ha ha ha this is awesome - the poor children are grateful to you for standing up for their rights, obviously capitalism is not to blame it is poor people who are to blame for being poor in the first place
you forgot to mention that the corporations that enjoy the fruits of cheap labor because the people are poor, paying them less just because they are poor
what he says is true, by boycotting sweatshop products, privileged SWPL Anti-sweatshop activists are condemning little children to prostitution or death by starvation . Quote from wikipedia sweatshop article: "Rather, sweatshops offer an improvement over subsistence farming and other back-breaking tasks, or even prostitution, trash picking, or starvation by unemployment."
reading the comments, many poeple didn't understand him. I suggest they sit and rehear him several times to understand waht he is saying. What he is saying is true. And i think he put it in the best way for people to understand. All of these issues are all interelated. poverty is the root of child labor.
What these companies do is NOT coercion? You said yourself that those kids couldn't survive without their jobs. It is the only real recource that they have. They don't have much of a choice. That sounds fairly close to a monopoly of jobs if you ask me, and these guys aren't going to dish out anything if they don't absolutely have to.
This is true, but its my belief that most companies will do their best to keep those places in poverty in order to keep that from happening. Nobody from these companies want to see the healing of a nation or their people brought up out of hoplessness and the kids in school at the expence of their profits. They will pay them enough to keep them alive and comming to work to the next morning, but not enough to send them to school.
There are so many good things that could be done through capitalism, but instead of common people being able to take advantage of the system, the system is taking advantage of the people, children nonetheless.
I understand your logic, but I think it's a little unrealistic & too optimistic. The corporations using this kind of labor happen to be the richest, most successful, and most expansive businesses in the world. IN THE WORLD. To claim that they don't have the means to give their workers better conditions & pay seems a little ridiculous. I seriously doubt that more sales will stop the exploitation of the poor. People working for American companies should get the same American worker rights.
The only way that corporations will give their workers better conditions and pay is if NOT doing so is stalling profits. The only reason they use children and the poor is cause kidos=cheap labor=cheap yet quality goods=higher sales=rollin in the doe. If folks are willing to spend a few extra cents to insure they are buying products that weren't made by overworked and underpaid children than suddenly exploiting the poor isn't saving any money, motivating them to insure better conditions and pay.
I agree with the terminology "obscene" amount of profit...especially in this situation. You dislike Marx but he spoke the truth. When you there are "haves" (obscene profitors) their will have "have-nots" (obscene poverty) Nike charges $80 or more for a shoe but workers only get $1.25 for an hours labor. That is corrupt.
Im with you 100%! I hope all kids can go to school and dont have to work but to believe all kids have that opportunity today is ignorant. If you dont buy from child labor maybe them kids need to be prostitute instead or starve to death or beg and steal and go to jail. This is the sad reality of life. Their job is all they have some times.
Unions don't raise wages. They rob one group by artificially raising their wages. But a wage increase due to productivity isn't the same as a wage increase due to robbery. Union laws in this nation are the source of this problem.
Hey cropper, have you read the Economist Benjamin Powell's Paper called " The Case for Sweatshops " It's really good.
In the paper Powell shows how Most of the people working in so called sweatshops in third world countries, that are hired by Multi National Corporations, usually get paid wages well above their National Average.
I guess the UC system is the Cali University system? It is corrupted from top to bottom with marxism and nihilism. Just check out a guy named Edward Said. He claims to be Palastinian but teaches at Berkely if I remember right.
When the UAW raises their wages, Chevys and Dodges cost more when I go to the dealer and buy one. The unions have such power because of rediculous, invasive, destructive government laws. You bastards destroyed the American automotive industry. Thanks alot.
"... what about the companies taking some initiative and increasing wages? surely, they can afford increases... "
Ever heard of a company going out of business? That's when they can NOT afford _____, your fantasies to the contrary notwithstanding, companies are not bottomless pits of cash. And how can they increase wages if you are boycotting their product?
what are you talking about??? I am so amazed at the down right insensitivity and arrogance you have towards this issue. I agree with Oneironaut...if you support companies that promote decent conditions for workers you set a trend. Companies like Nike would HAVE to change their policies if everyone boycotted their product (JUST LIKE NEW BALANCE...RESEARCH IT) You are promoting the same argument as those who support diamond consumerism.
Cropperb's explanation of child labour is as absured as the Eurocentrics of the past that claimed that slavery of Africans and other conquered/colonalised people was for their own good.
Its a classic collectivist 'set-up'. Look for nationalization very soon, probably after putting on of the happy smiling face for the olympics...à la...well, every dictatorship. you'd think they(opportunists) would leARn that Capitalism has a mORal criteria befORe you invest. I'm not as sympathetic as Mr.Cropper to the: "Oh! but we didn't know."
For good or bad, Labor IS a commodity. You sell your labor for as much as you possibly can. Some people make 25 dollars an hour and some make 25 dollars a month. Neither group sells their labor for less than they can get for it. Ugly, but simple fact.
There should be a legal adult age, announced and known publicly, at which a person becomes legally liable for their actions. I think 14 or 16 would be reasonable, but 18 and 21 are today's default ages.
