“Just out of curiosity, what IS your response to that?” A Proper Role of Government?

Minimum-wage-ladder-rungs

This is similar to former state senator David Pierce’s reasoning when he stated that gun control laws can’t be unconstitutional, because we already have them. Never, ever forget that this is the level of intellect, and indoctrination, that you’re dealing with.

Hmm, I’ve been challenged by the guy, whose ideas continue to make my head hurt because it means I have to think deeply, about my post “Facebook Doodlings – “Where do they get this ideas on Minimum Wage?“. The quote above is part of Grokster Ian Underwood’s long comment left on that post with the operative part, IMHO, bolded above.  And it is true – when something has been done and has been in force for years, people give you either extremely annoyed looks or looks of utter amazement that one would question the legality or underpinnnings of government law or programs.  Status quo-ism has been now hardened into too many minds and too many people (and I’ll keep blaming our educational system for this lack) are incapable of looking and thinking of a situation from different view points.  I didn’t say to accept those position – merely to think about them.  Sorta like an engineer does when presented with a challenge: How many ways can I solve this challenge and come up with the best sub-optimal one (for, to be truthful, one has to be a GREAT engineer to come up with that one singular, simple, elegant, and cost effective Optimal Solution.

Here is his entire comment (emphasis mine with a little picking and choosing):

Is it the proper role of government to say with whom the owner of a business must transact? Should a business owner be able to refuse to ‘do business’ with women, or men, or gays, or non-LGBTQs, or Jews, or Christians, or blacks, or whites, or latinos, or people who wear MAGA hats, or SJWs, or short people, or tall people, or people with tattoos, or people without tattoos, or loud people, or quiet people, or ugly people, or pretty people, or gender fluid people, or cis people, or anyone else?

My first answer is no if one wishes to be a strict laissez-faire entrepreneur.  Why shouldn’t one be able to do so for if I refuse service to someone, a Free and Open Marketplace will fill that void with another supplier that will capture the money that I decided to forgo. Do it enough times, and I’d be out of business.  Further, as word spreads of my decision, others would base their decisions on that – and probably would go elsewhere. And I’d be out of business – and the Marketplace, although normally morally neutral, will have made me pay a price for that decision.  Is that not sufficient?

And to those that would automatically tip the tub of burning tar onto my head, let me ask this – should I be force to serve a pedophile?  Someone who has a slave at their home (it does exist, even here in the US as it pops up in the news on a more than wanted frequency)?  How about someone that constantly abuses children?  How about a domestic abuser? Those category of people still have “stigma” attached to them – should that be sufficient to allow me to refuse service? Not based on color, sex, or any other outward manifestation that someone is human?

And then remember that the Press Secretary of the United States, Sara Saunders, was booted out of a progressively owned restaurant, the Red Hen, simply over political differences by an SJW warrior.

Then Ian brings up the real question: has “public accommodation” been too stretched as a definition over time?

Since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, owners of businesses that have been designated as ‘public accommodations’ have lost the ability to choose who their customers will be.

Also remember WHY this was done – to invalidate GOVERNMENT LAW/STATUTES/ORDINANCES (especially by Southern Democrats) that made discrimination against blacks legal.  While I bet that there were (and still are) people who are out and out racists, it was a Federal effort to make it stop (and further, it was Republicans who passed it and not Democrats irregardless of Joe Biden (Dem Prez Wannabee who infamously said to a black audience) saying that Republicans want to put you back in chains.

And then THE Bomb of the comment:

Once you accept that this reflects a legitimate function of government, then it’s a small step — no step at all, really — to accept that they have also lost the ability to choose what wages they will pay. Or what prices they will charge. Or what goods or services they will provide. Or when they’ll be open. Or anything else, really.

This is known as the Slippery Slope of Politics for once politicians can break beyond what was supposed to be a limited government mindset (e.g., do little and let Civil Society and Individuals figure out and decide on their own), they will do it again either in the same venue or some side issue.  It’s what they do to make themselves to be seen as “doing something” (and bureaucrats, be they public or private sector) do the same thing so as to be “relevant” (working themselves out of a job is NEVER the end game).

And no, Ian, I don’t accept this as a Proper Role of Government.  What should have been done was to simply undo the Govt sponsored Jim Crow laws of the day and strictly enforce that decision.

HOWEVER!  That brings up the issue of separation of Powers.  Sure, that exists between the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches.  There is also Federalism – both vertical (Federal vs The States) and horizontal (between the Various States). I’m no lawyer and don’t play one here on GraniteGrok, but when I look at the Enumerated Powers actually in black and white lettering in the US Constitution, where is it held that the Federal Government had the legitimate Power to declare this is how it was going to be at the State level?  Is it a case that the 10th Amendment was voided in this particular?  Or does the 14th Amendment (Section 1) allow it?

