Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Impending Minimum Wage hike causing restaurants to close

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Paprika
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    I've noticed that you're awefully quick to falsely accuse people of lying when you find yourself backed into a corner.
    Stop desperately projecting, idiot. When you make an obvious mistake admit it and move one: you twisted my claim that the Jews would not comprehend 'such selfish individualistic modern notions of ownership, and represented me as claiming that Jews would not be able to comprehend any individualist sense of ownership.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam View Post
    How do you define debt forgiveness if not a redistribution of wealth? How does one define the mandate to leave portions of a harvest for the poor, if this doesn't constitute a redistribution of wealth?
    Again, the debt forgiveness laws of Jubilee only applied to voluntary contracts, and it was expected that the borrower would diligently work to pay off as much of the debt as possible; similarly, leaving grain on the edges of fields wan't "redistribution" as much as it was giving the poor the opportunity to work for their food, a principle carried forward into the New Testament with Paul's declaration that those who don't work shouldn't eat.

    Sorry, Sam, but you simply can't use scripture to justify modern liberal notions of "wealth redistribution", no matter how much you wish you could.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Paprika View Post
    A lie: you quoted entirely out of context.
    I've noticed that you're awefully quick to falsely accuse people of lying when you find yourself backed into a corner.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paprika
    replied
    Originally posted by Joel View Post
    What do you see as the difference? (between the "selfish modern" notion and the other notion(s) of individualistic ownership)
    I cannot expound on the Jewish mindset(s) as it is not my area. My understanding, however, proceeds from how radical modern individualism is and how relatively recent and Western it is. Individualistic notions of ownership arise from these radical notions of the individual; from ancient times and places people could not be understood apart from their social roles without massive loss of meaning, but in modern times a strong stream of thought has the individual defining himself, often against society and its preconceived roles. Hence as such radical individualistic Western notions postdate ancient Judaism and, as far as I am aware, show no signs of being found within it, we can conclude with some great certainty that they will not have been able to conceive of them, including radical individualistic understanding of property and ownership.

    It's a long history, involving areas such as ethics, philosophy, economics, psychology, and sociology, and requires the deconstruction of much of what is integral to many common types of worldviews, including my own and I am woefully underequipped to expound on it. However, if you insist, I'll do my best (we start with Homer).

    On another note, I would not now prefer to use the word 'selfish' because of the pejorative it connotes. 'Self-centered' would be slightly better but I know of no good way to convey in a concise manner how radically individualistic the notions and the worldview(s) they spring from are.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam View Post
    I don't think anyone can argue that Levitical or Deuteronomical commands were to be taken as voluntary.
    Sam, this was part of the covenant relationship between God and His people.

    Israel got in trouble more than a few times for failing to adhere to YHWH's commands,
    Yes, when they - as a nation - did not keep up their part of the covenant, there were certainly consequences. One of the biggest was not having the Blessing of God that was His part of the covenant.

    if memory serves,
    I'd rather rely on scripture.

    and the State did have power of enforcement.
    Um.... "the State"? Look how hard you're having to work to force this to be on any kind of par with a THIRD party (the government - not God) taking something from one individual, and giving it to some totally unrelated other individual.

    Leave a comment:


  • Joel
    replied
    Originally posted by Paprika View Post

    I said that ancient Jews would have trouble comprehending "such selfish individualistic modern notions of ownership", not that they couldn't comprehend any individualistic notion of ownership.
    What do you see as the difference? (between the "selfish modern" notion and the other notion(s) of individualistic ownership)

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam
    replied
    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    "Redistribution of wealth", as used in political terms, implies a third party directing or requiring or mandating the "redistribution".

    To try to equate that with the VOLUNTARY sharing of funds or property is disingenuous.

    If I decide to forgive a debt somebody owes me to honor a biblical principle, it is NOT the same as somebody forcing me to give up something I own.
    I don't think anyone can argue that Levitical or Deuteronomical commands were to be taken as voluntary. Israel got in trouble more than a few times for failing to adhere to YHWH's commands, if memory serves, and the State did have power of enforcement.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paprika
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    Not only did I represent you correctly, but I quoted you word for word in order to ensure I represented you correctly.
    A lie: you quoted entirely out of context.

    And, yes what you're promoting is communism.

    No. You really are hung up on communism, aren't you?

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Paprika View Post

    No.



    I said that ancient Jews would have trouble comprehending "such selfish individualistic modern notions of ownership", not that they couldn't comprehend any individualistic notion of ownership.

    Try to represent me correctly, if that is at all possible.
    Not only did I represent you correctly, but I quoted you word for word in order to ensure I represented you correctly.

    And, yes what you're promoting is communism. You can laugh and smirk and get as snarky as you want, but that's where your arguments ultimately lead.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paprika
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    "Collectivist view of property" is the textbook definition of communism.

    No.

