My liberal interjects with an insistent: "What about the people? Can you expect a person to live on the pittance a large company would gladly reduce its lowest level worker's pay to? Sweatshops around the world attest to the power a company can exert to hold employees in an income trap; a trap that leads to poverty and misery. The nature of capitalism ensures that any company that doesn't exploit its workers will simply be trumped by one that does." Because my liberal is no neonate when it comes to arguing with my libertarian, she adds, "There can be little doubt that by not imposing such a law you strangle the independence and power of millions of workers. These employees will have no choice but to accept the pitiful pay they are allotted because change of employment virtually always causes a period of economic hardship, a hardship these underpaid employees are unable to endure."

My libertarian doesn't even blink before he comes back with the standardized answer: "It's not the responsibility of government to relieve 'economic hardship'. Besides: open capitalism will always solve such discrepancies in an organic manner. The company that abuses its human resources will lose them, maybe not all at once but it will happen. The American standard of living is increasing, always increasing. The lowest levels will increase with it, no matter what the companies try to 'do to' their employees. As the workers demand more they will be paid more, or else they will go elsewhere."

My conservative speaks up, worried by the last words his friend, "That sounds a bit like unionism...?"

A whispered conference ensues between those old cohorts, my libertarian and my conservative. They return a moment later and my conservative announces that on this point he will concede to the decisions of my libertarian. I am not surprised...he usually does on fiscal matters.

My libertarian then concludes his response to the liberal's statements: "Your concerns about the freedoms of the citizenry are ill-founded. I worry about the government's power, not business'. The government must be checked because we give it the force of law. A business's power can always be trumped by a simple refusal to work for it."

My liberal responds: "You are discounting the powers of geography, economy, and society. The world as a whole, and our history in particular, is full of examples of the 'company town'. A comparatively tiny application of money can give a large company immense power in a localized area. Even without such levels of corruption many a worker simply has no choice but to work wherever is closest. Transportation is not free. More then that, the whole world's not like the Silicon Valley. The concept of the 'lateral move' is far from universal. What would you do for those currently employed? Those whose salaries would inevitably drop? (Or at the very least, cease to follow inflation?)"

At this point I meekly step forward and ask, "Why not do both? You both agree that the citizenry is capable of making ends meet given ample opportunity. I can’t doubt that abruptly eliminating the minimum wage laws would be a disaster, but what if you eliminated the need for them. Keep the rate where it is now. (Adjusting for inflation only.) Concentrate on policies and programs that promote a more open job market. (Communication technology alone has aided this tremendously, just help it along.) Discourage ultra localized workforce bases. Encourage the lateral move. Soon enough my libertarian's "increasing, ever increasing" standard of living will lift the vast majority of the populous off of the minimum wage line. Then eliminating the laws themselves will make perfect sense."

I am shouted from the room.