And remember: it is only in poor countries that children are habitually not educated. Many succesful men in the 1800's didn't learn to read until the age of ten or older. Viva La free education!... or whatever.
WarVideo: in short, yes, in order to institute a MINIMALLY just order. I don't mean total equality like in communism. I just mean ensuring a minimal dignity for all, even if there is a small cost in terms of liberty. But as you have a serious interest here, I would say read an excellent book called "Contemporary Political Philosophy" by W.Kymlicka, especially the chapter on libertarianism.
So, you support the right to enslave. You support threatening the able and successful with a gun to ensure that they give more of themselves and their property than they wish to, simply because they are able and successful. If this isn't simply immoral in principle, then it's only a question of degree, and the fact remains that whatever degree to which the liberty of an individual is sacrificed is the degree to which his ability to produce is hampered.
Liberty IS a fundamental value, but it is not the only one: it needs to be balanced with others like equality and solidarity. I believe it is reasonable and just to ask the successful (who have often benefitted from natural/social advantages which are not due to their merit) to make a small contribution to ensure a minimal human dignity for all. I'm not talking about communism. You immediately shout "enslavement" as if I had said liberty had NO value, which is absurd.
Liberty is the value that makes achieving all other values possible. When I say that I want TOTAL control over my mind and actions, I mean it. Not just what you LET ME have control over. Liberty is an absolute, any destruction of it is enslavement.
I do not want to be equal to you, and I dont want to have solidarity with you. If you like those values, find people who share the same values, and live with them. My values do not prohibit you from doing that, yours destroy values.
You should look at people's lives in holistic strategic terms. Every individual has a certain strategic position in life that they can improve, destroy, or do nothing and just let unfolding circumstances degrade their position. You determine your position by looking at your overall situation holistically. Even if a person is born with "natural/social" advantages, he still has to maintain those advantages existence through thought and action. No position last forever.
"I believe it is reasonable and just to ask the successful to make a small contribution to ensure a minimal human dignity for all." I agree completely. I think it's totally reasonable to *ASK* them to do that.
If there's a need to oblige it means your system isn't wORking either. I think I can solve this by cORrcting the ORiginal premise. Its not a legal issue, its a freedom issue. MrCropper should have put out the question "Should children be free to work at any age they feel capable?" Legislation isn't necessARy. Mature Individual judgement is. That's where education comes in Mr.C \8)
You cannot deny this. They are not being forced to do anything. The only way you can prove that they are being forced to work, is by chainging the meaning of the word force. By choosing to work, they are improving their lives, that's why they chooce to work. You want sacrifice on the part of the corporations for the poor. The only reason you are against companies being in the third world is because both the companies and the workers benefit. You would prefer that the companies didnt.
WarVideo: companies benefit, workers often don't. What is a choice? If I say "give me your money or I'll shoot you", then you have a choice: you are "choosing to improve your life"!! If I say: "give me your labour or you'll starve to death", the choice is hardly better. Neither of these are real choices. In both cases the person is being forced.
Your analogy doesnt work because you are the one putting me in the bad situation. The companies did not make the poor into the poor, they are offering me work.
But if a company locks me up and starves me half to death and then says, "work or die", then that would be comprable to your anology.
And again, the people do benefit, thats why they accept the job, because they are better off working than not working.
WarVideo: a certain minimum standard of living is needed in order to be free and thus negotiate. If not, workers are just accepting a deal because it's that or starve. We cannot in any meaningful way say that they freely choose to accept a given salary. They may be better off, but they are still exploited if the company could pay more and still make a profit.
And exploitation is purely and simply unjust, and we ought to legislate to prevent it: minimum wage, union rights, universal healthcare etc. In other words, a civilized society!
The only minimum standard is the ability to think and act on their ideas, and you can only get that with freedom. In reality they have many chioices, as long as there is no interference from the goverment, people can improve their lives, rich or poor. They can bring themselves out of where they are the way other civilizations did, the use of reason. The opposite of that is the savage way, the use of force, your way.
Child labor should be legal in America. Of course, I would put priority on abolishing minimum wage and union laws first, then legalizing drugs and privatizing education and the post office. After all that, legalize child labor.Of course, before any labor laws were passed, children were working less and less because wealthy societies value education.
Sounds like the same rationalization for communism. People value food so they'll work at the communal farms for nothing. Energy takes the path of least resistance and once you've opened the Djinni bottle of allowing parents to turn their children into money producers... try to get that back in the bottle!
Cropper: childhood is for learning and for playing, which is a form of learning. In extreme circumstances, when the survival of the society is not possible, children must work. But in all other circumstances education must be a right, including in poor countries. If children are not educated, they will become pseudo-adults incapable of responsibility, and prone to sects, demagogues and warlords. It's fine having your pure principles, but we have to take responsibility for the world.
You espouse laissez-faire economics but want government to place controls on unionized labor? Are individual rights subordinate to the needs of big business? There's a disturbing contradiction there. Americans don't value education. They value certification and status. College education is up but the quality of that education is down. Wealthy societies educate wealthy citizens, and leave the rest of the public to illiteracy and child labor.
Who said anything about controling labor unions? Im as muich against putting controls on labor unions as I am on putting controls on corporations. Now if they work or dont work is another issue, they dont.
