<< Trust me, visit a sweatshop. Nobody likes working
there. They have no choice. They have no freedom. >>
Then why do the people who were working in, what an American defined as, a
"sweatshop" go to work in another one after the first one was closed? They
had a choice and chose to join another one? It is because THEY don't define
"sweatshop" the way Americans do. They resent the "do gooder Americans" for
taking their jobs away.
The "sweatshop" was paying better than any other job they could find in their
country.
<<It's not self-serving
to stick up for those who can't be heard, it's not self serving to
protest for human rights. Helping people has gotten a bad name, and by
reducing it's value you hope to destroy any traces of benevolence at
all. >>
It IS self-serving when you force other people to be benevolent with you.
And, that is what is wrong with socialism. Also "do-gooders" are NOT likely
to know what the "native" really needs. Take away what you call their
"Sweatshop" (what I call their jobs) and they might starve. You have
replaced an injustice you saw, for what I see as a greater injustice,
starvation.
Short term "fixes" of benevolence, just like drug addiction, does the
individual more HARM than good. Benevolence of the wrong kind addicts
people to the benevolence. "Give people fish and you feed them for a day.
Teach them how to fish and you feed them for a lifetime".