    But it doesn't matter because you're arguing against yourself now. First you claimed that the ancient Jews would have had trouble comprehending our "individualistic modern notions of ownership,"

    I said that ancient Jews would have trouble comprehending "such selfish individualistic modern notions of ownership", not that they couldn't comprehend any individualistic notion of ownership.

    Try to represent me correctly, if that is at all possible.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    "Redistribution of wealth", as used in political terms, implies a third party directing or requiring or mandating the "redistribution".

    To try to equate that with the VOLUNTARY sharing of funds or property is disingenuous.

    If I decide to forgive a debt somebody owes me to honor a biblical principle, it is NOT the same as somebody forcing me to give up something I own.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    "Collectivist view of property" is the textbook definition of communism.

    But it doesn't matter because you're arguing against yourself now. First you claimed that the ancient Jews would have had trouble comprehending our "individualistic modern notions of ownership," but now you say there was space in their worldview for the concept of "individual ownership".

    The bottom line, of course, is that nowhere in scripture is it commanded or implied that we are to "redistribute" a person's wealth against their will.
    How do you define debt forgiveness if not a redistribution of wealth? How does one define the mandate to leave portions of a harvest for the poor, if this doesn't constitute a redistribution of wealth?

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Paprika View Post
    Why are you so hung up about communism? A collectivist view of property isn't necessarily communist. Neither, of course, does a communal sense of some property necessarily imply that there is no space for individual ownership at all, just as collectivism doesn't imply that no sense of the individual existed.
    "Collectivist view of property" is the textbook definition of communism.

    But it doesn't matter because you're arguing against yourself now. First you claimed that the ancient Jews would have had trouble comprehending our "individualistic modern notions of ownership," but now you say there was space in their worldview for the concept of "individual ownership".

    The bottom line, of course, is that nowhere in scripture is it commanded or implied that we are to "redistribute" a person's wealth against their will.
    Last edited by Mountain Man; 03-26-2015, 12:11 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paprika
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    They were collectivist in their view of self, not property. The ancients weren't communists and clearly understood bounderies like personal ownership.
    Why are you so hung up about communism? A collectivist view of property isn't necessarily communist. Neither, of course, does a communal sense of some property necessarily imply that there is no space for individual ownership at all, just as collectivism doesn't imply that no sense of the individual existed.

    But nice try on attempting to sound like a sociologist by using terms that I'm not entirely sure you understand.
    I'm sure you will be able to enlighten us all.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Dimbulb View Post
    My favorite part of their excuses are where they spend the first section of the article pointing out that they accurately repeated the statements of others and that therefore they didn't get it wrong, regardless of the truth of those statements.
    Let's go to the source.

    Source: Washington Policy Center

    The Seattle Times got it wrong this week in an appearance of that self-appointed arbiter of veritas, “Truth Needle,” by food writer Bethany Jean Clement, about our blog on the $15 minimum wage law and restaurant closings in Seattle. Here’s why.

    Our blog accurately reported that Seattle Magazine said in a March 4th article, “Why are so many Seattle restaurants closing lately?”, that a “major factor” affecting restaurants in Seattle “is the impending minimum wage hike to $15 an hour.” The author, Sara Jones, described the new law as a “key consideration” for Seattle restaurants.

    Our blog also accurately reported that Seattle Magazine mentioned supporting articles in The Seattle Times and Eater.com that have reported extensively on “restaurant owners’ many concerns about how to compensate for the extra funds that will now be required for labor...” under the $15 minimum wage law.

    The Times’ food reporter did important work in contacting three Seattle restaurant owners and interviewing them about why they had recently closed or moved restaurants. However, she operated from the false assumption that she was “debunking a rumor” as the Times describes it, about the impact of the $15 minimum wage law. She said the three owners she talked to denied the $15 minimum wage law is the reason they closed or moved their restaurants.

    She did not, however, ask them about whether rising wage costs were a “major factor” or a “key consideration” in their business decisions, as Seattle Magazine, reported and which Washington Policy Center reported accurately. And she did not contact Washington Policy Center for further information. As a result, her “Truth Needle” article is wrong, because the reporter was operating on a false assumption from the beginning. [Emphasis mine. -MM]

    Our blog accurately noted that restaurants close for many reasons and that in Seattle, as the new mandate goes into effect, the $15 minimum wage law had added a unique factor. There is simply no question Seattle’s $15 minimum wage law is a concern for local business owners, and is a factor in whether restaurants and other businesses remain viable, for several reasons.

    https://www.washingtonpolicy.org/blo...imum-wage-blog

    © Copyright Original Source


    Follow the link for the rest.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
16 responses
159 views
0 likes
Last Post One Bad Pig  
Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
53 responses
400 views
0 likes
Last Post Mountain Man  
Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
25 responses
114 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
33 responses
198 views
0 likes
Last Post Roy
by Roy
 
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
84 responses
379 views
0 likes
Last Post JimL
by JimL
 
Working...
X