• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

WAL-MART CEO: Things Aren't Getting Better For America's Middle Class

Gracias por Graciousness.



well then there they are :). looks like we can safely stop worrying about them.

I just don't think it is our responsibility to make up for lost inflation. I'm glad minimum wage is going up. That means some of that responsibility goes to employers.
 
I just don't think it is our responsibility to make up for lost inflation. I'm glad minimum wage is going up. That means some of that responsibility goes to employers.

Oh. You think we should instead get these people fired, and then make up for their unemployment?

Why should employers be responsible for the value of other people's labor? That's like saying it's my job as a driver to ensure that Ford doesn't charge less than $30K for it's models.
 
Oh. You think we should instead get these people fired, and then make up for their unemployment?

Why should employers be responsible for the value of other people's labor? That's like saying it's my job as a driver to ensure that Ford doesn't charge less than $30K for it's models.

Snip-
The general purpose of a minimum wage law is to guarantee a living wage to all workers who work a standard period of time, whatever that may be. In theory, any laborer who works 40 hours a week on minimum wage should be at or above the poverty line. However, the minimum wage has not kept pace with inflation and cost of living increases, and is now well behind that standard.

Read more : What Is the Purpose of Minimum Wage? | eHow

There is no research that proves less people will have jobs if wages are kept low. Keynes actually argues the opposite which is more disposable income will increases GDP therefore making way to new jobs.
 
Snip-
The general purpose of a minimum wage law is to guarantee a living wage to all workers who work a standard period of time, whatever that may be. In theory, any laborer who works 40 hours a week on minimum wage should be at or above the poverty line. However, the minimum wage has not kept pace with inflation and cost of living increases, and is now well behind that standard.

Read more : What Is the Purpose of Minimum Wage? | eHow

Actually the original purpose of the minimum wage was to price black and asian workers out of the market, and prop up "decent white workers" who were trying to raise "decent white families." The theory was that by raising the price floor, you could artificially decrease the demand for low-value labor; and they were (unfortunately) correct.

There is no research that proves less people will have jobs if wages are kept low. Keynes actually argues the opposite which is more disposable income will increases GDP therefore making way to new jobs.

Actually Keynes did not, since his solution to sticky wages was inflation, which decreases real wages. The process that you are complaining about WRT minimum wage? Keynes would have considered that a win.
 
Actually the original purpose of the minimum wage was to price black and asian workers out of the market, and prop up "decent white workers" who were trying to raise "decent white families." The theory was that by raising the price floor, you could artificially decrease the demand for low-value labor; and they were (unfortunately) correct.



Actually Keynes did not, since his solution to sticky wages was inflation, which decreases real wages. The process that you are complaining about WRT minimum wage? Keynes would have considered that a win.

Racist stuff aside, why wouldn't we want to decrease demand for low value labor? Also, Keynes solution to unemployment was not to reduce wages and prices but to raise consumption through the spending of money through the government.
 
Gracias por Graciousness.



well then there they are :). looks like we can safely stop worrying about them.

Except those government handouts amount to a subsidy for employers who pay low wages, which in turn encourages people to work for low wages and employers to pay those wages.

Instead of employers paying taxes that go to subsidize their low wage workforce, wouldn't it be better to pay better wages and forego the taxes and handouts in the first place?

Back when I was an unskilled worker, which was in the '50s and early '60s, wages in comparison to the cost of things was much higher than it is now, but there weren't all the government handouts that we have today. It seems to me that the economy was a lot stronger as a result.
 
Except those government handouts amount to a subsidy for employers who pay low wages, which in turn encourages people to work for low wages and employers to pay those wages.

Instead of employers paying taxes that go to subsidize their low wage workforce, wouldn't it be better to pay better wages and forego the taxes and handouts in the first place?

Consumer preferences are still king. If they want the lowest price equivalent, they will get it, and it won't matter if you're subsidizing consumption via government expenditure or mandating wage raises with legislation because technology will give companies the lowest price production equivalent so that consumers can get the lowest price equivalent with their dollars. Stated differently, technological advancements will promote greater disemployment effects when wages and benefits are mandated to rise.