Businesses don't always have to deal with unions. WalMart, for example, closed stores before allowing union shops. Sometimes they do and suffer the consequences of crossing the workers. It's just 'business' after all.
Impotent from doing what? Using force? I can see thats what defines you liberals, socialist and communist, the use of of force, thats all you stand for. The use of force for people YOU support. How about banning the use of force for everybody.
Have you ever heard of reason, and strategy? Why not outmaneuvering the big corporations and try to gain support through peacefully convincing people of your cause, not though goverment supported force.
Let's cut to the chase. Do you believe that "child labor laws" should be repealed in this country? If child labor is unethical here then it is unethical in Somalia. If you believe in "child labor" then I suggest the future in your world is pretty dim as there are plenty of adults who will exploit their children in this way. How about cutting them up and selling their organs as well?
It's not necessarily unethical in Somalia just because it's unethical here. In Somalia people have to choose between kids working to have food or going to school and starving to death. Sometimes child labor is the lesser of two evils (often not even evil; my boss's 13-year-old son works at the restaurant occasionally and he of course has more energy than any of us).
I think they should be repealed. And no, cutting kids up is a violation of a persons right to their life. But I am for people being allowed to sell thier organs. :)
Conditional morality doesn't work inside an objective moral system. Who do we elect to determine what level of poverty makes child labor moral? I'm certain many American families and businesses complained when America passed child labor laws - screw them - make it without child labor or DON'T make it.
We don't elect anybody because child labor is not intrinsically immoral. And also, Kids have property rights also, they should be protected from parents who want to take their money.
I think you're just being provocative but who knows? So if an old guy falls down the stairs in front of you you don't help him up? If a child falls in the river and is drowning you do nothing and whistle your way to work? Who knows, even YOU may need help some day.
Funny how altruists always pull some "life-boat" example. Always trying to justify their ethics by presuming that reality is a huge hospital, a planet-wide sickward.
I've never heard any economist say to murder people, unless you're talking about communist and socialists. But if you can point out the book where Ludwig Von Mises or Ayn Rand say to kill children, Id be happy to read it.
Anyways, if companies are usingh force through foreign governments to keep wages low, then I would say that is eviland immoral. But the proper thing to do is to fight against socialist price controls and the use of force not"low wages" or "child labor"
A famous working boy in India stood up for better working conditions for kids. He was murdered. Economic theory is seldom in tune with reality. Low wage economies are often politically forced to stay low. It's not in the interest of business for wages to rise and working conditions to improve. Businesses "lobby" against such things. And they do so by manipulating foreign governments.
What do you mean by "politically forced to stay low"? All you seem to be saying here is that when governments impose regulations on businesses, the businesses don't just lie back and take it in the ass.
I'm saying that businesses STRONGLY 'influence' foreign governments to keep workers' wages low. Speaking the word "union" in many countries can get you imprisioned or murdered. I'm talking about oppression. Countries don't attract BIG BUSINESS by encouraging citizens' rights and high wages. And BUSINESSES "don't just lie back and take it in the ass", as you just said.
Yes, actually, countries DO attract big business by encouraging rights and high wages (both of which are entailed in freedom). No government or union has ever raised wages. Only production can raise wages. Governments and Unions just rob some people and give to others (redistribute, they call it).
I'm no socialist. But American based businesses are NOT encouraging human rights in China. But I agree that wages are growing in China because of BUSINESS. However, I'm not really talking about governments raising wages. I'm talking about governments oppressing people in order to help business.
Economic theory is seldom in tune with the realities of everyday life. Have you actually lived outside the US or owned your own business? Pedantic ideas cut from "The Economist" or from the works of Ayn Rand are just cheap abstractions. Economists are the worst kind of 'arm chair' pseudo-intellectuals.
"Economic theory is seldom in tune with the realities of everyday life."
You mean like, my right to life? Freedom And property? I guess your everyday realities involve using force in order to get by, because life is too complex to be civilized.
I'm talking about economists and their BAD predictions. Not about whether or not capitalism is good. It is good. Economics is a bad predictor of what goes on in the real world. You cleary don't understand the distinction.
I agree with Spikebravo: I don't really think you have the information on this one. The profits are not reinvested in the countries concerned. Watch the film spikebravo mentions, or better still, read Naomi Klein's "No Logo" which systematically disproves the kind of argument you just made (in Chapter 9 if you don't have time to read the rest).
Its irrelavent if they invest the profits in the countries that are concerned. It's their money, and they should spend it anyway they want. The right thing to do is to invest it in places that will make more profits for their stockholders.
No WarVideo it's not "irrelavent". It's only "their" money because those who actually produce have been exploited. That is, they have been forced to sell their labour in order to survive. THAT'S where the force issue is situated. Under your conception selling your labour for exploitation wages or dying of hunger is a real choice, which it isn't.
So, what you mean by force and exploit is when somebody offers somebody who is in a bad position a trade? For example, you are poor and hungry, I have a factory. I say, come to work in my factory and I will pay you for your work. You agree, because you have "no choice", therefore I have exploited you.
My responce to you is, dont blame me for not having any choice, blame reality. What should I do then, NOT offer you a job? So then your only choice will be to starve.
