• 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!

Is minimum wage a lot?

Assuming a 40 hour work week, is minimum wage a lot?


  • Total voters
    42
  • Poll closed .
Define "fair."

Define "equal."

Define "rich."

In this context, it would probably be:
fair; that a person gets either punitively or beneficially, what he deserves based on his actions, intentions, efforts, etc.
equal; there is less difference between social classes in terms of wealth and how they are treated by the law and society in general.
richer; possess more money, or have a better standard of living.
 
You can't control that. Take the best soccer player in the world and require he be paid no more than 5 figures per year. Big deal. He won't care. Because how do you forbid companies across the globe from giving the guy money in return for agreeing to wear or endorse their products? You can't control this without creating an totalitarian one-world government.

We have quite efficiently forbidden murder and other acts deemed criminal on the grounds that we consider them wrong. One day public consciousness will hopefully developed to the point that we can criminalize any immoral behavior without having to resort to totalitarianism.
Though, when the Norwegian labor party decided to out-conservative the conservative party, I started wondering if we can ever achieve a socialist state democratically.
 
We have quite efficiently forbidden murder and other acts deemed criminal on the grounds that we consider them wrong. One day public consciousness will hopefully developed to the point that we can criminalize any immoral behavior without having to resort to totalitarianism.
Though, when the Norwegian labor party decided to out-conservative the conservative party, I started wondering if we can ever achieve a socialist state democratically.
People are too selfish for socialism to really work outside small groups or carefully selected individuals, IMO.

Hell, democracy seems to break down after a time, for the same reasons.

Of course, authoritarianism and totalitarianism die faster, for the same reasons.



OR something like that.............
 
We have quite efficiently forbidden murder and other acts deemed criminal on the grounds that we consider them wrong. One day public consciousness will hopefully developed to the point that we can criminalize any immoral behavior without having to resort to totalitarianism.

So you're lofting up the hope that "public consciousness" will cause endorsements to be criminalized but that that's somehow not totalitarian...

...your views are rooted in idealistic fantasy about human psychology. All it requires is for humans to magically... not be human anymore. Let's not hold our breath.
 
So you're lofting up the hope that "public consciousness" will cause endorsements to be criminalized but that that's somehow not totalitarian...

...your views are rooted in idealistic fantasy about human psychology. All it requires is for humans to magically... not be human anymore. Let's not hold our breath.

How is changing public opinion totalitarian? I am beginning to think that you willfully diminish the meaning of totalitarianism, as you throw the term around inappropriately. If I were to stand in a pubic square, propagating what I consider to be just, I am not being totalitarian even if I manage to convince them, they simply chose to listen. If they then make laws according to what they now consider to be right, would you consider that wrong?

We have managed to improve several aspects of our society since our ancestors organized themselves in tribes and I find it ignorant to assume that we have already reached the zenith or true potential of human civilization. We should always strive to improve our lives and our society.
 
People are too selfish for socialism to really work outside small groups or carefully selected individuals, IMO.

Hell, democracy seems to break down after a time, for the same reasons.

Of course, authoritarianism and totalitarianism die faster, for the same reasons.



OR something like that.............

What makes you so sure that egoism trumps altruism?
Democracy is not breaking down overall, some are. I would hardly describe some of them as real democracies, as the United States for example, has a two party, gerrymandered, corrupt, first-past-the-post election system that in practice becomes a plutocracy rather than a proportional representative democracy.
Though I do not support either autocracy or totalitarianism, I would argue that both the Soviet Union and third German empire fell due to various degrees of outside pressure. Nazi Germany was dismantled in a war and the Soviet Union was "forced" to participate in an arms race while their economy was stagnating, oil prices fell and the war in Afghanistan had become utterly hopeless as the socialist government there never had popular support.
 
Back
Top Bottom