Social Justice?

[Mountain Man]

I'd go for a $20 minimum wage ...

Well, maybe not really. I -did- just see an article that mentioned the minimum wage would be over $25/hour now, if it had kept pace with both inflation and productivity increases since 1968 ....

Fun fact: In a classic example of the law of unintended consequences, it turns out that raising the minimum wage makes it harder for the unskilled, uneducated, and other Democrats to get a job.

Source: Washington Times

The main impact of minimum-wage laws is to hurt the unskilled and poor, who are priced out of entry-level jobs. Employers will not hire workers whose lack of skill does not produce enough to justify paying $10 per hour, plus fringe benefits such as Social Security, unemployment insurance, vacation or sick leave and health care.

Youth unemployment in Maryland is more than 20 percent, but for black teens, studies place that figure at more than 40 percent. Laws that deny young people the chance to get their foot on the first rung of the ladder are devastating to their future. Black economist Thomas Sowell calls minimum-wage laws a “major social disaster.”

“When you set minimum-wage levels higher than many inexperienced young people are worth, they don’t get hired. It is not rocket science,” he writes.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...laims-to-help/

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Forbes

A higher minimum wage attracts new entrants but does not guarantee them a job. What happens on the demand side of the market is not surprising: if the minimum wage exceeds the prevailing market wage (determined by supply and demand), some workers will lose their jobs or have their hours cut. There is abundant evidence that a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage leads to a 1 to 3 percent decrease in employment of low-skilled workers (using teens as a proxy) in the short run, and to a larger decrease in the long run, along with rising unemployment.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesdor...-common-sense/

© Copyright Original Source

[KingsGambit]

Perhaps you have expressed this position in another thread; I don't see it anywhere else in this one.

Post 12, I explicitly said so; I also strongly implied it in posts 5 and 15.

[Sam]

Who are really Liberals; they merely value a different freedom, that to (individually) handle as much of 'their' money as they wish.

As someone who's tried this, I do wish you all the best.


Fair enough, this thread may not be the best place for it.


What do you mean by legitimate?

It's already confusing enough to have conservatives, Conservatives, neoconservatives, social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, libertarians, and pseudo-conservatives ... now we have liberal conservatives?!

It's a madhouse, I say.

By "legitimate," I mean that someone can say that "social justice" incorporates economic redistribution without creating an ad-hoc, novel usage of the term. Like whatever kids are saying these days when they really mean "cool."

—Sam

[Mountain Man]

No it doesn't.

Look closer:

P1: Jubilee required the forgiveness of debt, the freeing of slaves and the redistribution of land.
P2: Owed debt is an economic asset.
P3: Slaves are an economic asset.
P4: Land is an economic asset.
P5: Economic assets are equivalent to wealth.
C1: Jubilee required the redistribution of wealth.

In other words, Sam's arguments is essentially this:

P1: Jubilee required the redistribution of wealth.
C1: Therefore, Jubilee required the redistribution of wealth.

It's a bald-assertion dressed up as syllogistic reasoning.

[Adrift]

No that does not make sense. If one Old Testament law is just and moral why not the other? Executing particular sinners was moral and just and I assume that God saw it as a benefit for the larger society.

I'm assuming you're against the legalization of gay marriage. Are you also for stoning of those who commit sodomy? Do you believe abortion activists should be executed? Why should non-Christians be made to submit to Christian ethics?

And that is the a main sticking point Adrift. I live in a poor neighbor, and many of my neighbors are on "State." They often use their money for booze and drugs and are certainly able to work.

I grew up in very poor neighborhoods where this was a common issue as well. I knew people personally who did it. I think its probably not too bold of me to say that no Christian (or non-Christian) in this thread desires to see others abuse a system meant for those truly in need. I don't think the answer to that problem is to rid ourselves of taking care of the poor, though, but of reforming/revising the system so that opportunity is not provided to those who will.

And I also believe that Christians should be generous, our little church does quite a bit to feed and cloth the needy.