OMFG. "Those who actually produce have been exploited"? How can you actually hold such an idea in your head? The primary producers are the ones who show the line-level workers what to do and give them the materials to do it with. If they're so productive that they don't need a big company to provide training and materials to work with, why don't they work for themselves?
No, I didn't mean it in that way. Of course entrepreneurs are necessary (famous GWB quote: "the problem with the French is they don't have a word for 'entrepreneur'"). But they couldn't do much either without a workforce! So wages should be the outcome of a free negotiation between the two, not fixed by the bosses and accepted by the workers because if they don't accept they starve to death.
WarVideo: I'm a statist and proud of it. Societies with states are the best so far, including stateless societies which have been tried. On wages, three possibilities: the bosses impose their price by force (capitalism), the workers impose their price by force (communism), the state acts as an arbitrator (social democracy). I am for the third option: even if it's imperfect, it is fairer and can be improved.
But I would say to you and Cropper: watch a few of the sweatshop and child labour videos on YouTube. NO ONE should have to live like that if we can prevent it, which we can, and you get upset about corporations and individuals having to pay a few cents in tax! The poor things! How those rich businessmen suffer!! Let's get things in perspective.
Maybe working in a sweatshop is bad, but working on the street is worse. Farming 18 hours a day is worse. Prostitution is worse. Being at the mercy of nature is worse.
WarVideo: it's not "irrelevent". Children just do as they're told, they trust adults, and so telling them to do something that is against their interests is immoral. But many adults just do what they're told, since they know no better, so force is not a relevant criterion of slave labor. There are happy slaves ; they are no less slaves.
Force is the only criteria for slavery. If they choose to do something against their interest because they refuse to think about whats right or wrong for themselves, then that is their own fault. And fundamentally their own choice.
Those corporations are improving people's lives by offering them jobs that they would not have had to start with. The only choice they have is to work or starve, and corporations GIVE them that choice. If they didnt, their only choice would be to starve.
ha ha ha this is awesome - the poor children are grateful to you for standing up for their rights, obviously capitalism is not to blame it is poor people who are to blame for being poor in the first place
you forgot to mention that the corporations that enjoy the fruits of cheap labor because the people are poor, paying them less just because they are poor
tafxkz 11 months ago
what he says is true, by boycotting sweatshop products, privileged SWPL Anti-sweatshop activists are condemning little children to prostitution or death by starvation . Quote from wikipedia sweatshop article: "Rather, sweatshops offer an improvement over subsistence farming and other back-breaking tasks, or even prostitution, trash picking, or starvation by unemployment."
whatsinthatbox 1 year ago
reading the comments, many poeple didn't understand him. I suggest they sit and rehear him several times to understand waht he is saying. What he is saying is true. And i think he put it in the best way for people to understand. All of these issues are all interelated. poverty is the root of child labor.
evilsabah101 1 year ago
so you're saying that it's ok to screw people over, so long as they're already being screwed over, got it
SigmaLambda 2 years ago
What these companies do is NOT coercion? You said yourself that those kids couldn't survive without their jobs. It is the only real recource that they have. They don't have much of a choice. That sounds fairly close to a monopoly of jobs if you ask me, and these guys aren't going to dish out anything if they don't absolutely have to.
StupidLyss 3 years ago
This is true, but its my belief that most companies will do their best to keep those places in poverty in order to keep that from happening. Nobody from these companies want to see the healing of a nation or their people brought up out of hoplessness and the kids in school at the expence of their profits. They will pay them enough to keep them alive and comming to work to the next morning, but not enough to send them to school.
StupidLyss 3 years ago
There are so many good things that could be done through capitalism, but instead of common people being able to take advantage of the system, the system is taking advantage of the people, children nonetheless.
StupidLyss 3 years ago
this guy is a fucking retarded tool
onthebarlow 3 years ago
Yes, it is alright. As long as they are not literally being forced to work there.
soitoldhimno 3 years ago
I understand your logic, but I think it's a little unrealistic & too optimistic. The corporations using this kind of labor happen to be the richest, most successful, and most expansive businesses in the world. IN THE WORLD. To claim that they don't have the means to give their workers better conditions & pay seems a little ridiculous. I seriously doubt that more sales will stop the exploitation of the poor. People working for American companies should get the same American worker rights.
StupidLyss 3 years ago
The only way that corporations will give their workers better conditions and pay is if NOT doing so is stalling profits. The only reason they use children and the poor is cause kidos=cheap labor=cheap yet quality goods=higher sales=rollin in the doe. If folks are willing to spend a few extra cents to insure they are buying products that weren't made by overworked and underpaid children than suddenly exploiting the poor isn't saving any money, motivating them to insure better conditions and pay.
StupidLyss 3 years ago
I agree with the terminology "obscene" amount of profit...especially in this situation. You dislike Marx but he spoke the truth. When you there are "haves" (obscene profitors) their will have "have-nots" (obscene poverty) Nike charges $80 or more for a shoe but workers only get $1.25 for an hours labor. That is corrupt.
JNickS33 4 years ago
Who created the job that allows the $1.25 per hour worker to survive? Certainly not the worker....
Maybe it fell outta the sky????
