Wages

$15 Minimum-Wage Movement Highlights Difference Between Progressives and Radicals

Power to the individual, not to the state!

|

The All-Nite Images/Flickr

How can you tell an American progressive from an American radical? A progressive laments the condition of working people and proposes to further empower the government. A radical laments the condition of working people and proposes to empower individuals by diminishing the power of government.

Of course government power and individual power differ in kind: government power is the legal authority to compel peaceable people through threats of violence. Individual power is the freedom to cooperate with others, say, through exchange in the marketplace.

The movement to raise the minimum wage to $15 shows the difference between progressives and radicals. Despite good intentions, calling on government to set a minimum wage merely affirms the power of politicians, bureaucrats, and the ruling elite generally while leaving low-skilled people dependent on their legendary benevolence.

In contrast, the radical understands that if low wages are a persistent intergenerational phenomenon, the problem is likely institutional and can't be solved by hiking the minimum wage. Common sense ought to tell us that. Wages are the prices employers pay for labor services. We usually understand that if the price of a product or service goes up, people demand a smaller quantity (other things equal). We even recognize this in the public-policy arena. When the anti-tobacco folks want to discourage people from smoking, they demand higher taxes on tobacco. [Not that this is good public policy.]

Why do people forget the Law of Demand when low-skilled labor services are under discussion? Doesn't it stand to reason that if the government mandates a higher price (wage) for low-skilled labor, buyers (employers) will demand smaller quantities of it (hire fewer workers)? Why would this particular law of human action be different in just this one area? That makes no sense. It at least requires an explanation.

Opponents of the minimum wage often challenge its advocates by arguing that if $15 an hour is good, wouldn't $150 an hour be better? This argument is intended to demonstrate that raising the minimum wage would cause low-skilled workers to lose their jobs or not be hired at all because they cannot produce $150 worth of product in an hour. [If they did, they wouldn't be called low-skilled.] But this argument doesn't address more sophisticated minimum-wage advocates, who would readily concede that a $150 minimum wage would harm working people, and not just those with low skills. These advocates simply want to nudge the minimum up from $7.25 to $15 because something unjustifiably keeps the wage from rising. What harm could that do?

Unfortunately, they never explain what keeps the wage at $7.25 if the appropriate wage—how do they know this?—is $15. Even though the U.S. economy can't be described as a free market (more below), fast-food franchisees seem competitive enough among themselves (and against other employers) to push the wage up. Why haven't they done so? I see no sign that McDonald's and Burger King franchisees conspire to keep the wage low. And if they do, why wouldn't Wendy's swoop in and cut its worker-turnover costs by moving its wage toward $15? Someone needs to explain that.

Instead, economist Arindrajit Dube lamely argues that if the minimum wage were raised, McDonald's employees wouldn't take other jobs, leaving those other jobs for the unemployed. But if the wage does not rise and McDonald's employees do take better jobs, couldn't the unemployed take their old jobs? This guy's got a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago!

Apparently $7.25 is the market rate for much low-skilled labor. But the market is not free. By that I mean the U.S. economy is riddled with deep institutional barriers to advancement for many people, beginning with the government's own schools, which for low-income people are notoriously bad; they handicap kids for life. Then there are the myriad barriers to self-employment and neighborhood enterprises: occupational licensing; land-use rules like zoning; regulations and taxes, which increase the cost of starting and running a business; intellectual property, which threatens imitators with lawsuits; and more.

To raise wages for low-skilled people we must eliminate these barriers, forcing bosses to face tougher competition for workers. Power to the individual, not to the state!

This piece originally appeared at Sheldon Richman's "Free Association" blog.

NEXT: The Tyranny of Obama's Wars by Drones

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Wow a Sheldon Richman column that didn’t make me want to hurl. I even read it all the way to the end!

    1. Grrr richman richmanadam lanza grr

      1. Been said once on here, but we do it again:

        The first minimum-wage laws were advocated by progressive economists on the assumption that if you forced employers to pay a “white man’s wage,” they’d only hire white men. As the sociologist E.A. Ross put it in the context of Chinese immigrant workers, in the early 1900s, “the Coolie cannot outdo the American, but he can underlive him.” The Davis-Bacon Act, still cherished by Democrats and their labor-union patrons, was passed in 1931 to prevent blacks and immigrants from competing with all-white unions for federal contracts during the Depression. And Jim Crow laws certainly locked millions of blacks out of the middle class.