Back when I was an unskilled worker, which was in the '50s and early '60s, wages in comparison to the cost of things was much higher than it is now, but there weren't all the government handouts that we have today. It seems to me that the economy was a lot stronger as a result.

A lot of correlation versus causation issues with saying that the economy during that period of time was strong DUE TO (x) or (y). A couple of the biggest economic drivers during that period were anomalous. No way to recreate those conditions.
 
Last edited:
I feel bad for young people making that wage. When I was young, I took a minimum wage job to pay for my post secondary education. While it didn't pay the full cost, it covered a substantial amount and I paid per semester. Kids now a days probably can't afford books and other fees on minimum wage never mind tuition. The cost of everything has skyrocketed. Since we are talking statistics, 5% of individuals make over $100K while 20% of household income (more than one person) make that amount.
It would take $279,900 to have the same purchasing power in 2012 compared to $100,000 in 1980. Gulp.

Info from:
Read more: $100,000 Income: No Big Deal Anymore | Bankrate.com
Follow us: @Bankrate on Twitter | Bankrate on Facebook
No doubt. Guess who really gets squeezed today? The middle
 
Consumer preferences are still king. If they want the lowest price equivalent, they will get it, and it won't matter if you're subsidizing consumption via government expenditure or mandating wage raises with legislation because technology will give companies the lowest price production equivalent so that consumers can get the lowest price equivalent with their dollars. Stated differently, technological advancements will promote greater disemployment effects when wages and benefits are mandated to rise.



A lot of correlation versus causation issues with saying that the economy during that period of time was strong DUE TO (x) or (y). A couple of the biggest economic drivers during that period were anomalous. No way to recreate those conditions.

Yes, consumer preferences are still king, but it seems hardly fair for the government to subsidize one industry and create artificially low prices via tax subsidies.

I'm sure there are many reasons why the wage earner is making so much less today than in the past. Union membership is one thing that comes to mind. Outsourcing is another. The bottom line, though, is that people at the bottom rungs of the economic ladder, and increasingly those in the middle as well, are earning less and less.
 
The economy has shrunk and there are millions of people on the outside looking in......... Of course Obama wants to import millions more of illegal aliens so he can get them government dependent so they can vote democrat...

Also, all this insourcing is pissing me off...... Both corporations and the federal government are creating a situation where there are no jobs for US citizens. However, the pressure certainly comes from the government with their affirmative action bull****.....

Why did Bush II let in 4 million illegals between 2000-2008, and there were about 8 million that were here by 2000. So that's 12 million illegals here by 2008, and as of 2012, there were about.....12 million illegals. So a net change of roughly zero during the first 4 Obama years.

If you want to say Obama isn't doing enough at the border, that's fine, but at least recognize that this problem didn't start with him, and in fact the vast majority of the illegals taking all those American jobs were here before he took over the reigns at the border.
 
Yes, consumer preferences are still king, but it seems hardly fair for the government to subsidize one industry and create artificially low prices via tax subsidies.

I'm sure there are many reasons why the wage earner is making so much less today than in the past. Union membership is one thing that comes to mind. Outsourcing is another. The bottom line, though, is that people at the bottom rungs of the economic ladder, and increasingly those in the middle as well, are earning less and less.

Here's what I don't get. The right wing now accepts that illegals undermine U.S. wages, see my post nearby. And they want to shut the border down, kick out 12 million illegals, so the workforce drops, the supply curve moves, demand for labor stays constant, we get higher wages. All good.

So why is there such support for 'free trade' and the Walmart business model that demands outsourced production to get their low, low prices? I guess we need to draw a picture where instead of U.S. workers competing with 12 million illegals, they're now competing with a billion 'illegals ' from China, a billion 'illegals' from India, etc.

In other words, it makes no sense to me to support 'free trade' and offshoring production jobs, but somehow oppose effectively offshoring jobs held by illegals doing U.S. work that can't be actually moved to China or India or Vietnam. The actual free market types support offshoring AND open borders for labor, same way they support open borders for capital. I'll admit, I'm a protectionist and have no more problem limiting the free movement of capital as I do with enforcing our borders. If GE wants to make light bulbs in China, fine, just pay a tariff to get them back in here. But if I support GE being able to import light bulbs made with foreign labor at 40 cents per hour, why would I have a problem with a chicken slaughterhouse importing illegals and working them HERE at $5 an hour? It's the same thing accomplished different ways.
 
