The Myth That Is Falling Real Wages

[apehead]

AJ, you got it on the money (yet again). I’ve literally typed pages of muck on this forum based around confusion and conflation of terms. Semantics and language are harsh mistresses…

[Old_Mexican]

Re: Jackson LaRose,

You know some might consider your faith in the rights of individuals as a rather big “hang-up”.

Really? Is it important? What do YOU think - That’s important. Do YOU think your rights are someone’s “hang up”?

[apehead]

@Old Mexican

Do YOU think your rights are someone’s “hang up”?

I don’t think I have rights, so yes. If you think I have rights, that is your “hang up”. Really, I don’t have much to do with it either way.

[Old_Mexican]

Jackson LaRose,

I don’t think I have rights, so yes.

You don’t think you have a right to your life? Would you not object then if I take it?

Are you accostumed to making these perfunctory contradictions?

[Old_Mexican]

Re: Jackson LaRose,

I’m not here to argue the validity of argumentation ethics, but I am more than willing to argue that you as an individual are too ignorant and unobservant (nothing personal, I believe we all are) to be capable of formulating universally applicable, and eternally valid, normative laws.

That’s a self-defeating argument, Jackson - it works the other way, too: You as an individual are too ignorant to arrive at ANY universally-applicable notion, like for instance: you may fall if you go off a cliff, or you may die if you drink poison.

To put it another way, the methodological approach of applying logic and reason to deduce laws may be valid (I have my doubts), but even if it were, humanity is incapable of attaining “perfect” knowledge, therefore is incapable of developing “perfect” reason, therefore is incapable of divining “perfect” laws of conduct.

We may all strive to perfection, but the notion that we cannot arrive at principles because as humans we’re fallible is a self-defeating argument, because YOUR argument could simply NOT be valid EVER - you’re fallible, right?

Let’s not beat around the bush - justifying the State is paramount for State-worshippers, so denying the validity of rights has to be paramount as well, even to the point of reaching as absurd a notion as saying “I have no rights”, which is a perfunctory contradiction (you CERTAINLY have the right to write that conclusion, as nobody stopped you from using your computer, typing in it, and thinking your words.)

[apehead]

@Old Mexican

You don’t think you have a right to your life? Would you not object then if I take it?

I would object.

This is were it usually begins to get ugly. I will explain that simply because I object, it does not imply that I am justified in objecting (or rather, it does not imply that it is a “good” thing to resist being murdered). Then you will say that my objection implies my assertion of said right (the right to life), then I will say that’s bullshit, and you will say it isn’t, yada, yada, so on and so forth. This is a conversational cul-de-sac, much like a Muslim and a Christian arguing over who is the one with the actual true doctrine. You have your faith, I have mine.

Let me guess, this will parlay to you attempting to explain how your belief in the absolute validity of your convictions is somehow not a statement of faith. Been there. Done that.

Hey, presto! Man, did I call it or what? Honestly, I hadn’t even read your next response before typing the preceeding passage.

That’s a self-defeating argument, Jackson - it works the other way, too: You as an individual are too ignorant to arrive at ANY universally-applicable notion, like for instance: you may fall if you go off a cliff, or you may die if you drink poison.

Yes, I am too ignorant to arrive at any law (aka universally appliciable notion). I completely agree with you. I don’t know what would happen if I jumped off a cliff, or drank poison. I’ve never done so. Honestly, I’ve been too afraid of falling or dying to try either. I take it as a matter of faith that either outcome would be assured if I followed through with either action.

We may all strive to perfection, but the notion that we cannot arrive at principles because as humans we’re fallible is a self-defeating argument, because YOUR argument could simply NOT be valid EVER - you’re fallible, right?

Ah, I knew you’d get it. Yes, my argument could be true or untrue, just as much as yours. This is probably why we are having this discussion, because neither of us know the “truth”. This is why there is disagreement between us. If either of our positions were absolutely irrefutable, this correspondence would probably have been a lot shorter.

Let’s not beat around the bush - justifying the State is paramount for State-worshippers, so denying the validity of rights has to be paramount as well, even to the point of reaching as absurd a notion as saying “I have no rights”, which is a perfunctory contradiction (you CERTAINLY have the right to write that conclusion, as nobody stopped you from using your computer, typing in it, and thinking your words.)

