The Eskimos live in the Arctic tundra. The !Kung live in the Kalahari desert. They have so little violence because there is so little to fight over.
Debatable. Other primitive societies that lived in deserted areas where extremely violent.
The original article doesn't really addresses the differences of state vs non-state societies, yet this binary characterization dominates the entire reading. Some interesting examples seems to have been conviniently left out. The entire article is mostly derived from a single essay (sources look good, though).
Still, I would generally agree that violence has decreased with the advent of modernity.
I didn't mention any country because you didn't ask for any. Anyway, it seems we aren't having a very productive conversation so I'm gonna stop here.
have a good day
Mind if I ask you why are you so interested in arguments? I already provided empirical evidence of the opposite of what you suggest, doesn't that beat any opposing argument?
I can easily flip your argument around: In a free market workers can ask for whatever pay they want, since they want to be paid as much as possible for as little work as possible, eventually the owners will be left with very little profit, just enough to survive.
What makes this argument wrong and yours correct is not evident to me; both are disproved by empirical evidence.
Probably: private unions for a category of jobs would do collective bargaining agreements with employers (if necessary). In all other cases, people would just negotiate their work value.
"if a country has minimum wage laws, removing those laws will in fact tend to reduce wages."
You say so, but you don't justify that statement in any way. When the poster wrote: "Without the minimum wage law, lots of people would probably be paid significantly less."
I assumed they meant that the lack of MWL would push to sweatshop like conditions, my observation proves that it is not ture. The reverse (MWL pushes away from sweatshop like conditions) can also be proven false, as there are plenty of countries with bad economies and MWL where people live in miserable conditions.
Libertarians see government intervention as bad because, to them, it is a self-interested third party, and as such, will make decisions that benefit itself mostly.
Many Libertarians believe in self ownership and therefore think government power is illegitimate and that they can't make decisions for others.
There's a few countries without minimum wage laws that have way better average wages than the US and many others, I believe this fact already invalidates some of your observations.
For libertarians workers unions would be ok, as long as they're not government sponsored (they're a type of private government), while government intervention is pretty much always seen as bad since they are not considered a legitimate way to solve market issues (wages are a market issue)
Chemistry & Chemical Reactivity (Kotz, Treichel, Townsend)