Hmm I derno, this one's a toughie!!
soitoldhimno 3 years ago
Im with you 100%! I hope all kids can go to school and dont have to work but to believe all kids have that opportunity today is ignorant. If you dont buy from child labor maybe them kids need to be prostitute instead or starve to death or beg and steal and go to jail. This is the sad reality of life. Their job is all they have some times.
mahaoren 4 years ago
Unions raise wages. Leave me alone and stop changing user names when I block your &^%$#.
cropperb 4 years ago
Raising productivity raises wages. Forcing companies to decrease profits isn't the same as raising wages.
cropperb 4 years ago
Unions don't raise wages. They rob one group by artificially raising their wages. But a wage increase due to productivity isn't the same as a wage increase due to robbery. Union laws in this nation are the source of this problem.
cropperb 4 years ago
Hey cropper, have you read the Economist Benjamin Powell's Paper called " The Case for Sweatshops " It's really good.
In the paper Powell shows how Most of the people working in so called sweatshops in third world countries, that are hired by Multi National Corporations, usually get paid wages well above their National Average.
sunstorm007 3 years ago 2
I guess the UC system is the Cali University system? It is corrupted from top to bottom with marxism and nihilism. Just check out a guy named Edward Said. He claims to be Palastinian but teaches at Berkely if I remember right.
cropperb 4 years ago
When the UAW raises their wages, Chevys and Dodges cost more when I go to the dealer and buy one. The unions have such power because of rediculous, invasive, destructive government laws. You bastards destroyed the American automotive industry. Thanks alot.
cropperb 4 years ago
"obscene amounts of profit."
That shows exactly your attitude toward people who produce everything the world has.
"obscene profit" is a contradiction.
"Virtuous profit" is a redundancy.
cropperb 4 years ago
"... what about the companies taking some initiative and increasing wages? surely, they can afford increases... "
Ever heard of a company going out of business? That's when they can NOT afford _____, your fantasies to the contrary notwithstanding, companies are not bottomless pits of cash. And how can they increase wages if you are boycotting their product?
cropperb 4 years ago
what are you talking about??? I am so amazed at the down right insensitivity and arrogance you have towards this issue. I agree with Oneironaut...if you support companies that promote decent conditions for workers you set a trend. Companies like Nike would HAVE to change their policies if everyone boycotted their product (JUST LIKE NEW BALANCE...RESEARCH IT) You are promoting the same argument as those who support diamond consumerism.
JNickS33 4 years ago
Cropperb's explanation of child labour is as absured as the Eurocentrics of the past that claimed that slavery of Africans and other conquered/colonalised people was for their own good.
illmatic77 4 years ago
Its a classic collectivist 'set-up'. Look for nationalization very soon, probably after putting on of the happy smiling face for the olympics...à la...well, every dictatorship. you'd think they(opportunists) would leARn that Capitalism has a mORal criteria befORe you invest. I'm not as sympathetic as Mr.Cropper to the: "Oh! but we didn't know."
politEgoEgonomics 4 years ago
For good or bad, Labor IS a commodity. You sell your labor for as much as you possibly can. Some people make 25 dollars an hour and some make 25 dollars a month. Neither group sells their labor for less than they can get for it. Ugly, but simple fact.
randy109 4 years ago
There should be a legal adult age, announced and known publicly, at which a person becomes legally liable for their actions. I think 14 or 16 would be reasonable, but 18 and 21 are today's default ages.
And remember: it is only in poor countries that children are habitually not educated. Many succesful men in the 1800's didn't learn to read until the age of ten or older. Viva La free education!... or whatever.
cropperb 4 years ago
That's not a Che Guevara 5 o'clock shadow I see developing is it? 8?
politEgoEgonomics 4 years ago
If so - "Viva El Revoluçionnè Egoi$imo!" -
politEgoEgonomics 4 years ago
-...umm,,,for US Objectivists that would be: " I-volitiçionnè "
Inaissance 4 years ago
"Rea$on"
AynRandmInd 4 years ago
Viva - "The Ï:volution of Rea$on" -
There, that's got it, how's that guys & gals?
Aynology 4 years ago
"I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoïsm,
and I am not primarily an advocate of egoïsm but of reason,
if one recognises the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently,
all the rest follows." (Ayn Rand : 66AR)
AynRandOeuvre 4 years ago
I agree with everything you say, but I think you are being too hard on Kathy Lee Gifford. She was only caving in to pressure from others.
WestCoastRich 4 years ago
parispeter2,except for self defence, do you believe that the initiation of physical force is ever moral?
I already know what you think about"exploitation", so thats why Im asking.
WarVideo 4 years ago
WarVideo: in short, yes, in order to institute a MINIMALLY just order. I don't mean total equality like in communism. I just mean ensuring a minimal dignity for all, even if there is a small cost in terms of liberty. But as you have a serious interest here, I would say read an excellent book called "Contemporary Political Philosophy" by W.Kymlicka, especially the chapter on libertarianism.
parispeter2 4 years ago
So, you support the right to enslave. You support threatening the able and successful with a gun to ensure that they give more of themselves and their property than they wish to, simply because they are able and successful. If this isn't simply immoral in principle, then it's only a question of degree, and the fact remains that whatever degree to which the liberty of an individual is sacrificed is the degree to which his ability to produce is hampered.