This is a big conceptual difference I have with most Hoppelites, which at this point seems almost completely irreconcilable. I cannot wrap my head around the fact that you seem more than willing to imply that action equates to justification (I use my computer, therefore I have a right to use my computer) when it suits your premise, but then turn around and state that some actions are unjustified, even though they have occured (I have murdered but I had no right to do so). Why is it naturally implicit that I have a right to use my computer? Because of your “logically deduced” golden rule? The monolithic edifice that argumentation ethics attempts to construct has already been shown to have cracks (many threads on this forum concerning Libertarian doctrine towards children, invalids, animals, aliens etc.). Not to mention the rather arbitrary presupposition that it is vital to remain logically consistent. To quote AJ,

“Does it (epistemologic error) hurt?”

Why is it neccessary to have a completely logically consistent philosophy?

Oh, and great job with the subtle ad hominem implying I am a statist because I do not believe rights exist, or have to exist for an anarchic society to be viable. Karl Rove would be proud.

[apehead]

Also, please don’t start a petty semantic squabble about the meaning of the word “right”. I went down that dark and stromy path once with the word “property” (shudder).

I’m guessing that somewhere in the halls of the LVMI form moderator Olympus, NirgrahamUK is shouting,

“Release the Angurse!!!”

The only guy I’ve ever been in contact with who likes to argue more than me. It must be something ingrained in the genetics of French-Canadians, a group of people who have been giving the finger to other groups of people for the last 400 or so years…

[Old_Mexican]

Re: Jackson LaRose,

I would object.

Why would you object? How would you object? You have no rights, remember?

This is were it usually begins to get ugly. I will explain that simply because I object, it does not imply that I am justified in objecting (or rather, it does not imply that it is a “good” thing to resist being murdered).

You’re not making any sense. If you resist, is because you don’t want to be killed. Why wouldn’t you? You said that you don’t have rights.

I cannot wrap my head around the fact that you seem more than willing to imply that action equates to justification (I use my computer, therefore I have a right to use my computer) when it suits your premise, but then turn around and state that some actions are unjustified, even though they have occured (I have murdered but I had no right to do so).

It doesn’t equate to justification, you’re making that one up. I deduced you had access and will and freedom to your computer and I don’t assume you were coerced to write what you wrote - unless you were, you can correct me in that case. I am NOT JUSTIFYING your actions based on the result. I told everybody above - I make no utilitarian judgments.

[Dondoolee]

I went down that dark and stromy path once with the word “property” (shudder).

Do you have a link to that “property” debate thread? I don’t recall that one

[apehead]

@Old Mexican

Why would you object?

I don’t want to die at this particular point in time.

How would you object?

I suppose it depends on the situation.

You have no rights, remember?

Nor does the potential murderer. See, I told you rights were unecessary and irrelevant.

You’re not making any sense.

Maybe. Or maybe you don’t (or can’t) understand the point I am trying to make. This is starting to get dangerously close to the “meaning of property” fiasco death spiral of a thread filc and I were locked in a while back.

If you resist, is because you don’t want to be killed.

Yes.

Why wouldn’t you?

Hmm. I’d say fear of the uncertainty involved in death.

You said that you don’t have rights.

I don’t understand how this follows. I think you are trying to say,

“If I don’t want to die, and I attempt to prevent myself form dying, I must be asserting my right to live”, which I disagree with.

It doesn’t equate to justification, you’re making that one up. I deduced you had access and will and freedom to your computer and I don’t assume you were coerced to write what you wrote - unless you were, you can correct me in that case. I am NOT JUSTIFYING your actions based on the result. I told everybody above - I make no utilitarian judgments.

How do access, will, and freedom equate to a right? A right is simply a justification for action appealing to some moral or ethical norm.

Oh man, I bet I’m going to end up regreting posting that last sentence…

[apehead]

@Dondoolee

Do you have a link to that “property” debate thread? I don’t recall that one

[LOL, SUPER MOD POWERS]

Believe me, you don’t want to! But if you insist:

It started here

and ended here

I hope you have about 8 hours to kill. It’s a lot of words with little substance.

[Dondoolee]

Ahh, yes now I recall. That is a bit too much to shift through, thanks for the links though.

[apehead]

[LOL, SUPER MOD POWERS]

Aw, c’mon, man. That’s what his old name actually meant!

[Dondoolee]

Who’s old name ?

P.S. have you heard of this new hero in town called supermod? I wonder who he could be?

[Old_Mexican]

Re: Jackson LaRose,

I don’t want to die at this particular point in time.

And? Again,you have no rights - you said so yourself. What makes you think you have a right to object to your murder?