... and it won't matter if you're subsidizing consumption via government expenditure or mandating wage raises ...

You are the last person I thought I would see defending subsidies (for anything).
 
You are the last person I thought I would see defending subsidies (for anything).

It's not that I defend them per se, it's that what's potentially worse is a welfare state in which the government does not actually take any responsibility over it, rather sits back and places mandates on citizens to help one another out in a particular fashion.

Let's also keep clear that the array of individual welfare programs out there may have an indirect subsidizing effect on some employers, but it is not accurate to actually call them subsidies. Equating one thing to another in that regard makes it impossible to differentiate between individual welfare and corporate welfare.
 
It's not that I defend them per se, it's that what's potentially worse is a welfare state in which the government does not actually take any responsibility over it, rather sits back and places mandates on citizens to help one another out in a particular fashion.

Let's also keep clear that the array of individual welfare programs out there may have an indirect subsidizing effect on some employers, but it is not accurate to actually call them subsidies. Equating one thing to another in that regard makes it impossible to differentiate between individual welfare and corporate welfare.

I suppose that's true, but if a minimum wage employer doesn't offer health benefits, for example, then taxpayers pick up those costs. We know this happens, because we can see who is on Medicaid, and MANY of them have jobs with various low wage employers. Walmart is by far the biggest employer of those on Medicaid, but in my state the biggest as a group are apparently now 'staffing' companies that fill all kinds of low wage positions - warehousing, cleaning, etc.

So we could as society remove the safety nets and these people and their kids, when they got sick, would just get denied care and many would die. In short order, there would likely be protests, walkouts, etc. and employers in a 'free market' perhaps unable to fill those positions without some base level of benefits. Or they'd fund company clinics or find some other way to keep their workers from revolting. But it seems clear that those healthcare costs would be shifted back to employers somehow, at least in part. Mothers aren't going to work a job that if they do what's asked, still won't allow them to afford healthcare for a sick child or themselves if they get sick, not in the U.S.

That's how I look at Medicaid as a subsidy - it allows for low wage labor while keeping the peace in workplaces in many industries, and taxpayers pick up that cost. Not sure how else to accurately describe what the net effect of safety nets are to employers of low wage labor. We make that low wage job possible, in part at least, by assuring some basic level of subsistence no matter how low the wage or whether or not benefits come with that job.
 
Here's what I don't get. The right wing now accepts that illegals undermine U.S. wages, see my post nearby. And they want to shut the border down, kick out 12 million illegals, so the workforce drops, the supply curve moves, demand for labor stays constant, we get higher wages. All good.

Except that demand would decline, thus the need for labor would decline. Illegals are consumers also.

But I gave you a "like" because I get your point.
 
I suppose that's true, but if a minimum wage employer doesn't offer health benefits, for example, then taxpayers pick up those costs. We know this happens, because we can see who is on Medicaid, and MANY of them have jobs with various low wage employers. Walmart is by far the biggest employer of those on Medicaid, but in my state the biggest as a group are apparently now 'staffing' companies that fill all kinds of low wage positions - warehousing, cleaning, etc.

So we could as society remove the safety nets and these people and their kids, when they got sick, would just get denied care and many would die. In short order, there would likely be protests, walkouts, etc. and employers in a 'free market' perhaps unable to fill those positions without some base level of benefits. Or they'd fund company clinics or find some other way to keep their workers from revolting. But it seems clear that those healthcare costs would be shifted back to employers somehow, at least in part. Mothers aren't going to work a job that if they do what's asked, still won't allow them to afford healthcare for a sick child or themselves if they get sick, not in the U.S.

That's how I look at Medicaid as a subsidy - it allows for low wage labor while keeping the peace in workplaces in many industries, and taxpayers pick up that cost. Not sure how else to accurately describe what the net effect of safety nets are to employers of low wage labor. We make that low wage job possible, in part at least, by assuring some basic level of subsistence no matter how low the wage or whether or not benefits come with that job.