        1. It was also a eugenics measure: disemploy the disabled and feeble-minded, and force white women to stay at home and have babies.

    2. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8012 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here… http://www.work-cash.com

  2. If I’ve said it once… http://mightstainyourshirt.com…..y-million/

    1. I see no difference between Ronald McDonald and Adam Lanza.

  3. “government power is the legal authority to compel peaceable people through threats of violence”

    Point this out to every “peaceful” leftist you meet, every time. They’ll deny it, every time.

    1. Government is just what we call the things we decide to do together!

      1. Government is The Will of the People, and it gets its right to rule from Representation.

        To question it is to question the Divine Right of the King, and God from whence it came.

        1. Well, unless The People &tm; make the wrong choice, such as in passing bans on gay marriage. Then the people are just the unwashed idiot hick masses that need to be told what the fuck to do by their betters.

          1. Er, that was supposed to be “The People ? “.

        2. So you agree that a “representative” government may kill jews , etc ? To question this wisdom would be a bad choice, according to you.

          1. My point was that claiming The Will of the People comes from Representation is no different than claiming The Divine Right of the King comes from God.

            Only the costumes have changed.

        3. Just “whence”. “From whence” is redundant.
          /pedant

          1. M of Bs, thank you. I never realized that. ( no sarcasm )

      2. Government is just the guns we point at each other

      3. Government is just the guns we point at each other

        1. Ho! A Joe Biden souble barrel special!

      4. If you disagree with the decision we made together, then you just need to grow up and get with the real world.

    2. They won’t even try to disprove it. They’ll just say they have no idea what you’re talking about. The cognitive dissonance is strong with the left.

    3. Remember to point out that the state is also a coercive monopoly and that you thought political liberals were opposed to monopolies …. never mind coercive ones

  4. I know, I know it’s Richman, but this was pretty good.

  5. A radical laments the condition of working people and proposes to empower individuals by diminishing the power of government.

    That’s not right. Most self identified “radicals” want even more power to be given to the government.

    1. That’s because government is The People. If you want to give more power to The People, then the way you do it is by giving power to the government. This way the government, The People, can control the evil rich people and corporations that hold The People down by providing goods, services, and jobs to voluntary takers.

    2. Because, this time, they’ll totally get it right…

  6. Of course government power and individual power differ in kind: government power is the legal authority to compel peaceable people through threats of violence. Individual power is the freedom to cooperate with others, say, through exchange in the marketplace.

    That’s not right either. As an International Jew I have been buying up property all over the country and I can use violence to compel people to stay the hell of my property.

    1. Will you FOAD already American? You’re worse than Shriek and Tony.

  7. $15/hour is only $31,200 a year. That’s not going to get you anywhere in a city like New York or San Francisco.

    1. That’s why it’s just a stepping stone to a $25/hour minimum wage, and then $50/hour, and then pretty soon we’ll all be rich!

      And we’ll all be named Beverly!

      1. $25/hour is about right, because that’s $52,000 a year, which is pretty close to the median income, and honestly, everybody should make at least the median income.

        1. Now this guy has the right idea.

        2. That won’t help do away with the advantages 1%ers have. It should be $100 an hour.

        3. everybody should make at least the median income

          My head just exploded.

          1. Awesome line. Either Weapons Grad Stupid or brilliant satire.

            1. I visited Weaponsgrad in 1987. Of course, Estonia was still a Soviet republic then – I don’t know what they’re calling it these days.

          2. *Weapons Grade* Seriously, I can’t spell worth a dhit.

        4. yup. There’s really no reason that the kid bagging my groceries shouldn’t make as much as my brother did when he started working at an engineering firm after graduating with his Electrical Engineering degree. Fair’s fair.

        5. “[…]everybody should make at least the median income.[…]”

          Now, THAT is funny!
          I’m glad all the kids are above average…

    2. It’ll get a lot of people unemployed in those places.

      1. Welcome the rise of the burger flipping robot overlords!

    3. That’s not going to get you anywhere in a city like New York or San Francisco.

      Hamburger flippers should have the right to live anywhere they want – one of those nice townhouses along Fifth Avenue, say. It’s only fair.