I 100% agree with you that Christians should be generous, and my church does quite a bit of feeding, clothing, and finding job opportunities for those in need as well. There's even a car pool system in place for those who have no means of transportation.

[Paprika]

It's already confusing enough to have conservatives, Conservatives, neoconservatives, social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, libertarians, and pseudo-conservatives ... now we have liberal conservatives?!

It's a madhouse, I say.

There are three ways to approach this:

a) From what I understand of the Yankee history, 'conservatives' espouse the views of 'liberals' 1-2 generations earlier. That is, they are the brakes that squeal as they are dragged along while unsuccessfully attempting to stop the train heading towards 'liberal' disaster.

b) Liberalism properly used encompasses all theories that fundamentally value freedom. These 'conservatives' cherish and fight for the freedom to spend 'their' money as they wish.

c) Remember how pman said that from his perspective, the 'liberals' in the US of A are conservative? Ditto, but reversed.

By "legitimate," I mean that someone can say that "social justice" incorporates economic redistribution without creating an ad-hoc, novel usage of the term. Like whatever kids are saying these days when they really mean "cool."

Gotcha.

[Paprika]

Post 12, I explicitly said so; I also strongly implied it in posts 5 and 15.

Don't see it there.

[Adrift]

Look closer:

P1: Jubilee required the forgiveness of debt, the freeing of slaves and the redistribution of land.
P2: Owed debt is an economic asset.
P3: Slaves are an economic asset.
P4: Land is an economic asset.
P5: Economic assets are equivalent to wealth.
C1: Jubilee required the redistribution of wealth.

In other words, Sam's arguments is essentially this:

P1: Jubilee required the redistribution of wealth.
C1: Therefore, Jubilee required the redistribution of wealth.

It's a bald-assertion dressed up as syllogistic reasoning.

The argument Sam was combating was lilpixie's view that Jubilee was not a system of redistribution of wealth. As I saw it, lilpixie seemed to deny that Jubilee was a form of wealth distribution while agreeing that Jubilee called for a redistribution of land, and freedom from debt and slavery. Sam's point was that land (and slavery and debt) were economic assets, but he had to go through a syllogism for lilpixie to draw the connection between land and wealth.

[KingsGambit]

Don't see it there.

Post 12, I disassociated my definition of social justice from its present wide usage. I don't see how it could be any clearer.

[Sam]

Look closer:

P1: Jubilee required the forgiveness of debt, the freeing of slaves and the redistribution of land.
P2: Owed debt is an economic asset.
P3: Slaves are an economic asset.
P4: Land is an economic asset.
P5: Economic assets are equivalent to wealth.
C1: Jubilee required the redistribution of wealth.

In other words, Sam's arguments is essentially this:

P1: Jubilee required the redistribution of wealth.
C1: Therefore, Jubilee required the redistribution of wealth.

It's a bald-assertion dressed up as syllogistic reasoning.

Again, it's establishing identity. The redistribution of land is a form of redistribution of wealth. Land is a subset of wealth. Therefore, if Jubilee requires a redistribution of land, Jubilee requires a redistribution of wealth. This isn't circular reasoning, it's establishing identity (or equality) of terms.

If you agree that P1 is true, you're going to believe that C1 is true. The other premises are there to establish the relationship between a concrete term (debt, slaves, land) and an abstract term (wealth). So if you agree that Jubilee required the list in P1, you must agree that Jubilee required the redistribution of wealth.

—Sam

[seer]

I'm assuming you're against the legalization of gay marriage. Are you also for stoning of those who commit sodomy? Do you believe abortion activists should be executed? Why should non-Christians be made to submit to Christian ethics?

So do you believe that Old Testament execution laws were just and moral? That they served the greater good?

I grew up in very poor neighborhoods where this was a common issue as well. I knew people personally who did it. I think its probably not too bold of me to say that no Christian (or non-Christian) in this thread desires to see others abuse a system meant for those truly in need. I don't think the answer to that problem is to rid ourselves of taking care of the poor, though, but of reforming/revising the system so that opportunity is not provided to those who will.

