Debate: Should the minimum wage be abolished?
Side: No.

There is a difference between surviving and being in a survival situation, currently we don't need to be in one so you would just be setting everything back.It wouldn't set back anything. The only difference would be the economy that would differ from the current one, and that also requires changes in other aspects.You eliminate trade, please explain how that would not ruin the economy. You put a massive government in power and force people to work towards their goals, that wouldn't speed up human progress.As I have said, money is not needed for an economy. There'd be no ruining anything, there would only be change from one to another.Who said anything about forcing people to work? I definitely did not. If you think people would be forced than currently they are also forced because if you don't work you don't get money and you die from inability to buy sustenance. So yes, you are forced to work even presently.Human progress... I've explained that already, not only with the science example.Money is a medium for trading, trading what? Resources!Money is a medium for trading. I'm assuming by resources you mean anything and everything.Thus if there was no money there were likely no resources to begin with, research usually isn't funded for a reason.To have resources you do not need money. To create money you first need resources. Seriously! You are basically saying that before money was made up there were no resources, but since you need resources to make money then how can it currently exist? There were no resources to create it from! Get it?There is a demand for something and it gets delivered, no exchange of money is necessary.And do you think there wouldn't be people evaluating research, whether that something were worth the effort? I doubt it would be much of an issue anyway. As I said, if people and resources were available they'd get them.Utopia is a perfect world, obviously that is impossible, but your views on how the world should work are very similar to a utopian, there would be the same amount of issues if not more, except instead of it being in the private sector they would be in the state. Your not solving a problem, your just creating new ones and moving the old one.They might be similar to utopia because that's what it would be like - similar. There would be less issues, I've already explained that a bit. There would be a private sector. You think if someone gets a good idea that people would benefit from the state would simply claim it?It would solve many problems, I've explained this also.How can you be so narrow-minded? I have overestimated you.And what is so bad amount money, all it does is simplify trade so to be against money is to be against trade.That's naive. Trade is not necessary in the first place, as I've also explained. It causes a lot of problems that wouldn't exist, or would be far less severe, if there was no money.Your way isn't better, you just cant see past the whole "oh no, someone is wealthier than me... greedy bastard! I deserve some of that!" phase.That's prejudice right there. Indoctrination? I'd say yes.My way is better, as I've explained but you clearly lack the capacity to realize it.Its not out of fear of loosing money, its out of the common sense that destroying trade and having a large government run everything is a terrible path,It's not out of common sense, it's from how you have been raised and taught, it's prejudice. Indoctrination pops to mind again...Who said anything about a large government running anything? There would be a large government. Would it run everything? No. You are so clearly biased.again you bring up imagination, I can imagine your little fantasy unlike you though I can also see what it would be like outside of my head and in the real world.If you try imagining it do you include all the necessary aspects? The answer is no, or you lack imaginative power. Oh, and leave prejudice out of it, it will mess it all up.If I imagine something like this I also think how it would work in the real world. It would work. I've explained...No, it is in reference to trade, you eliminating the main medium for trade and proposing we do almost no trading would destroy the economy.I'll leave money aside. Economy means the management and use of resources and products. No trade.How exactly would it destroy economy, if resources, products, and all else are managed?We are currently not on the brink of extinction, stop acting like were on the verge of death.The brink of extinction and survival are different things. Survival itself does not necessarily include an impending extinctive event. And you didn't say you meant the brink of extinction. It would be far more beneficial to currently have moneyless society in case an extinctive event were to come. People would already be used to the fact that money is worthless. They would be used to working because it is required, not because they get paid for it.Or let's take an extinctive event, like a massive solar storm that will scorch the surface of Earth, killing everything. Now, there is a scientific project that could prevent it somehow. Would you rather wait for the massive amount of money (and the money might never come, as you might be aware there's so much fuss over moving it, especially large amounts, and where to get it in the first place), or would you just get on with it and save the planet? And if the money arrives it could be so much that it would cause an economic crisis. Or would the money after be just given back to wherever it came from? To "fix" things? Might as well have no money at all and things would constantly be working, without any money-related setbacks.Someone making more than they need isn't called greed, its one form of being successful, most people forget to take into account that whoever is selling and employing is also taking a very large risk and its not exactly easy running a business.It is called greed, otherwise they'd higher wages or lower prices of products. Successful because you earn far more than you need - distorted understanding. In that sense success is literally worthless, and even negative, as I've said hoarding things you'll never use is pointless.Do you not understand? Ok, there is no currency, everything is run by government, can you not see how much room for corruption there is?You're the one not understanding. There would be far less corruption. I've explained this also. It's like you ignore almost everything I say. Currently, corrupted people use money to get people supporting them, if there were no money they could only use their own mind. There would be less corrupted people in power positions.Its applies to everyone, every human is greedy on some level, whether you like it or not ALL people have a desire for wealth or power. Of course your not greedy, its always the other guy right?I think you don't know what greed means... I'm not greedy, if I want something then there is a practical reason for it.Money promotes greed. No money, far less greed.Who are you decide how the money that they made is to be used?Excessive money, right? Because I see how flawed it all is?Keeping your profits, regardless if someone wants a share of it or not isn't greed.It is greed if you have far more than you need and are unwilling to use it.Its wouldn't be about profits, it would be about much power and resources can you get your hands on.And the point for that would be? Just hoarding things you'll never use? That's stupid.And most work is to get more money how is that messed up?Say, for some reason something happens to money, or the whole money-based economy. People are used to working for money. Would they still work if they didn't get paid for it? I doubt they would. Or they couldn't afford to buy the basics any longer. There are always people, there are always factories and jobs, there's always the necessary workforce to keep people well and fed, to keep things moving and working. Money, it can and is being abused and the result can be devastating. There's no need for money. If there were no money something like this could never happen. Things would always be moving onward, setbacks, if any, would be very few.You work, then you get a medium for trade so you can get what you want, not just what the state has available.Biased again...You work and you get for free anything you need. The state would have available anything you need (assuming it's not something special or custom that needs to be manufactured on special order). You do know that people differ and so there must be many varieties of things?Because once you eliminate money personal goals, wants and desires will go away?No, but money could not be used to get them. Money is an easy way for getting anything, if you have enough of it. No money, all you can use is yourself.You do not understand human nature at allYet I have corrected you about human nature.get off your college campus and go into the real worldNot in college. But I was in university once (chemistry). I know what the real world is like, it's messed up.its time you get out of this state of mind that people are wonderful creatures that can be trusted by "the evil money" has corrupted us and that you understand how human nature really works.I tend to treat people as equals, unless they make clear they are, well, not.The rest, money promotes corruption. No money, no promotion from that source.How human nature really works? Human nature is simply the characteristics that humans have....No you don't, if you did, you would see how flawed your ideology is.You got it wrong. If you did, if you included all the necessary aspects and you left your prejudice behind the door you would see that it could and would work.Eh, quite long already. I really must like writing.