      1. Well, if libertarians hadn’t neutered the rent control laws, then everybody could afford to live in a 5th Ave Townhouse. Instead, the “free market” forces everybody into tiny little studio apartments that they can’t even afford.

        1. You’re on a roll!

    4. “Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen pounds nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds nought and six, result misery.”

  8. Why do people forget the Law of Demand when low-skilled labor services are under discussion? Doesn’t it stand to reason that if the government mandates a higher price (wage) for low-skilled labor, buyers (employers) will demand smaller quantities of it (hire fewer workers)? Why would this particular law of human action be different in just this one area? That makes no sense. It at least requires an explanation.

    Most advocates for higher minimum wages recognize this, but they also recognize that a higher wage is a higher wage, which benefits the workers. Remember that CBO study that found that raising the minimum wage would eliminate 500,000 jobs? It also found that 31,500,000 workers would receive more money. The trade-off is still positive.

    1. How gracious of them to make that decision for the ones who will lose their jobs, that their sacrifice is necessary.

      1. Raising the minimum wage is pretty popular with the working class.

        1. I say again: how popular is it with the people who lose their jobs because of it, and who the fuck is anybody else to make that decision for them?

          1. No that’s the beauty of it. No one will no for sure why they lost their jobs, but lots of people will know that they got a raise due to the higher minimum wage.

            1. Hence the evil of such a policy.

        2. I bet you it is until they lose their jobs. And once it becomes more economical for robots to do the burger flipping, it will be super popular.

          1. Seen vs. unseen.

            Besides, people don’t really lose their job due to minimum wage hikes; they fail to be hired for the next job.

            1. Actually, I saw this happen to some friends back when during a round of minimum wage hikes a very long time ago. Of the 8 of us working that minimum wage job (my first and only one ever) 3 were let go. The 3 that lost their job were removed because they were the ones producing the least, so at least that wasn’t totally fubar, but the boss was very clear that he had no room to pay the extra money because his income had not gone up and would not go up, even by government fiat.

              1. I didn’t mean to imply that it never happens, just that it’s not the typical result. Employees leave jobs all the time for a plethora of reasons, increases in the min wage tend to make that more difficult for all involved (which is a point against it as far as I’m concerned).

        3. pretty popular with the working class

          The unionized working class, you mean. They are perfectly happy with selling each other out for personal gain – i.e. the exact opposite of what they say.

          1. No.

              1. You know what they say about extraordinary claims?

                1. You being an asshole is a perfectly ordinary claim.

    2. Yeah. CBO is wrong.

    3. The left aggregates their statistics until they get the outcome their looking for, then they post hoc explain how it’s just taking from the rich so that the poor get a bigger piece of the pie, even if it’s not true. They do it on nearly ever issue. Gun control, health care, minimum wage, tax policy, inequality. They don’t care to look into the data beyond the face value aggregate statistics if those statistics can be used to help them further their agenda.

      1. The CBO study was that it was frequently cited by conservatives and libertarians as an argument against an increase in the minimum wage.

        1. Why don’t you go back to shitting on Disqus threads, Merkin, or should I say Hominid?

    4. You realize you are just shifting thing to the right right? Prices will go up.

      Say what you said is true. Why stop at 15?

  9. Stupid libertarians don’t understand that laws are magic.

    The higher the minimum wage is, the more responsible and skilled the workers who make it are.

    This means that raising the minimum wage must have conferred responsibility and job skills to the workers!

    It’s magic!

    1. I typically hear an argument that people “deserve” a certain level of living just by virtue of the fact that they exist, and it doesn’t matter if what they do is determined to be worth that amount by the market or not. That’s why the market is evil; it tells a rather large number of people that they in fact are not entitled to the basic amount of stuff that progs have determined all human beings are entitled to, by virtue of being alive.

      Just like the Baltimore shit. There were plenty of articles decrying how those who opposed the rioting were valuing mere property over black lives. “Oh they don’t give a damn when black people are murdered by the cops, but they give a shit about inanimate objects! These people are monsters!”

