The OC Blog Back Issues Our Mission Contact Us Masthead
Sudsy Wants You to Join the Oregon Commentator
 

We’re all going to be millionaires…

The Socialist French presidential candidate recently presented her 100-point platform for French death…er I mean prosperity. Among her economic policies is her pledge to raise the minimum wage to 1,500 Euros a month, or $1,950 a month, which is $12.18/hr. The current minimum wage is $10.75/hr, which might help explain the French 10.5% unemployment rate. The US rate is currently 4.6%. Unfortunately, most liberals believe they can legislate themselves whatever they want, including our own socialist government, the ASUO. If raising the minimum wage is such a good way to help the poor, why not make the US min. wage $12.18/hr? But why stop there! If we lobbies government to make it $520.83/hr, everyone could then make one million dollars a year!

While there has been many, many, studies and papers that prove raising the minimum wage only hurts the poorest of the poor by transferring their wages to other workers, this doesn’t stop governments from ‘taking action.’ When the wage is increased, young workers and women are disproportionately affected too. We can look to the French as a gauge where this country will be economically after more socialist legislate in passed in the future. Good thing I took that Youth Riot Control class…

  1. Slade says:

    Every time you say that, just remember that you DO support everything that Bush does because YOU support our current system. Americans who don

  2. Slade says:

    I’m sorry man, but you’re just wrong. The American Revolution was all about representation, and about how the “virtual representation” practiced by the British was crap. Taxation just happened to be the issue that brought the matter to a head. The declaration of independence lists various grievances, with a common theme: lack of representation for the colonists within their government system.

    As far as the ASUO goes, the argument is indeed about paying for unused services: you said it yourself, what are the other 15,000 students getting for the football ticket money? The answer is that the fee budget subsidizes all sorts of programs, the idea being that everyone has an equal chance to be involved in something.

    Also, the ASUO was an opt-in organization (a non-profit corporation, actually) for a number of years before the legislature delegated the ability to control the incidental fee to students. That was quite a while ago, granted, but students did choose to opt in and take part.

    Fee budgets used to appear on the ballot all the time; Southworth says we can’t do that anymore, though. And it wasn’t as though direct election stopped fee funding from increasing anyway.

  3. Andy says:

    Representation is part of it, but it was more about taxation and regulation – see navigation act and stamp act.

    Actually the 16th amendment was never ratified. And I highly doubt many people thought it was a good thing, considering all the people south of the mason-dixon had no say about it. It was passed by a government which there was only one party during a time when journalists were imprisoned for disagreement with Lincoln. The income tax is probably the weakest justified tax ever.

    The right to self-governance comes from our inalienable right to self ownership.

    When money is taken from someone and they have no choice to not give it, that means that they would have spent the money on something else. It’s nice that you think the incidental fee is so great, but what about those who don’t? Even if I was the supreme leader of the incidental fee, I would not want to be involved with it because you’re taking people’s money who don’t want it to be taken. It’s not exactly theft, but it’s a catch-22 to come to this University. And who is “we” coming together? Our money is forced to come together, but I sure as hell don’t want my money to be there.

    The ASUO is a scam: it wouldn’t work with a voluntary opt-out system.

    It’s not about every student using everything – it’s about the ASUO not letting students have a choice if they want to be involved in the corrupt, childish, and ineffective leach that is student government. The contention isn’t about paying for unused services, its the fact that the ASUO could never provide all those services to everyone in the first place, yet they lie and present it as different. Look at football tickets – we all paid for a ticket right? Well then why are there only 5k of them? That’s because the other 15k students have to pay for those 5k.

    If the ASUO is go great, then wouldn’t students voluntarily want to be involved with it and voluntarily give their money?

    The ASUO is running at 0% efficiency – how could something that wouldn’t exist if students had a choice be called efficient?

    As I stated earlier, the only alternative which is morally right and fair is voluntary governments. Let students have a choice – put every increase of the I-Fee on the ballot, and if you don’t get plurality, well how bout just majority, then it can’t be raised.