That's why I am against all forms of means tested benefits. I believe in the KISS method - keep it simple stupid. We make things overly complicated when we provide subsidies (to anyone), and that distorts the market in multiple ways.

Some people have been arguing against a higher minimum wage based upon the idea that companies would pass the cost along to the consumer. But when we have to provide means tested welfare to the employees of low wage employers, that cost get's passed along anyway - in the form of higher taxes or a higher budget deficit.

The simplest (and thus the most efficient) thing to do is to require employers to support their own workforce, eliminate means tested benefits, cut taxes, and if we have minimum wage driven inflation (which is debatable) then so be it. No low wage employer would have a competitive disadvantage over any others by increasing minimum wage because all would be required to do it. And the argument that we would offshore more min wage jobs is total bullcrap because we can't offshore the types of jobs that pay minimum wage (cashiers, burger flippers, and shelf stockers).
 
Except that demand would decline, thus the need for labor would decline. Illegals are consumers also.

But I gave you a "like" because I get your point.

Yes, but I'm not sure it's clear what the net effect would be. Let's assume there are 6 million workers out of the 12 million. The number doesn't matter, just making a point. Kicking 12 million consumers out would definitely reduce demand, and therefore the number working must go down. So we'd lose a bunch of jobs, no doubt. The question is whether we'd lose 3 million, or 10 million. And if we lost 8, say, as a first order effect, but wages increased not just for the generally low wage jobs performed by undocumented workers but removing them had the effect of lifting the entire wage scale for workers up through skilled labor, would we eventually get to equilibrium at a higher jobs level, or at higher wages for the other 100 million workers at similar jobs levels, etc. I've read enough papers involving modeling to know that relatively small changes in assumptions can probably get you whatever answer you want to get to. Or, at a minimum, that an honest prediction of the effect would be some large range of outcomes, depending.....

My guess is a legitimate economist could talk about elasticities (slopes of the curves) and other factors and conclude the effect would vary depending on a host of factors, etc.

But you're right, the main point was employers favor illegal labor the same reason they favor offshoring production to China and elsewhere, and it makes no sense to me to be rabid on the border, but OK with 'free trade.' Or for that matter, support free movement of capital, but not free movement of labor.
 
Oh. You would prefer our low-skill low-education workforce remain unemployed?


The issue is not how low wages can go but whether or not and how high people can climb.

Of course the lower wages are the further you have to climb. And we have billions of people trying to climb that ladder now too.

Things might sort themselves out in a couple more generations.

String it out long enough and Americans won't even remember what was meant by the American dream.
 
That's why I am against all forms of means tested benefits. I believe in the KISS method - keep it simple stupid. We make things overly complicated when we provide subsidies (to anyone), and that distorts the market in multiple ways.

But even if we raised the minimum wage to $20 an hour, there are still millions of unemployable Americans, at a minimum the mentally and physically disabled. And a very small number just are fine with subsistence and won't work. So I don't see the minimum wage as ELIMINATING the need for safety nets, just reducing them tremendously.

Heck, right wingers DO have a point about welfare, etc. It is hardly worth the effort to work if you can NOT work and get fed, your medical needs more or less taken care of, and a poverty level housing. If all working full time at min wage gets you is basically what someone on welfare gets for doing nothing, it IS a huge incentive to not work.

My problem with that is so many jobs pay no better than poverty level existence. We don't have to guess what happens when good jobs open up - they get flooded with applications for people desperate for a decent life. With more decent jobs, the trade off isn't "poverty and work" or "poverty on the dole" it's "work and make a living wage" or "guaranteed poverty on the dole." I just believe all but a tiny minority pick the option to work and provide a better life for themselves and their family if they have that option. Increasingly now they do not have that option.

Some people have been arguing against a higher minimum wage based upon the idea that companies would pass the cost along to the consumer. But when we have to provide means tested welfare to the employees of low wage employers, that cost get's passed along anyway - in the form of higher taxes or a higher budget deficit.