      1. I typically hear an argument that people “deserve” a certain level of living just by virtue of the fact that they exist, and it doesn’t matter if what they do is determined to be worth that amount by the market or not.

        Communism 101 for the retarded.

        The guy that spends 40 hrs a week polishing turds – because he isn’t qualified to do any other job regardless of his education – should be paid the same as anyone else, including medical professionals, engineers, or any other such skilled worker that spend a ton of time on education and require skills and mental acumen far above that of the usual uneducated and unprepared moron that make up the masses.

        Then again, these days, with so many worthless specialized BA degreed idiots, most of them with several tens of thousands of dollars in student loan debt and a giant chip on their SJW shoulders, not being qualified to do anything but ask others if they would like fires with that or want it super-sized, I can understand the appeal of that higher minimum wage.

        The real solution, of course, is unpalatable and unacceptable to the SJW crowd that feels compelled to force their vision of what justice looks like on the universe. Reality be damned. These people can’t be paroidied: they are that stupid.

      2. I typically hear an argument that people “deserve” a certain level of living just by virtue of the fact that they exist, and it doesn’t matter if what they do is determined to be worth that amount by the market or not.

        I mow lawns…one blade of grass at a time…with scissors. I’m owed a living wage, by god. I work hard, when I can find someone to hire me.

        My buddy, he moves rocks from one pile to another. He’s got the same problem I do. It’s the greedy KORPERAYSHUNS keeping us down.

        1. I mow lawns…one blade of grass at a time…with scissors pinking shears.

        2. You’re telling me, pal – I have a Ph.D in African-American LGBTQ Studies, yet I haven’t had a single job offer! I worked so hard! I should be making six figures a year! It’s the KKKorporations’ fault… Down with the free market!!

      3. I dont think proggs even care about people and what they are entitled too cause they exist. Proggs support all these goodies as it is easier to control others….if i am dependent on you than you can control me. It is just a non voluntary version of whoever has the gold makes the rules.

      4. I dont think proggs even care about people and what they are entitled too cause they exist. Proggs support all these goodies as it is easier to control others….if i am dependent on you than you can control me. It is just a non voluntary version of whoever has the gold makes the rules.

  10. Imagine a “minimum price” for gasoline at 4.50$ a gallon. Would this benefit the gas industry? Of course. A few people would skim on gasoline, but most wouldn’t have any choice but to pay the higher price and the gas companies would make a whole lot more money. Of course a minimum price of gasoline at 150.00$ a gallon would bankrupt the gas companies because no one could pay it. With labor and capital it’s a similar dynamic. I’m an international Jew and for the companies we control we need the low skilled workers. We pay a Mexican a shit wage to sweep the floor at the bank, if the minimum wage goes up we can’t just fire him. The floor wouldn’t get sweeped!

    1. I bet running the industrial equivalent of a roomba pays for itself pretty quickly at $15/hr.

      1. The floor wouldn’t get sweeped

        You should consider writing in Hebrew instead

    2. The gasoline industry’s response following the period when gas actually was over $4.00 per gallon when oil was at similar per bbl prices to today was to slash their margins so the pump price was once again somewhat reasonable. There’s a lesson in there somewhere.

    3. If that were true, the gas industry would already be charging $4.50/gallon. You don’t make as much if the market doesn’t clear and prices are constantly searching for the clearing price. As for the mexican shit wage argument. The mexican worker is the one driving that wage down, not the company. He competes with better educated, probably higher skilled workers by underbidding them. Competition drives prices down. The only real control that the company has is the maximum they are willing to pay someone for their service, and that’s established by marginal utility.

      1. The gas industry doesn’t charge 4.50 a gallon because of competition, goyim.

        1. A better analogy would be, how would ARCO stay in business if the govt. mandated that all gas prices be $4.50/gal? Now ARCO, which used to compete with lower prices, can’t compete and goes out of business. The gasoline industry as a whole might make more money for a short while, but then you better believe auto manufacturers would be releasing fuel efficient and other tech. alternatives asap.
          Obvious troll and all, but goddam, let’s connect the fucking dots.