    In terms of our national democracy, how are the 50 million Americans who voted for Kerry represented? They aren’t. 50 million Americans are completely scilenced by our system and you think that’s just fine. Every time you say that, just remember that you DO support everything that Bush does because YOU support our current system. Americans who don’t vote aren’t responsible though, because they didn’t participate in the election. They are the ones without blood on their hands. You think that just because those 50 million had the chance to vote, they are represented??

  4. Doomscheissah says:

    Actually, my point was that the RICO statues, in prosecuting criminal racketeering, would trump Southworth vs. Board. Which means that OSPIRG is particularly liable for their money laundering/racketeering operations, involving public funds from a public university.

    They aren’t covered, really. They can be prosecuted. It’s just a matter of someone having the balls to actually use it against OSPIRG.

  5. Slade says:

    So why did they set up their own country if they only wanted representation? Read this…

    Man, think about what you’re saying. Suspending legislatures, setting up show trials, abolishing laws… all those things are about representation. The colonists were being excluded from decisions about the mechanisms that governed them, and that’s what they were objecting to. And incidentally, there was sizeable political faction during the revolution that advocated staying loyal to England if they made concessions to the colonies. It turned out England wasn’t willing to do that, of course, so revolution became the only option.

    You are a perfect example of the institutional brainwashing mandatory public education uses – you cannot possibly fathom critiques on the current system, much less consider a better alternative. If you think having an open mind is a Good Thing, then consider all subjects open and don

  6. Niedermeyer says:

    I knew King George was somehow to blame for all this.

  7. Andy says:

    Slade,

    So why did they set up their own country if they only wanted representation? Read this:

    For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

    For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

    For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

    For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

    For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

    For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

    For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

    For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

    For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

    He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

    He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

    They are talking about the king of England. There are many other grievances listed – it wasn’t a revolt about representation. It was a revolt so that the rights of persons and property would be protected. There is nothing about taxes in the Bill of Rights because its not a natural right to have to pay taxes. Excessive taxation, like what was going on back then as well as today, is a violation of property rights, no matter if everyone gets to vote or not. If 300 million people voted to execute you Slade, would that make it right if you committed no crime? What if they voted to just take away all your worldly possessions? What if tomorrow slavery was reinstituted and all the states ratified the amendment legally? Would you be happy with that? You’d say, that’s fine, there’s no better system and you’d just put your head into the sand huh?

    Slade, there are true rights that we are born with, and no matter what form of government violates them, it is still wrong.

    You’re completely wrong about the group discounts too, because the ASUO could still organize a voluntary group that could pool money together and negotiate prices with LTD, and those who don’t ride the bus would get to keep their money instead of paying to reduce the price of others rides. The rec center could offer memberships – or will you concede that you really do need to steal students’ money to have these organizations exist?

    You are a perfect example of the institutional brainwashing mandatory public education uses – you cannot possibly fathom critiques on the current system, much less consider a better alternative. If you think having an open mind is a Good Thing, then consider all subjects open and don’t close yourself to ideas before you even understand them.

  8. Timothy says:

    And yet, you

  9. Slade says:

    it goes all the way back to the first years of student fee funding and the founding of the magazine. It

  10. Timothy says:

    The purpose of an election is to give the population the opportunity to express their aggregate preferences. Assuming there are no barriers to access in the voting process, elections results are by definition the preferences of the aggregate populace.

    You’re begging the question, Slade. An election is an attempt at discerning the aggregate preference ordering. Given the limitations of voting, you may or may not actually get a result that shows you the true preference ordering. In fact, depending on the system you use, it is entirely possible to get results that barely resemble what people might like to see (strategic voting is one problem, spoiler candidates are another).

    When there are more than two choices, you can’t get a lot of the nice properties of a preference ordering you might like: non-dictatorship, universal domain, monotonicity, independence of irrelevant alternatives, non-imposition (citizen sovereignty) and transitivity through voting at the same time. So then you’ve got to consider how important you think those things are and which ones you’re willing to give up in your voting system. Plurality voting fails IIA, transitivity, and monotonicity if I remember correctly: compared to basically any other system it totally sucks*.

    I also don’t think proportional representation really solves the problem, it’s better probably than the winner-take-all system, but it doesn’t address the voting system issue. You’re still picking X slate or Y slate or Z slate. You might do PR with some sort of Borda voting, but Borda voting fails IIA pretty badly and can be gamed by strategic voters (making it fail monotonicity). I’ve recently become a fan of Approval Voting as it isn’t really susceptible to strategic voting and it’s really simple to understand. It’s better than plurality voting, and it’s just as easy to grok, so I think it’d be a substantial improvement. I’m actually a big fan of Condorcet-style systems, but many of them don’t always give you a winner and the implementation of Condorcet systems that always give you a winner can be very, very complicated. Simple is good. Anyway, the point is that defining the outcome of a vote as the aggregate preference ordering begs the question. It totally ignores the issues with voting methodology and is not only naive, but also dangerous in that it gives a false sense of confidence in electoral outcomes and encourages people to fetishize “democracy” rather than looking long and hard at what that means or how it can be better.

    I won

  11. Doomscheissah says:

    They shouldn’t get the money when it goes off campus. Period. Their money goes off campus, and it doesn’t directly benefit the campus as a whole.

    Besides, Federal RICO statutes trump Southworth v. Board of Regents.

  12. Slade says:

    The legitimacy of an election is determined by how well the result matches the preferences of the population in aggregate.

    The purpose of an election is to give the population the opportunity to express their aggregate preferences. Assuming there are no barriers to access in the voting process, elections results are by definition the preferences of the aggregate populace. If some people forget, or opt out (like Mr. Dolberg, as I recall), that is a preference as well, and they have the right to express it.

    Now, proportional representation… there’s something I could get behind, nationally speaking (and hell, why not in the ASUO.)

    I won’t defend the decisions made by one year’s PFC, but your point re: the OC and the ODE really doesn’t hold water. The PFC did something incorrect, a check and a balance worked the way they should, and the problem was corrected within the ASUO budgetary system. As far as OSPIRG goes, just because you don’t like the way they use student funds doesn’t mean they shouldn’t get them (and I’m no big fan of OSPIRG.)

    Eliminating the incidental fee isn’t the answer. I understand that there are a lot of clubs that have pidly little budgets and stipends that you folks, ideologically, aren’t fans of. That’s fine. But the fee pays for any number of services that can’t be replaced with revenue or private donor money; if the fee was eliminated, those funding decisions would be made by the legislature or university administration. I thought you guys were fans of smaller, localized decision-making bodies.

  13. Niedermeyer says:

    I’m gonna agree with Tim on this one… student control over the I-Fee is not an Objectively Good Thing. The factor that hasn’t been brought up might be called “democracy fatigue,” and I believe that it is the primary factor at play. The ASUO is complex, even by the standards of institutions with similar budgets, and it deals with (or should, anyway) an extraordinarily broad range of issues. I think the low voter turnout and general disinterest is based on the fact that educating yourself about the issues takes some effort, and that school responsibilities and other interests leave little time for the average student to learn about the ins and outs of the Incidental Fee and other ASUO political dynamics. The depth of this problem is evident in the relatively low level of education and interest on the part of many of the elected and appointed officials of the ASUO, Senator Gulley being the poster boy here.

    At this point, I can’t honestly say that if the ASUO was entirely chosen by lottery that we wouldn’t be better off. Seriously. I even think that if the Incidental Fee were administered by an unelected body of professionals we would probably have more accountability, and certainly we would have less incompetence. As much as I believe in democracy, I also believe that each new level of government delivers diminishing returns of representation to citizens, for the simple fact that nobody wants to pay attention to another set of ego-driven pissants who must be constantly monitored to prevent poor governance and outright corruption.

    And Slade, the solution is not for me to subject students to my poorly articulated, angry opinions and hope they vote for me… because I know they don’t care anyway. The solution is to graduate, and move onto exposing less petty forms of incompetence and corruption. Believe me, I can’t wait.

  14. Timothy says:

    The point I was trying to make is that the legitimacy of elections isn

  15. Slade says:

    I’m going to go ahead and just respond by subject.

    The point I was trying to make is that the legitimacy of elections isn’t determined by the number of people who vote; it’s determined by whether or not everyone has the opportunity to vote.

    I wouldn’t say that ASUO elections aren’t well publicized, either. I seem to recall you folks bitching every year about how hard it is to avoid talking to campaign volunteers during election time. Certainly the election’s all over the Emerald every year.

    Decisions about funding for fee programs have to be made somehow; if the ASUO wasn’t making them, University administration or some other body would be. It is an objectively Good Thing that students have direct control over how at least some small part of their money is spent.

    It’s interesting that the Revolution/Declaration of independence comes up. Because, that war wasn’t about taxation per se, or about giving every colonial American the right to make “choices which respect everyone’s individual rights.” It was about giving Americans the right to take part in their own governance. “No taxation without representation” isn’t the same as “No taxation that I personally do not like.”

    Yes, governing by the popular will creates problems. Alwyas has, always will. But there’s no system that creates fewer problems, or does a better job of solving them. Yes, every American is responsible in some small way for Bush, Abu Ghraib, and all the rest of it. Whatever evils done by Bush are done in our name, too, using authority and power we delegated.

    I’m not saying anything new or controversial here; this is the same theory of government that’s been endorsed (explicitly or implicitly) by every American politician in history, from the Founding Fathers on down.

    The solution to all those things you don’t like, Nieders, is to get about winning office and changing things. And if not enough people will support you to get into office, maybe your policies aren’t such good ideas, after all.

  16. Niedermeyer says:

    Comparing the ASUO with State and Federal government probably won’t lead to ringing endorsements of either. What I fail to understand is why the majority of kids at this school can rattle off the myriad failings of George W Bush at the drop of a hat, yet the few who know anything about the ASUO, typically recycle pablum and stale conventional wisdom. Does anyone here pay anything worth mentioning in federal taxes? Does anyone here have any chance at making any real change in the federal government? The answer to both is not bloody likely.

    Don’t like secretive executives who only promote insiders, and keep notes on the “helpfulness” of elected legislators? Don’t like having to pay more and more in taxes while the government racks up surpluses which they then hand out like candy? Don’t like a lapdog mainstream media which refuses to ask hard questions of leaders? Don’t like the soft corruption of stipends, special interests and special requests? Pissed that our fees keep going up yet all our elected officials can do is whine about how the situation cannot be controlled? I sure am.

    My point is this: worry about the federal government, the “crimes of the Bush dynasty”, and all the other horseshit later. You’ve got corruption and incompetence right here in River City, and guess what? You can actually do something about it. And guess what else? If you don’t do something about it here, and help make government work on this tiny and insignificant level, your efforts on the state and federal level won’t amount to more than a small pile of turds.

  17. Andy says:

    Slade,
    What about those examples I gave about popular will? Those were all democratically brought about, so you must think banning gay marriage is just fine because it’s the best system we have?
    There is a better system: adherence to the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. Do you know what those documents say? Most people don’t. Do you happen to know about America before the income tax? A confederation of states, without the constitution or even the articles of confederation, for eight years fought a war against the biggest super power on earth and won their freedom. There was no income tax, and the total tax rate which they rebelled against imposed by the British was about 10% Our tax rate is about 45%.

    When it comes to democracy, median voter theory sheds a lot of light on it’s faults. But also, the more people that participate, the less power over decision making you have. I believe in a system where more people is better and everyone is better off. I believe in a true system of diversity where every individual makes choices which respect everyones individual rights.

    If you want to believe in the system we have now, and accept its lies about being so great, then you must also accept the failures and atrocities which come with that system. You are responsible for Bush being elected and we only have you to thank for the past two wars then. But do you really believe that? Are you responsible for the Iraq war and are those who didn’t vote not responsible? Since everyone is the government here, why doesn’t every citizen go on trial for Abu Grabe? Aren’t we the controllers of the military?
    Do you think that everyone who votes contrary to your beliefs is stupid? Do you think to yourself that things would be a lot better if everyone could only realize they need to vote for the “D” instead of the “R?” This is the sort of non-intelligent political control we are under Slade, and it’s not right.

  18. Timothy says:

    Tim, I could point you to the voter turnout in state and federal elections, and to the ludicrously high incumbency retention rate among our political leaders, but it doesn

  19. Ian says:

    The federal government’s existence is necessary, the ASUO’s is not: We need national defense, a federal court system, and foreign policy apparatus, amongst other things. We do not need a mechanism for people unable or unwilling to hold a real job to pad their resumes and eat free pizza while in college.

    The great irony of the ASUO is that nearly every successive election brings a new group of Senators and Executives promising to fight for lower tuition costs. Instead, they raise the real cost of tuition by increasing the incidental fee, thus hurting the groups they claim to work the hardest to help: low income students, working students, and students with children. Sure, student groups get to invite a kickass band to campus, hold pizza parties regularly, and otherwise frivolously waste other people’s money. But as usual the people who need the most relief are getting kicked in the groin.

  20. Slade says:

    Tim, I could point you to the voter turnout in state and federal elections, and to the ludicrously high incumbency retention rate among our political leaders, but it doesn’t mean those elections are not legitimate. Everyone’s got the chance to vote and create change.

    And Andy, I know we’re going to come down to fundamental disagreement over philosophy of government, but I’m happy to have an argument about defining terms if you are.

    You don’t get to withold your money from the federal government if you don’t like what it’s doing. The entirety of the mechanisms through which all civilized people in history have governed themselves break down if you start doing that. It’s the old Churchill quote: democracy’s a terrible system, but all the alternatives are worse.

  21. Niedermeyer says:

    Slade- Andy doesn’t lose these arguments… ever.

  22. Andy says:

    Slade,
    Since the ASUO is so voluntary, why can’t I exclude my money from it? I would be happy never to use all the benefits of the ASUO for my $200/term.

    You talk about popular will Slade, and I seem to recall the popular will of the United States has been to enslave/kill/segregate blacks, invade many different countries, and most recently in Oregon, to ban homosexuals from marrying. We can do better than the popular will – we can do the right thing. The only way that can happy is with voluntary government.

    I know of several governments with 100% approval ratings. The governments (I have a choice about) I don’t like 100% I leave. If Verizon doesn’t satisfy my needs, I simply take my business elsewhere. If you don’t like the government of Oregoncommentator.com, just leave. This is government as it should be: servants to the individuals it serves.

  23. Timothy says:

    Anybody who thinks an ASUO election is “legitimate” is clearly delusional. 12% turn out, positions won almost exclusively by kids who work in Suite 4 already, it’s a total farce.

    I mean, at least the ASUO only ever cost me $2400, but it’s still a horrible, ridiculous joke. And unlike certain other ex-OC editors, I never had the wherewithal to at least seduce a few of the chicks down there…that’s my own fault, but for $600 a year you’d think I’d have gotten at least one bj out of the deal.

  24. Slade says:

    The ASUO’s just as voluntary as any other government. Just because you don’t like the outcome of an election doesn’t mean it isn’t valid as an expression of popular will.

    I know of no government with a 100% approval rating, and I know of no government that collects no taxes. So every government seems to meet your definition of socialist government.

  25. Timothy says:

    Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony. And/Or minimal excuse for an election.

  26. Andy says:

    Socialist Government: A government which allocates property without consent of property owners.

    Government: a contract which defines or implies consequences for certain behavior.

    This is from a purely economic viewpoint because socialism is primarily an economic issue. So I don’t think that most government in this world are socialist; most governments are voluntary. Like my contract with Verizon says that I get these services if I pay this amount but if I want to quit the contract, then I have to pay a penalty, which governs my behavior.

    We can only hope that socialism can be killed – for the longer it lingers the more people will suffer.

  27. Slade says:

    Don’t you think pretty much all government is a socialistic enterprise anyway?

  28. Andy says:

    Slade,

    Just because you ‘really’ don’t think something is true doesn’t make it false.

  29. Niedermeyer says:

    yes, incompetence is an ideology unto itself.

  30. Slade says:

    I really don’t think the ASUO is a socialist government.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.