The simplest (and thus the most efficient) thing to do is to require employers to support their own workforce, eliminate means tested benefits, cut taxes, and if we have minimum wage driven inflation (which is debatable) then so be it. No low wage employer would have a competitive disadvantage over any others by increasing minimum wage because all would be required to do it. And the argument that we would offshore more min wage jobs is total bullcrap because we can't offshore the types of jobs that pay minimum wage (cashiers, burger flippers, and shelf stockers).[/QUOTE]
 
But even if we raised the minimum wage to $20 an hour, there are still millions of unemployable Americans, at a minimum the mentally and physically disabled.
I don't think that anyone has an issue with taking care of the handicapped. But such aid shouldn't be based upon means, it should be available for everyone.

And a very small number just are fine with subsistence and won't work. So I don't see the minimum wage as ELIMINATING the need for safety nets, just reducing them tremendously.

Heck, right wingers DO have a point about welfare, etc. It is hardly worth the effort to work if you can NOT work and get fed, your medical needs more or less taken care of, and a poverty level housing. If all working full time at min wage gets you is basically what someone on welfare gets for doing nothing, it IS a huge incentive to not work.

Sure, I agree. Thats part of my reasoning that if we eliminate means tested benefits, we also need to lower the lower income tax rates and increase minimum wage. If we can create a system where work pays well, and most of us can keep most of the money that we make from work, the the transition from welfare to work should be an easy one.
 
I suppose that's true, but if a minimum wage employer doesn't offer health benefits, for example, then taxpayers pick up those costs. We know this happens, because we can see who is on Medicaid, and MANY of them have jobs with various low wage employers. Walmart is by far the biggest employer of those on Medicaid, but in my state the biggest as a group are apparently now 'staffing' companies that fill all kinds of low wage positions - warehousing, cleaning, etc.

First of all, no realistic minimum wage raise currently being discussed would allow families to be able to afford health insurance, so all you've done is raise the price of low skill labor but not reduced much if any social program expenditures. Second, many minimum-wage workers are able to get insurance through some other means than by their employer. And frankly, minimum-wage positions do not even come close to being worth what the cost would be for health insurance on top of their current wages. It would virtually double the employer costs. Third, a great many minimum-wage jobs are not full time, especially now that working 30 or or more hours per week on average in a single job necessitates employer health insurance offerings. Minimum-wage jobs will by and large be part-time positions that are not eligible for health insurance. So they will remain covered by government programs.

Lastly, all of the wrath about employers not paying enough is directed at the few industries that still at least give these people jobs. What about all of the businesses and industries that have been able to completely eliminate this labor altogether? It is not really fair to say that the social programs that were instituted long ago are now suddenly only subsidies of low-wage employers. Why are they not considered subsidies for employers that have found ways to eliminate this low-wage labor altogether? Let's say retailers suddenly found a way to use robots to do all of their stocking, sales, and most other human tasks, and no longer hired minimum-wage workers at all. Those jobs were just eliminated entirely. Are the social programs that would still be in existence suddenly be no longer considered subsidies of retailers? Would they then only be subsidies to food-service and leisure and hospitality? Why are social welfare programs only considered subsidies to the businesses that actually hire people at low wages, but all the other businesses that don't even give any jobs to low skilled people immune from this criticism?

Instead of employers paying taxes that go to subsidize their low wage workforce, wouldn't it be better to pay better wages and forego the taxes and handouts in the first place?

You wouldn't forego those taxes. As I said above, low-wage labor will still not be able to afford these things that social programs are in place to provide to people universally.

So we could as society remove the safety nets and these people and their kids, when they got sick, would just get denied care and many would die. In short order, there would likely be protests, walkouts, etc. and employers in a 'free market' perhaps unable to fill those positions without some base level of benefits. Or they'd fund company clinics or find some other way to keep their workers from revolting. But it seems clear that those healthcare costs would be shifted back to employers somehow, at least in part. Mothers aren't going to work a job that if they do what's asked, still won't allow them to afford healthcare for a sick child or themselves if they get sick, not in the U.S.

You guys are not staying consistent with your own arguments. First you say that social welfare is a corporate subsidy, by indicating that people are ONLY willing to work for these low wages because welfare "subsidizes" them. But then if the hypothetical is presented that the subsidies were eliminated, suddenly the sky would come crashing down and there would be riots in the street. What about the fact that people would not take any of the low-wage jobs? If the subsidies as you call them were not in place, jobs would go unfilled until businesses offered more.
 