RussellsParadox 4 years ago
Liberty IS a fundamental value, but it is not the only one: it needs to be balanced with others like equality and solidarity. I believe it is reasonable and just to ask the successful (who have often benefitted from natural/social advantages which are not due to their merit) to make a small contribution to ensure a minimal human dignity for all. I'm not talking about communism. You immediately shout "enslavement" as if I had said liberty had NO value, which is absurd.
parispeter2 4 years ago
Liberty is the value that makes achieving all other values possible. When I say that I want TOTAL control over my mind and actions, I mean it. Not just what you LET ME have control over. Liberty is an absolute, any destruction of it is enslavement.
WarVideo 4 years ago
I do not want to be equal to you, and I dont want to have solidarity with you. If you like those values, find people who share the same values, and live with them. My values do not prohibit you from doing that, yours destroy values.
WarVideo 4 years ago
You should look at people's lives in holistic strategic terms. Every individual has a certain strategic position in life that they can improve, destroy, or do nothing and just let unfolding circumstances degrade their position. You determine your position by looking at your overall situation holistically. Even if a person is born with "natural/social" advantages, he still has to maintain those advantages existence through thought and action. No position last forever.
WarVideo 4 years ago
"I believe it is reasonable and just to ask the successful to make a small contribution to ensure a minimal human dignity for all." I agree completely. I think it's totally reasonable to *ASK* them to do that.
RussellsParadox 4 years ago
I think that even asking is wrong, the question is an insult.
WarVideo 4 years ago
By "ask", I mean oblige, of course!
parispeter2 4 years ago
If you need to ask, it means your system isn't wORking.
politEgoEgonomics 4 years ago
If there's a need to oblige it means your system isn't wORking either. I think I can solve this by cORrcting the ORiginal premise. Its not a legal issue, its a freedom issue. MrCropper should have put out the question "Should children be free to work at any age they feel capable?" Legislation isn't necessARy. Mature Individual judgement is. That's where education comes in Mr.C \8)
politEgoEgonomics 4 years ago
You cannot deny this. They are not being forced to do anything. The only way you can prove that they are being forced to work, is by chainging the meaning of the word force. By choosing to work, they are improving their lives, that's why they chooce to work. You want sacrifice on the part of the corporations for the poor. The only reason you are against companies being in the third world is because both the companies and the workers benefit. You would prefer that the companies didnt.
WarVideo 4 years ago
WarVideo: companies benefit, workers often don't. What is a choice? If I say "give me your money or I'll shoot you", then you have a choice: you are "choosing to improve your life"!! If I say: "give me your labour or you'll starve to death", the choice is hardly better. Neither of these are real choices. In both cases the person is being forced.
parispeter2 4 years ago
Your analogy doesnt work because you are the one putting me in the bad situation. The companies did not make the poor into the poor, they are offering me work.
But if a company locks me up and starves me half to death and then says, "work or die", then that would be comprable to your anology.
And again, the people do benefit, thats why they accept the job, because they are better off working than not working.
WarVideo 4 years ago
WarVideo: a certain minimum standard of living is needed in order to be free and thus negotiate. If not, workers are just accepting a deal because it's that or starve. We cannot in any meaningful way say that they freely choose to accept a given salary. They may be better off, but they are still exploited if the company could pay more and still make a profit.
parispeter2 4 years ago
And exploitation is purely and simply unjust, and we ought to legislate to prevent it: minimum wage, union rights, universal healthcare etc. In other words, a civilized society!
parispeter2 4 years ago
The unjust is the unearned, there is no right to health care, or a living wage, or food, or clothes, or any of those things.
WarVideo 4 years ago
The only minimum standard is the ability to think and act on their ideas, and you can only get that with freedom. In reality they have many chioices, as long as there is no interference from the goverment, people can improve their lives, rich or poor. They can bring themselves out of where they are the way other civilizations did, the use of reason. The opposite of that is the savage way, the use of force, your way.
WarVideo 4 years ago
Child labor should be legal in America. Of course, I would put priority on abolishing minimum wage and union laws first, then legalizing drugs and privatizing education and the post office. After all that, legalize child labor.Of course, before any labor laws were passed, children were working less and less because wealthy societies value education.
cropperb 4 years ago
Sounds like the same rationalization for communism. People value food so they'll work at the communal farms for nothing. Energy takes the path of least resistance and once you've opened the Djinni bottle of allowing parents to turn their children into money producers... try to get that back in the bottle!
templarart 4 years ago
Cropper: childhood is for learning and for playing, which is a form of learning. In extreme circumstances, when the survival of the society is not possible, children must work. But in all other circumstances education must be a right, including in poor countries. If children are not educated, they will become pseudo-adults incapable of responsibility, and prone to sects, demagogues and warlords. It's fine having your pure principles, but we have to take responsibility for the world.
parispeter2 4 years ago
You espouse laissez-faire economics but want government to place controls on unionized labor? Are individual rights subordinate to the needs of big business? There's a disturbing contradiction there. Americans don't value education. They value certification and status. College education is up but the quality of that education is down. Wealthy societies educate wealthy citizens, and leave the rest of the public to illiteracy and child labor.
dudev 4 years ago
Who said anything about controling labor unions? Im as muich against putting controls on labor unions as I am on putting controls on corporations. Now if they work or dont work is another issue, they dont.