I don’t have the time to become such a research this moment but have at it in the comments! And the answer to this, Ian?

Of course, if you don’t accept this as a legitimate function of government, then you must be against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Which would make you some kind of horrible white supremacist/homophobe/misogynist/facist/…/deplorable. But surely you’re not one of those, right?

No, it doesn’t although any number of SJWs or Progressives have deemed me to be so.  After all, I’ve been called a homophobe by far BETTER people than Zandra Rice-Hawkins for believing that marriage is between a man and a woman (of normal genetic backgrounds, I guess I now have to add).  No, it doesn’t make me such because they’ve turned my stance into a club with which to beat me.  The argument is no longer a debate but a demand – one of not just tolerance but that you WILL accept AND affirm my lifestyle.

And to that I say that you are not entitled to force me to believe in something that I otherwise wouldn’t.  That’s just being a Totalitarian.

But let’s go further into the financial question he poses:

How, in principle, is imposing a minimum wage any different from imposing a requirement that, say, employees who work more than a certain number of hours must be provided with pre-tax benefits? Or requiring businesses to pay overtime? Or any form of occupational licensing?

From my standpoint, none of those should be a feature of government interference.  Let that be negotiated as part of the private contract between employer and employee.  After all, the Economic Law of Supply and Demand controls the features of that.  Right now, in a robust economy where the number of unfilled jobs totally outstrips the number of available workers, workers can demand much – included compensation for long hours and for benefits in exchange for their labor.

And Occupational licensing serves more like a set of new fangled Jim Crow laws to impede competition by, once again, using the Force of Government to set barriers to entry.  Seriously, someone that wants to simply braid hair or eyebrows has to undergo 1500 hours of training and then an apprenticeship?

The short answer to your question — Why it is the Proper Role of Government to interfere with a private contract between an employer and an employee? — is just this: We do it in dozens of ways already, so it MUST be proper. Otherwise, we wouldn’t already be doing it!

This is similar to former state senator David Pierce’s reasoning when he stated that gun control laws can’t be unconstitutional, because we already have them. Never, ever forget that this is the level of intellect, and indoctrination, that you’re dealing with.

And this IS the fallacy which drives much of government action – since we’ve done it before, we can do it again.  Social Security – where in the US Constitution is it an Enumerated Power to create a Ponzi scheme whereby the retirements of a few depend on taxing the many?  Oh, well, we’ve had it for 8 decades – why are you complaining?  Why are you even questioning it?

And Pierce is dead wrong – just because something is in force now doesn’t make it right.  With that reasoning, how DARE did the Feds get rid of Jim Crow laws?  After all, they were in force for decades as well, right? And it does that make it then right (and for a bad comparison, how about a dash of judicial stare decisis?)?

In the end, if you’re really going to argue against minimum wage laws on the basis of sanctity of contract, then you’re also arguing for undoing a century of ‘protections’ that have been instituted as various forms of interference with private contracts. And so you should expect to get responses like ‘So you want to bring back child labor/sweat shops/unsafe working conditions/medical quackery/[fill in the blank]? Because that interferes with private contracts.’ Even if you’re not hearing them, those are going to be in the backs of the minds of the people you’re arguing with. So you’d better have a good response ready when they emerge.

Arguing against something?  Only that Govt overreach exists and I believe this is an example of it.

Well, as far as the responses go, I’m used to that as most Progressives DO go looking for the nearest Rhetorical Cliff to jump off of with exactly the worst of things that could go wrong.  And might again – and it is because of what they have done in the meantime – the removal of Stigma from Civil Society.

Actually, they haven’t so much removed them but redefined them to not promote what is good for Society in general (although they will argue that point) but what is best to promote their ideological end point (like Drag Queens in childrens’ story hours or that sex education at the First Grade level by abortion providers is perfectly acceptable).  Denigration of traditional values? Out the window.

Thus, everything must be put into law and no longer left for Individuals and Civil Society to informally outside of The Law.  After all, how can Control be obtained without The Law?

Just out of curiosity, what IS your response to that? Would you accept ANY government interference in private contracts? For example, would you accept, as a Proper Role of Government, criminalizing some completely voluntary exchanges of goods and services (e.g., cash for sex, or recreational chemicals), because you don’t approve of them, or because you think that there is some ‘societal good’ that justifies such interference? If so, then as the joke goes, we’ve established what you are, and now we’re just haggling. :^D

OK, Ian – at this point, answer those last questions yourself first – and then we’ll see how you have established your ideas. Remember, I am not a Libertarian rather a Conservatarian.  And Conservatives believe in an ordered society.

That’ll get him going!