... First you say that social welfare is a corporate subsidy, by indicating that people are ONLY willing to work for these low wages because welfare "subsidizes" them. But then if the hypothetical is presented that the subsidies were eliminated, suddenly the sky would come crashing down and there would be riots in the street. What about the fact that people would not take any of the low-wage jobs? If the subsidies as you call them were not in place, jobs would go unfilled until businesses offered more.

EXACTLY!!!

Many low wage workers live somewhat comfortably on the combination of a low wage job plus various types of welfare. Get rid of the means tested welfare, and many of them would be motivated to do whatever it takes to find a higher paying job. At that point, low wage paying companies wouldn't be able to find enough decent workers at those low wages, and they would have to start competing harder for employees, most likely either with higher wages or with better benefits.

Those who wouldn't bother to do whatever it takes to find better paying jobs, well who the heck really cares about them? If they are happy living in poverty, then that's their choice. Why should I be burdened with paying for their government welfare?
 
EXACTLY!!!

Many low wage workers live somewhat comfortably on the combination of a low wage job plus various types of welfare. Get rid of the means tested welfare, and many of them would be motivated to do whatever it takes to find a higher paying job. At that point, low wage paying companies wouldn't be able to find enough decent workers at those low wages, and they would have to start competing harder for employees, most likely either with higher wages or with better benefits.

Those who wouldn't bother to do whatever it takes to find better paying jobs, well who the heck really cares about them? If they are happy living in poverty, then that's their choice. Why should I be burdened with paying for their government welfare?

It's not that I don't care about people just because they're unmotivated, I'm just saying there's an underlying contradiction in alleging people ONLY work for minimum wage because of welfare and thus welfare is a corporate (not social) expenditure. You can't flip the script all of a sudden when the hypothetical is presented that we simply withhold the "corporate" subsidy and then start bleating about individual welfare, because you just differentiated it as corporate welfare. Which is it? According to that very argument, those corporations would instantly feel the pinch from not being able to fill jobs, their work wouldn't get done, their sales would suffer, and the constant emergency mode operational status would come with its own high costs, and so forth. You kind of have to pick a position and stick to it, you can't play both sides, where you beg for government intervention in one breath but then bemoan it as a corporate subsidy in the next.

My position is remove the intervention (whether you want to call it social welfare or corporate welfare) altogether. I do not claim this would be painless or pleasant, as there would certainly be some drawbacks and discomfort, both micro- and macro-economically, but in the grand scheme of things I see these "drawbacks" as temporary economic and cultural adjustments to the actual reality of the world, whereas the corporate/government dependence that has been fostered over the last 30-50 years basically insulates us from that reality. "If I run out of money, someone owes me something." No, we've got to get past that attitude and find more innovative and independent ways of meeting our own needs.

This government intervention is fairly widely embraced as smoothing out price volatility, propping up indicators of economic growth, keeping people's basic needs met so that they don't politically mobilize and destabilize the system, and retaining the political support of rich and powerful people. Either you want government intervention (which is going to be an inextricable blend of individual and corporate welfare), or you don't want the intervention and trust that people are intelligent enough to figure out their own problems closer to home.
 
Last edited:
Of course the lower wages are the further you have to climb. And we have billions of people trying to climb that ladder now too.

Wrong. The lower wages are the less you have to jump. We all start out pretty low-skill and low-experience. Some of us have higher skill levels at high school graduation due to our upbringing, and some of us have more experience because our parents pushed us into jobs. But for those who don't, the problem becomes that people constantly move the bottom rung of lifes' ladder out of reach in the name of "helping" them. But that only helps people who can manage to hold on to the very bottom rungs of the ladder, and those who don't have to buy from people that employ them. Those who get tossed off the ladder and those who never get to grab on are the ones screwed over.

Meanwhile, given the freedom to climb, some individuals can climb very fast and very far indeed. We have a more meritocratic economy now than ever before, and increasing income inequality. Those two things are not unconnected.

String it out long enough and Americans won't even remember what was meant by the American dream.

That is killed Soft Despotism, not a lack of opportunity:

Alexis de Toqueville said:
...After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd....
 
Back
Top Bottom