WarVideo 4 years ago
Mr. Cropper said in an above comment "I would put priority on abolishing minimum wage and union laws first".
dudev 4 years ago
Right. As in the laws which force businesses to either deal with unions, or deal with nobody and go out of business.
RussellsParadox 4 years ago
Businesses don't always have to deal with unions. WalMart, for example, closed stores before allowing union shops. Sometimes they do and suffer the consequences of crossing the workers. It's just 'business' after all.
dudev 4 years ago
Yes, union laws, not unions.
WarVideo 4 years ago
It has the same result of making unions impotent.
dudev 4 years ago
Impotent from doing what? Using force? I can see thats what defines you liberals, socialist and communist, the use of of force, thats all you stand for. The use of force for people YOU support. How about banning the use of force for everybody.
Have you ever heard of reason, and strategy? Why not outmaneuvering the big corporations and try to gain support through peacefully convincing people of your cause, not though goverment supported force.
WarVideo 4 years ago
Hey cropperb, keep up the good work -- it keeps people like parispeter2 and dudev distracted from causing damage out in the real world. ;)
nine9s 4 years ago
Don't worry nine9s I'm pretty active in the real world - and this is the real world too. I'm honing my arguments, if not changing any minds.
parispeter2 4 years ago
Hell, parispeter, I think you finally said something that proved me wrong! Enjoy the feeling while you can. ;)
nine9s 4 years ago
Very noble of you to admit that!! See Plato, "Gorgias" 458a-b.
parispeter2 4 years ago
Let's cut to the chase. Do you believe that "child labor laws" should be repealed in this country? If child labor is unethical here then it is unethical in Somalia. If you believe in "child labor" then I suggest the future in your world is pretty dim as there are plenty of adults who will exploit their children in this way. How about cutting them up and selling their organs as well?
templarart 4 years ago
It's not necessarily unethical in Somalia just because it's unethical here. In Somalia people have to choose between kids working to have food or going to school and starving to death. Sometimes child labor is the lesser of two evils (often not even evil; my boss's 13-year-old son works at the restaurant occasionally and he of course has more energy than any of us).
nine9s 4 years ago
I think they should be repealed. And no, cutting kids up is a violation of a persons right to their life. But I am for people being allowed to sell thier organs. :)
WarVideo 4 years ago
Conditional morality doesn't work inside an objective moral system. Who do we elect to determine what level of poverty makes child labor moral? I'm certain many American families and businesses complained when America passed child labor laws - screw them - make it without child labor or DON'T make it.
templarart 4 years ago
We don't elect anybody because child labor is not intrinsically immoral. And also, Kids have property rights also, they should be protected from parents who want to take their money.
WarVideo 4 years ago
They can't always find food elsewhere.
parispeter2 4 years ago
Not my problem, not the corporations problem.
WarVideo 4 years ago
So we have no responsibility for other human beings?
parispeter2 4 years ago
"So we have no responsibility for other human beings?"
Exactly.
RussellsParadox 4 years ago
I think you're just being provocative but who knows? So if an old guy falls down the stairs in front of you you don't help him up? If a child falls in the river and is drowning you do nothing and whistle your way to work? Who knows, even YOU may need help some day.
parispeter2 4 years ago
There is nothing wrong with helping other people. But I still dont have a moral obligation to help either of them.
WarVideo 4 years ago
Funny how altruists always pull some "life-boat" example. Always trying to justify their ethics by presuming that reality is a huge hospital, a planet-wide sickward.
Of course, that is what they are aiming for...
cropperb 4 years ago
I've never heard any economist say to murder people, unless you're talking about communist and socialists. But if you can point out the book where Ludwig Von Mises or Ayn Rand say to kill children, Id be happy to read it.
Anyways, if companies are usingh force through foreign governments to keep wages low, then I would say that is eviland immoral. But the proper thing to do is to fight against socialist price controls and the use of force not"low wages" or "child labor"
WarVideo 4 years ago
A famous working boy in India stood up for better working conditions for kids. He was murdered. Economic theory is seldom in tune with reality. Low wage economies are often politically forced to stay low. It's not in the interest of business for wages to rise and working conditions to improve. Businesses "lobby" against such things. And they do so by manipulating foreign governments.
dudev 4 years ago
What do you mean by "politically forced to stay low"? All you seem to be saying here is that when governments impose regulations on businesses, the businesses don't just lie back and take it in the ass.
nine9s 4 years ago
I'm saying that businesses STRONGLY 'influence' foreign governments to keep workers' wages low. Speaking the word "union" in many countries can get you imprisioned or murdered. I'm talking about oppression. Countries don't attract BIG BUSINESS by encouraging citizens' rights and high wages. And BUSINESSES "don't just lie back and take it in the ass", as you just said.
dudev 4 years ago
Yes, actually, countries DO attract big business by encouraging rights and high wages (both of which are entailed in freedom). No government or union has ever raised wages. Only production can raise wages. Governments and Unions just rob some people and give to others (redistribute, they call it).
cropperb 4 years ago
I'm no socialist. But American based businesses are NOT encouraging human rights in China. But I agree that wages are growing in China because of BUSINESS. However, I'm not really talking about governments raising wages. I'm talking about governments oppressing people in order to help business.
dudev 4 years ago
Economic theory is seldom in tune with the realities of everyday life. Have you actually lived outside the US or owned your own business? Pedantic ideas cut from "The Economist" or from the works of Ayn Rand are just cheap abstractions. Economists are the worst kind of 'arm chair' pseudo-intellectuals.
dudev 4 years ago
"Economic theory is seldom in tune with the realities of everyday life."
