stop "collectivism_sucks" from opening up a blowjob and hotdogs cart outside our business and selling a blowjob for $100 bucks? Government, that is who. You and I can petition the city to regulate blowjobs to licensed businesses only, driving out "collectivism_sucks" from selling blowjobs. THAT is market manipulation.

Much like the SEIU did with minimum-wage laws. They dont want workers needing a job to work for less than SEIU wage contracts, so they manipulate government to pass laws that directly benefit their industry. They could fuck care less about the unemployed, low skilled workers, and new immigrants. They want to drive out the competition.

-|"his is objectively false. Using the metric of tons CO2 emitted per capita..."

You cant really be serious by just looking at CO2 macro data and reach that conclusion? Here is a good peer-reviewed report on nations and environmental impact:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Ado…

At any rate, the point was to show that Communist or Socialist solutions are not shown to be better vehicles to solve environmental problems vs. that of free market principles. Indeed the western nations (more free market leaning) are on the forefront of developing new technology to address these problems, for one.

@62: Just because someone CAN undercut price-fixers doesn't mean that price-fixing isn't market manipulation! Until someone actually DOES and is able to stay competitive, the artificially-inflated price remains, and the price-fixers are able to reap the benefit. You're confusing free market theory (someone COULD undercut them) with free market reality (it's unlikely that anyone actually WILL undercut them). I also have a bone to pick with your revisionist history, you claiming that minimum wages were instituted to crowd out non-union workers. Really? Do you actually believe that? More importantly, do you have any EVIDENCE to support such a claim? (Key word: "evidence". "Because I think so" is not evidence.)
The study you cite lists ten countries that have proportionally the highest environmental impact: Singapore, Korea, Qatar, Kuwait, Japan, Thailand, Bahrain, Malaysia, Philippines and Netherlands. Of those ten, NOT A SINGLE ONE IS A SOCIALIST STATE. You're barking up the wrong tree if you think that citing that study will support your ridiculous claim.

I am confused on why you think price fixing is such an important point. Yes, I agree, price fixing can happen. Free market advocates don't claim that the market is impervious to imbalances, just that it is much better at self-correcting. Obviously state run (non free market) price-fixing has been shown to be far more disastrous for the poor than anything under our own crony capitalist state. Just look at USSR, or today's Venezuela for start.

As for the SEIU, in SeaTac, they spent over a million ($400 per voter) to get the 15 hour wage passed (AND the assholes included laws in the ordinance to EXEMPT unions from these wages. FYI.) Is it really for altruistic reasons as if we are lead to believe? Hardly. The unions have everything to gain by blocking the way for those whom may be willing to work for a lower wage than SEIU contracts. This is why the whole argument about 15 now focus in on labor, rather than something like a fixed living income or Earned Income Credit. EIC and guaranteed income would be far better at targeting the working poor than minimum wage laws, but that doesn't accomplish what the unions want to accomplish.

Here is an article that begins to address the truth:
http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/18/unions…

I'm pretty sure I saw these people in Capitol Hill... "Forward Seattle". They were super shady. First, they asked me to sign a petition to lift the restrictions on Uber and Lyft, which I read (okay, skimmed, but it was what he said it was) and signed, I'll admit. THEN the signature collector lifted up his clipboard and asked me to sign a new petition "about the $15 minimum wage law" without saying anything more. He also did not lift the sheet high enough for me to view the language of the proposal he was asking me to sign for. My spidey senses tingled as they detected the distinct aroma of bullshit. I declined to sign it, saying that I was happy with the law as it currently is. He was visibly frustrated for a moment when I did, but only said "Okay" and put his clipboard down. .

Kshama Sawant and her people supported the Uber and Lyft regulations, so I thought: Why would $15Now be collecting signatures for both at the same time? The conclusion: It wasn't $15Now that I was talking to. They were also plainclothed and had no campaign literature of any kind, and they weren't wearing campaign shirts or even a button for that matter.

I'm pretty sure I saw these people in Capitol Hill... "Forward Seattle". They were super shady. First, they asked me to sign a petition to lift the restrictions on Uber and Lyft, which I read (okay, skimmed, but it was what he said it was) and signed, I'll admit. THEN the signature collector lifted up his clipboard and asked me to sign a new petition "about the $15 minimum wage law" without saying anything more. He also did not lift the sheet high enough for me to view the language of the proposal he was asking me to sign for. My spidey senses tingled as they detected the distinct aroma of bullshit. I declined to sign it, saying that I was happy with the law as it currently is. He was visibly frustrated for a moment when I did, but only said "Okay" and put his clipboard down. .

Kshama Sawant and her people supported the Uber and Lyft regulations, so I thought: Why would $15Now be collecting signatures for both at the same time? The conclusion: It wasn't $15Now that I was talking to. They were also plainclothed and had no campaign literature of any kind, and they weren't wearing campaign shirts or even a button for that matter.

(Sorry for the double post)