    4. All gasoline is identical, but not all labor is identical. We don’t have gas that cost $20k per year, and gas that costs 1mil per year. It’s a nonsense analogy.

      If you demand everyone pay the same for labor they don’t magically become identical products like gas. Burger flippers can’t become doctors and we all pay the same because we have no choice. People that have inferior skills will lose their jobs. It would be like if you had some sub-par fuel and then demanded everyone pay the same price as supreme. Everyone will just buy the supreme.

      1. I’m not advocating communism.

        1. No, you just advocating a communist idea that is proven garbage in the real world and in theory. You admit it will fuck people over, but fuck those people. I guess people shouldn’t be allowed to decide for themselves what they do, and did what compensation. We need to defer to you to tell us what’s appropriate.

          1. Yes, I am an international Jew, we are the people chosen by God to destroy your race and rule over the rest. None of this I deny. However, your economic ideas are simply wrong. Us leftist Jews have been called communists for generations now when, we’re used to it.

            1. You are a tiresome little shitstain.

          2. Looks like ‘Merican was booted. My comment wasn’t aimed at you, Mr. Anderson.

  11. Unfortunately, they never explain what keeps the wage at $7.25 if the appropriate wage?how do they know this??is $15. Even though the U.S. economy can’t be described as a free market (more below), fast-food franchisees seem competitive enough among themselves (and against other employers) to push the wage up. Why haven’t they done so? I see no sign that McDonald’s and Burger King franchisees conspire to keep the wage low. And if they do, why wouldn’t Wendy’s swoop in and cut its worker-turnover costs by moving its wage toward $15? Someone needs to explain that.

    Well if you have an ideology that says the appropriate wage is exactly what the market is willing to pay, then that will be the appropriate wage. But advocated for an increased minimum wage say 15$ is about right due to “living wage” arguments. Wendy’s doesn’t pay it’s workers 15$ an hour because that would mean giving away money for no reason.

    1. Wendy’s doesn’t pay it’s workers 15$ an hour because

      People will do the job for less. Not surprising you don’t understand what a market is

      1. I’m an International Jew, I think I know more about how markets work than you do.

        1. Fuck off, ‘Merican.

    2. Well if you have an ideology that says the appropriate wage is exactly what the market is willing to pay, then that will be the appropriate wage.

      I didn’t know econ 101 was an ideology. Supply and demand is an ideology like gravity is an ideology.

      1. It’s the inability to see a difference between “is” and “ought to be,” when it comes to the “free market.”

        1. Who decides “ought to be.” Obviously I can’t decide for myself. So we need some sort of committee or authority to override agreements between two people. Like the national “We decide things for you fucking serfs association.” I’m so excited for this brave new world where I can eagerly await the commitee’s decision on what I get for my labor. What could possibly go wrong by having a group of powerful people controlling economic decisions about the lives of the serfs.

          1. In the Soviet Union we were called commissars.

  12. fast-food franchisees seem competitive enough among themselves (and against other employers) to push the wage up. Why haven’t they done so?

    I’m guessing the work isn’t even worth the current minimum.

    1. McDonalds restaurants in my area have been paying above minimum wage for years, even when unemployment was over 10%. Oddly enough their restaurants also tended to be cleaner, and the food marginally better (at least more consistent). I’m guessing they used higher wages to attract better more productive employees.

  13. ALL laws are backed by the THREAT of physical force . That is one reason people obey !!

    You have to ask yourself whether higher wages are worth threatening your fellow citizen with physical force. Many political “liberals” apparently do.

    So much for freedom of economic association – a subset of freedom of association.

  14. “A radical laments the condition of working people and proposes to empower individuals by diminishing the power of government”

    Bullshit. the people that call themselves “Radicals” these days are just progs on steriods.

    1. I think he is using “radical” for the libertarian position in an ironic way. It is seen as radical (at least to the MSM and progs) to allow people to cooperate and associate with who they will. The less radical position, in this hypothetical, is the side calling for the use of force to set a wage level.