You mean like, my right to life? Freedom And property? I guess your everyday realities involve using force in order to get by, because life is too complex to be civilized.
WarVideo 4 years ago
I'm talking about economists and their BAD predictions. Not about whether or not capitalism is good. It is good. Economics is a bad predictor of what goes on in the real world. You cleary don't understand the distinction.
dudev 4 years ago
URGGH you said something sensible!!
parispeter2 4 years ago
I agree with Spikebravo: I don't really think you have the information on this one. The profits are not reinvested in the countries concerned. Watch the film spikebravo mentions, or better still, read Naomi Klein's "No Logo" which systematically disproves the kind of argument you just made (in Chapter 9 if you don't have time to read the rest).
parispeter2 4 years ago
Its irrelavent if they invest the profits in the countries that are concerned. It's their money, and they should spend it anyway they want. The right thing to do is to invest it in places that will make more profits for their stockholders.
WarVideo 4 years ago
No WarVideo it's not "irrelavent". It's only "their" money because those who actually produce have been exploited. That is, they have been forced to sell their labour in order to survive. THAT'S where the force issue is situated. Under your conception selling your labour for exploitation wages or dying of hunger is a real choice, which it isn't.
parispeter2 4 years ago
So, what you mean by force and exploit is when somebody offers somebody who is in a bad position a trade? For example, you are poor and hungry, I have a factory. I say, come to work in my factory and I will pay you for your work. You agree, because you have "no choice", therefore I have exploited you.
My responce to you is, dont blame me for not having any choice, blame reality. What should I do then, NOT offer you a job? So then your only choice will be to starve.
WarVideo 4 years ago
OMFG. "Those who actually produce have been exploited"? How can you actually hold such an idea in your head? The primary producers are the ones who show the line-level workers what to do and give them the materials to do it with. If they're so productive that they don't need a big company to provide training and materials to work with, why don't they work for themselves?
nine9s 4 years ago
No, I didn't mean it in that way. Of course entrepreneurs are necessary (famous GWB quote: "the problem with the French is they don't have a word for 'entrepreneur'"). But they couldn't do much either without a workforce! So wages should be the outcome of a free negotiation between the two, not fixed by the bosses and accepted by the workers because if they don't accept they starve to death.
parispeter2 4 years ago
"Of course entrepreneurs are necessary"
Only a statis could say something like this.
"wages should be the outcome of a free negotiation between the two"
If the government is forcing you to sit at the negotiation table, its not really free now is it?
WarVideo 4 years ago
WarVideo: I'm a statist and proud of it. Societies with states are the best so far, including stateless societies which have been tried. On wages, three possibilities: the bosses impose their price by force (capitalism), the workers impose their price by force (communism), the state acts as an arbitrator (social democracy). I am for the third option: even if it's imperfect, it is fairer and can be improved.
parispeter2 4 years ago
Well, at least your consistent. But again, there is no force(real force, not your fake force) in a capitalist society.And my option IS perfect.
WarVideo 4 years ago
Force is not just physical force: it's when you're deprived of any meaningful choices, which is why exploitation is so unjust.
parispeter2 4 years ago
Befor the companies came in with their factories, they had less choices. If you want more choice then you should be for more companies coming in.
WarVideo 4 years ago
But I would say to you and Cropper: watch a few of the sweatshop and child labour videos on YouTube. NO ONE should have to live like that if we can prevent it, which we can, and you get upset about corporations and individuals having to pay a few cents in tax! The poor things! How those rich businessmen suffer!! Let's get things in perspective.
parispeter2 4 years ago
Maybe working in a sweatshop is bad, but working on the street is worse. Farming 18 hours a day is worse. Prostitution is worse. Being at the mercy of nature is worse.
WarVideo 4 years ago
Slave labor begins when the use of force begins; it's irrelevent if they are children or adults.
WarVideo 4 years ago
WarVideo: it's not "irrelevent". Children just do as they're told, they trust adults, and so telling them to do something that is against their interests is immoral. But many adults just do what they're told, since they know no better, so force is not a relevant criterion of slave labor. There are happy slaves ; they are no less slaves.
parispeter2 4 years ago
Force is the only criteria for slavery. If they choose to do something against their interest because they refuse to think about whats right or wrong for themselves, then that is their own fault. And fundamentally their own choice.
Those corporations are improving people's lives by offering them jobs that they would not have had to start with. The only choice they have is to work or starve, and corporations GIVE them that choice. If they didnt, their only choice would be to starve.
WarVideo 4 years ago
Never really thought about that before. I was just glad I didn't have to make the McDonalds toys. Beard is fine btw.
justme3073 4 years ago