Resolved: A just government ought to require employers to pay a living wage

Dimming this down to the U.S government, such government would be just (to the magnitude of what would be considered just) in enacting a federal living wage in that the overwhelming majority (73%) of the U.S public favors raising the minimum wage to that of a "living" one. Even your own base (at 53%) dissagrees with you. So answer me this, why is it that you hate democracy? Why is it that you'd rather see a final decision go against what the American people want and, rather, towards your own interests, or rather, cooperate interests? To rebut your first conention, I'll begin with the basis of what you're arguing for, rather than what you're arguing against. "Let's take a step toward Russia" is the single most ironic thing I've read thus far. Your argument for communism with this quote to be had is laughable. Russia is no longer communist. The Soviet Union collapse of 1991 was based in a wave of revolt and the dissatisfaction of the people, and Russia had begun thriving off capitalism since. More to the "point", I'll begin with point A of your first contention, or, as I like to call it "The contradictory". It's strange that you'd open this point by describing the working class as robots dependant on their employer overlords then emediately turn to the individual motivations, thoughts, and non-homogeneous consciousness of said working class. I don't even need to rebut this, you've rebutted yourself, and successfully, might I add. And on to your point about how such a system can lead to protest. Protest does not equel anarchy. people, in a free society, have the right to protest all they like. Right now, what the opposition (as has been emmediately described) is the favor towards something you're adimently against. Something that is entirely reasonable when regulating a free market, that will lead to greater ecinomic prosperity, and will assure better living conditions among the people. It is far better to have outcry and to meet the needs of the masses than to supress all people (other than those found worthy by themselves). On to point B. Dissatiscfaction and revolt are two seperate things. Dissatisfaction can, in fact, lead to revolt, however, as it did with communism. We have not seen this to that extent with capitalism. We have seen protest, but not violence. The idea that creating a living wage would cause a violent uproar is absolutely rediculous. The protests that you are so afraid of are calling to have this living wage. That in mind, you can apease the needs of the people while not opressing them. If you set up a system based in the idea that human beings do not need competition, and the people ask for more, they are unable to get more. The system itself will not allow it, and, as we've seen with russia, they will revolt. In this instance, even with simular oppression, we do not see revolt. Why is that? Because the system allows for peaceful means to resolution. The system allows for regulation when needed, and, in the event of government discourse, the people are not dependant on the government and can find seperate means for regulation. for instance, the campeign finanse reform resolutions. While, with otu a free market, there would not be the same form of corruption calling for such resolutions, if such government found itself with seperate means to opress the people, as has been seen time and time before with a communist government, there would be no peaceful resolution as there would be no outside source to be bottled. When the people are entirely reliant on a government, and that government is not supporting the people, those people are left with no choice but revolt. This is not speculation, this has been seen in history. To adress your second contention, I do agree with you that a just government would assure adiquit living condisions with a wellfare plan and a social safety net. [...] Oh, wait. Of course poverty is somethign to be avoided. All reasonable people would agree. So, in the instance that a government impliments a communist system then later becomes corrupt, where are the people to go? you have assured momentary stability, but have ignored the long term. You have put the lives of many into the hands of the everchanging few, and human beings are innately insensitive when faced with benifit. If this were not true, we would have natturally formed a communist society. capitalism would not be viewed as bad but would naturally show the good in all people because all people would be good and equely share anyway. All you would have done is given every ounce of power to the government, a government just as capable of becoming corrupt. The only thing you have assured is that the people will not have a peacefull resolution in this instance. Instead a capitalist government can assure subsidies for the unnemplpoyed to fall back on in troubled times while not creating dependency on a single entity who may become corrupt. To your final contention, small businesses disagree with you, so do econimists. Increasing the minimum wage would boost the economy by $22 billion and create 85,000 jobs. The main fear in what you have described is that small businesses could not afford to pay their workers a living wage, but 85% already do. So why would it be just? Because it assures a nations prosperity economicaly and humanely. Because the majority of the people who had elected this government to reprisent them call for it. And because not only will small businesses not be hurt by this, they they want it as well. So I ask you again, why do you hate democracy? Why would you argue in favor of shoving down the peoples throats what would be a totalitarian policy, when it is perfectly apperant that we do not want what you're selling? http://www.people-press.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://csis.org... http://www.epi.org... http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://www.whitehouse.gov...