I think the best solution would be to bring welfare down to the state or municipal level. With drug testing and much more over site. A few years back I had a 17 year old emancipated girl with one child move in next door to me. With in a few years she had three children by three different fathers. All on our dime.

I 100% agree with you that Christians should be generous, and my church does quite a bit of feeding, clothing, and finding job opportunities for those in need as well. There's even a car pool system in place for those who have no means of transportation.

And the more tax monies the government takes out of our pocket the less generous we can be.

[Adrift]

So do you believe that Old Testament execution laws were just and moral? That they served the greater good?

While Israel was under the Old Covenant, absolutely. I'm not sure what that has to do with what I asked you though.

I think the best solution would be to bring welfare down to the state or municipal level. With drug testing and much more over site.

I don't think that's a terrible idea.

A few years back I had a 17 year old emancipated girl with one child move in next door to me. With in a few years she had three children by three different fathers. All on our dime.

That doesn't surprise me. I've seen worse.

And the more tax monies the government takes out of our pocket the less generous we can be.

Those who would voluntarily give could offer their whole paycheck tax free and it wouldn't come close to meeting the need. In civil societies sometimes people have to do things they don't like for the good of the whole.

[seer]

While Israel was under the Old Covenant, absolutely. I'm not sure what that has to do with what I asked you though.

Good. So not all OT laws or moral standards necessarily apply to Christians. So forced charity does not necessarily apply to us either? So I don't see forced charity as an ideal that Christians need support or argue for. I do see traditional marriage and protecting the unborn as ideals that we should argue for.

I don't think that's a terrible idea.

I think the real problem for many fiscal conservatives is the amount of waste in all these overreaching programs.

Those who would voluntarily give could offer their whole paycheck tax free and it wouldn't come close to meeting the need. In civil societies sometimes people have to do things they don't like for the good of the whole.

It's funny, we went through most of our US history without social welfare programs.

[Carrikature]

It's already confusing enough to have conservatives, Conservatives, neoconservatives, social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, libertarians, and pseudo-conservatives ... now we have liberal conservatives?!

It's a madhouse, I say.

By "legitimate," I mean that someone can say that "social justice" incorporates economic redistribution without creating an ad-hoc, novel usage of the term. Like whatever kids are saying these days when they really mean "cool."

—Sam

I'm going to really blow your mind when I point out that today's conservatives are technically proponents of classical liberalism.

There are three ways to approach this:

a) From what I understand of the Yankee history, 'conservatives' espouse the views of 'liberals' 1-2 generations earlier. That is, they are the brakes that squeal as they are dragged along while unsuccessfully attempting to stop the train heading towards 'liberal' disaster.

b) Liberalism properly used encompasses all theories that fundamentally value freedom. These 'conservatives' cherish and fight for the freedom to spend 'their' money as they wish.

c) Remember how pman said that from his perspective, the 'liberals' in the US of A are conservative? Ditto, but reversed.

You've the right of it.

[Adrift]

Good. So not all OT laws or moral standards necessarily apply to Christians.

No, I think all moral standards apply to Christians, but I don't think all OT laws do.

So forced charity does not necessarily apply to us either?

I had hoped that I had covered this in post #144 in the first paragraph when I was talking about the OT being our tutor, and Christ teaching the spirit of the law.

So I don't see forced charity as an ideal that Christians need support or argue for. I do see traditional marriage and protecting the unborn as ideals that we should argue for.

Don't you see any dilemma between saying this, and in post #135 saying, "The problem is Sam that you pick and choose"?

I think the real problem for many fiscal conservatives is the amount of waste in all these overreaching programs.

I don't think anyone desires waste.

It's funny, we went through most of our US history without social welfare programs.

A need was recognized and attempted as early as the 1880s, with the first social welfare programs being instituted in the 1930s. The US is a relatively young nation and we've had social welfare programs for approx. 85 of its years. How long do you believe welfare programs should exist for others to realize that there's a necessity?