Nor does the potential murderer.

Certainly. Do you think he knows that?

I don’t understand how this follows.

You don’t because you don’t want to. If you don’t have rights, you would then not have freedom to decide if your life is to be spared or not, no matter how unappealing the idea of dying. If you say you do have the freedom to decide, then you would be contradticting yourself.

“If I don’t want to die, and I attempt to prevent myself form dying, I must be asserting my right to live”, which I disagree with.

Which means you would be committing a perfunctory contradiction. Of COURSE you are asserting your right to life - I am not talking to a barnacle, am I?

How do access, will, and freedom equate to a right?

It’s not a simple justification to action, Jackson - you may say that you have a right to someone else’s wife and then take action. Would you be right, or would then say that the wife has no right to object, like you did above?

A right is the freedom to act UNCOERCED and NON AGGRESSIVELY (i.e. acting in a MORAL way). That’s it. It is NOT an A Posteriori justification for acts, like YOU said.

[MJGreen]

I think you need to head over to the “What is a right?” thread, Mexican, because you have a very broad and confusing definition of the term.

[apehead]

@Old Mexican

What makes you think you have a right to object to your murder?

I don’t think I have the right to object to my murder. In fact, I don’t think rights even exist! I thought we already agreed that we don’t need the “right” to act in order to act. For example, in your moral ideology, murderers don’t have the right to murder. Yet murders still occur. Do you understand?

If you don’t have rights, you would then not have freedom to decide if your life is to be spared or not, no matter how unappealing the idea of dying. If you say you do have the freedom to decide, then you would be contradticting yourself.

I disagree with this notion. Observe:

ahem,

“I, Jackson LaRose, being of sound mind and body, do willingly renounce my right to life.”

Well, I’m still here. There is a difference between having something and having the right to something. Much like the difference between possession and property (I’m just asking for it now).

Which means you would be committing a perfunctory contradiction.

Why?

Of COURSE you are asserting your right to life - I am not talking to a barnacle, am I?

I disagree. Mmm, barnacle…

It’s not a simple justification to action, Jackson - you may say that you have a right to someone else’s wife and then take action. Would you be right, or would then say that the wife has no right to object, like you did above?

Don’t ask me, I think right and wrong are made up.

A right is the freedom to act UNCOERCED and NON AGGRESSIVELY (i.e. acting in a MORAL way). That’s it. It is NOT an A Posteriori justification for acts, like YOU said.

Cripes, I knew it. Semantics again. I’ll spare you the trouble and just let you know is that the best we can do at this point is agree to disagree about the definition of the term. If you still want to discuss, I would take Michael J Green’s advice and head over to the What is a Right? thread. Clayton and AJ can elucidate far better than I.

[Old_Mexican]

I think you need to head over to the “What is a right?” thread, Mexican, because you have a very broad and confusing definition of the term.

You’re jesting, right?

[MarLen]

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/2007/B47.xls

REAL WAGES 1964-2004 Average Weekly Earnings (in 1982 constant dollars) For all private nonfarm workers
Year	Real	Percent Change for year
1964	$302.52
1965	310.46	2.62%
1966	312.83	0.76%
1967	311.30	-0.49%
1968	315.37	1.31%
1969	316.93	0.49%
1970	312.94	-1.26%
1971	318.05	1.63%
1972	331.59	4.26%
1973	331.39	-0.06%
1974	314.94	-4.96%
1975	305.16	-3.11%
1976	309.61	1.46%
1977	310.99	0.45%
1978	310.41	-0.19%
1979	298.87	-3.72%
1980	281.27	-5.89%
1981	277.35	-1.39%
1982	272.74	-1.66%
1983	277.50	1.75%
1984	279.22	0.62%
1985	276.23	-1.07%
1986	276.11	-0.04%
1987	272.88	-1.17%
1988	270.32	-0.94%
1989	267.27	-1.13%
1990	262.43	-1.81%
1991	258.34	-1.56%
1992	257.95	-0.15%
1993	258.12	0.07%
1994	259.97	0.72%
1995	258.43	-0.59%
1996	259.58	0.44%
1997	265.22	2.17%
1998	271.87	2.51%
1999	274.64	1.02%
2000	275.62	0.36%
2001	275.38	-0.09%
2002	278.91	1.28%
2003	279.94	0.37%
2004	277.57	-0.84%

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

[apehead]

Marlen,

Thanks for getting the thread back on its rails. Sorry everyone.