      1. I don’t misunderstand the piece and need it explained to me. I simply object to the way the term “radical” is used. I think the MSM and progs would also reject the basic premise, given that their own understanding of the term presumes that a proper “radical” would reject wage theory entirely, and demand that McDonalds be burned to the ground and replaced with collective farms.

        i also don’t think many people on the libertarian side see being described as ‘radical’ as any kind of complement.

        i tend to find it intellectually insulting when ‘classical liberalism’ is characterized as some kind of fringe theory when it traces its origins back to enlightenment philosophy which provided the basis for the entire american experiment.

        its Progs that are the new kids in town, and its their social-engineering-by-Government approach to politics which has seen repeated failure throughout the 20th century, and yet continues to pretend that their same-old-solutions still have merit.

        1. “its their social-engineering-by-Government approach to politics which has seen repeated failure throughout the 20th century, and yet continues to pretend that their same-old-solutions still have merit.”

          It will be different this time! See, the wreckers and kulaks ruined it all those other times… But if we get the right people in charge, it will be utopia!!

        2. De Oppresso Liber is right. Proposing any solution to a social problem which doesn’t involve government is by radical today’s standards. Let’s be honest, very few people are familiar with classical liberalism.

  15. The proponents of the minimum wage want to appear to be helping the poor, but they don’t want to look the American public in the eye and ask for more tax money. A minimum wage hike gives them the opportunity to grandstand (“we gave America a raise!”) and any drawbacks will not be noticed by the average person. Any bad effects can easily be blamed on greedy business owners.

    It’s the same thing with the PPACA. That was an easy sell for much of the public, because there was no perceptible cost to them. It appeared that every cost would be passed off on “rich people” and “big corporations”, so they were fine with it.

    It’s the same story with both of these laws and many others: most people don’t make the connection between imposing extra costs on businesses and seeing higher prices on all kinds of consumer goods. Plus, there are the unseen effects (a business NOT started, an expansion NOT carried out, a job NOT created) because they are exactly that – unseen.

  16. Why do people forget the Law of Demand when low-skilled labor services are under discussion?

    Why do people forget the Law of Supply when low-skilled immigration is under discussion?

    1. Most of us simply don’t care about those White hillbillies who are so stupid they have to compete economically with immigrants. Dey Turk Ur Jerbs! No Mexican could ever take my job.

    2. Do people have a right to a minimum wage?

      1. I would say no. That’s a positive right, the problematic kind.

      2. “Do people have a right to a minimum wage?”

        Sure. They should go get themselves some if they want it.
        Minimum should be zero, or as much as a worker is willing to pay. It ain’t fair when government prevents underbidding. Experience is valuable.

  17. Microeconomics (such as the laws of supply and demand) tends to be slighted by professional economists, who prefer to work up great theories to explain everything. (I once compared economic theoreticians to “The Six Blind Men and the Elephant”, since each seeks to explain all results on the basis of a single factor.) Note, by the way, that mass immigration at a time of relative employment stagnation also plays a major role in keeping worker pay low. (Increase supply without increasing demand tends to do that.) Meanwhile, in Seattle restaurants are already closing their doors — but progressives don’t care because they hate businesses (and have no intention of being aware that getting rid of businesses also means getting rid of employers and thus employment).

  18. “Despite good intentions”

    This is why the Progressive Theocracy never loses.

    Whiles it’s calling its enemies “racist sexist xenophobic homophobes”, its enemies say the Progressive Theocracy has “good intentions”.

    The intention to rule your neighbor through force is the *worst* of all intentions.

    1. Exactly. We need to stop paying lip service to ‘good intentions’ on the Left. As you said, their stated intention is to rule others through the threat of force. Their intentions are dispicable. The best you can hope with a progressive is that they are simply repeating things they’ve heard others say, like a parrot, and that if they truly understood the true nature of their ideas they would abandon them. Otherwise they are trash (amsoc).

  19. Would this apply to people volunteering for Hillary 2016?

  20. I get paid over $87 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing,

    ————- http://www.work-cash.com

  21. I support a minimum wage ONLY if there is a minimum profit/compensation.

    For a $15 minimum wage, times 40 hours in a week = $600.

    EVERY BUSINESS IN SEATTLE SHOULD BE GUARANTEED A PAYMENT OF THAT and have other things like Social Security paid.

    You can lead a horse to water. You can’t make him drink. You can regulate water troughs though ought not.

  22. Solution: abolish absently owned private property.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.