Sunday, January 24, 2010

The supreme court should stop government injustice, not tell people who can work and who must take welfare

If the court could not revisit earlier rulings, [chief justice of the US supreme court] Roberts said, "segregation would be legal, minimum wage laws would be unconstitutional and the government could wiretap ordinary criminal suspects without first obtaining warrants."

One thing about this quote I would like to point out is that both segregation and wiretaps are products of the government, so the court is ruling how government should act. So if you think segregation and wiretaps are bad then you can blame the government for implementing them into law in the first place. The fact that the supreme court has repealed these laws to some extent is nothing to celebrate. It is good when the supreme court stops government injustice, but the fact is the government should not create such injustice to begin with.

In the case of the minimum wage it is the court dictating how private parties should act and the minimum wage is not fair or just. It is basically saying that if you cannot prove yourself to have a productive market value of more than some arbitrary dollar value assigned by the government then you do not deserve to work. Most of us have no problem creating value of more than $7 an hour or whatever minimum wage is these days, but what about the disabled or the young, or the mentally slow? Should we outlaw the ability for the less gifted to be productive just because the amount of productive value they have is less than what the government would allow a person to work for? If you advocate for the minimum wage you are advocating to outlaw employing the hard cases forcing them into welfare and disability. In a freer world these people should be able to earn what they have the ability to earn, whether a high wage or a low wage it should be a contract between the employee and the employer.

H/T to Kramer at LRC

No comments: