"We let your employer exist, not the other way around."

I really like that little nugget.

To say "we let you exist" is to say "we could have destroyed you but chose not to".

To be said "we could have destroyed you" to, is to be oppressed.

So you really like this "nugget" that makes your subservience clear.

In the case of employers that aren't individual persons but which are legal entities established under forms provided for by law, "we let you exist" doesn't mean "we could have destroyed you but chose not to", but "we took active steps to cause you to exist in the first place".

Corporations, LLCs, etc., don't exist in nature. They are creations of government through law that funnel benefits, at public expense, to particular members of society, in exchange for the specified obligations.

Oh, gotcha. Well, barter exists in nature, and gold as well, so from what you're saying I gather that you would not be opposed to:

- instead of a Corporation or an LLC, I just be myself

- instead of an employee, I choose to barter some natural gold for some natural manual or intellectual labor from someone else

if I don't care to oblige to the labor laws du jour?

Because right now that's illegal. I agree with you, if you benefit from creation of government then you should pay in, awesome. We agree 100% (I'd still prefer to see an itemized bill, though). But why should I go to jail if I have an ongoing promise to give someone a shiny "worthless" rock (not created by government) so long as they keep laying bricks at my backyard the way I tell them to?

> so from what you're saying I gather that you would not be opposed to

I didn't say anything about what I was or was not opposed to in the post you are responding to, I simply enumerated certain facts regarding the existence of the kind of entities that make up a substantial number of "employers" and how their existence is dependent on active actions and costs born by the rest of society.

So, no, there is no valid inference from that as to what I would or would not oppose.

Did you not say that a substantial number of employers owe their existence to creations of government and for this reason are bound by government obligations?

For that to be a principled argument, would it not follow that if one does not owe their existence to the government, they aren't bound by those same obligations, since the reason as present above is now missing?

If not, then you're really just saying "we're all bound by government business obligations whether you choose to benefit from government created "funnels" or not". Yes, but don't make my case for me.

> Did you not say that a substantial number of employers owe their existence to creations of government

Yes.

> and for this reason are bound by government obligations?

No, at least, not in the sense you are using "government obligations" (generally applicable labor law, etc.) I said a substantial number of entities are creations of government on the principal of granting benefits to certain individuals associated with the entities in exchange for certain obligations attached to the particular form of organization.

I did not say that those were the reason (sole or otherwise) that those organizations are bound by generally applicable law. (There is, I think, an argument that, whether or not a law should be applicable to people in general, the fact that those entities are creatures of government and not natural persons may be relevant to whether or not the law should be applicable to them. But I certainly did not argue that things like labor law were applicable to them because, and much less only because, they are creatures of government.)

I'm was not, in fact, saying anything about why people are bound by generally-applicable government business obligations. I was making an observation related only to your upthread comment on the meaning of the phrase "we let you exist" in reference to employers.

Who is the employer? It is either an individual or a group of individuals who have bound themselves together in some legal manner. Should they not be able to choose who they employ? How they employ them? What wage rate they pay? Should you, as the employee, not be able to exercise your judgement and either accept their offering, seek out someone better, or offer your services as a free agent?

The minimum wage: Black youth unemployment was higher than white youth unemployment before the minimum wage was instituted above market rates in the late '50s (see Thomas Sowell on this; he's a local at Stanford). Upon the institution of a minimum wage, the black unemployment rate skyrocketed, and has remained much higher than the white youth unemployment rate. If you can't get that first job, you are more likely to be consigned to a life of poverty. If you can get that first job (at even a low wage rate), you can build skills and practice your work ethic, eventually landing a job with a higher wage.

Unemployment benefits: The more you subsidize a certain behavior, the more you get of that certain behavior. What incentive would you have to look for a job if you were getting free money to sit on your ass? Finding a job would certainly be a less-pressing issue.

Yes, I certainly do want civilization---one in which the government protects my rights and doesn't sanction the mob to steal what I've worked so hard for. Men should deal with other men in the context of voluntary transactions, trading value for value; they should not live at the expense of others.

> Why should employers be forced to pay a minimum wage?

Why indeed.