From: Robbie Lindauer (robblin@thetip.org)
Date: Wed Aug 13 2003 - 18:14:33 MDT
>> h) We need to enforce free-marketeer values FROM THE TOP DOWN and
>> BOTTOM UP.
>>
>> (I know, sounds vague and slogan-y. Here's the what I mean:)
>
> <snip>
>
> ### I wasn't really able to understand your proposal here.
You'd have to care to read it.
Basically - remove restrictions on currency and travel for individuals
FIRST. This would be by lifting immigration laws, removing currency
restrictions, privatizing basic social services, eliminating
opportunities for oligarchy generally. Then, hold members of
corporations personally responsible for the actions of the
corporations. There are too many specifics to list quickly. Maybe I
should draft some legislation.
>> 3) Rafal's question is a valid one, "Should he be prevented from
>> making an arbitrary exchange with consenting persons?" The answer is
>> yes - if you are exchanging human lives (perhaps any of the value
>> which results from human lives), you should be prevented from making
>> ARBITRARY exchanges of that kind. You should be prevented by those
>> morally responsible for that person's being - themselves, their
>> friends and family, etc.
>
> ### You seem to be using a taboo to reject a class of tradeoffs. You
> might
> want to read Tetlock's article we discussed in the "Taboos" thread
> recently.
> In effect you are arrogating to yourself the right to judge others,
> and to
> bend their will to your ideas of what is good for them.
>
> Not nice, IMO.
What I said was:
"In any case, it should be the other way around - the political forces
which exist to enable you to make such exchanges should be removed. In
today's world this means removing border and economic restrictions on
individuals and political organizations FIRST while enforcing those
rules on corporations."
Read better and snip better. The ANTI-Competetive forces that would
allow you to trade in human effort need to be removed, enabling the
human "being traded" to bargain fairly for the value of their labor.
These include the Limited Liability Corporation (in its various forms
including the standard American C-Corp and S-Corp) as well as various
legal restrictions on personal behavior (for instance the freedom of
travel and the freedom of exchange - including the freedom to use
alternate currencies such as Gold).
An aside - it's a typical and rather annoying practice called SELECTIVE
SNIPPING. No point in continuing if you're going to continue to not
read what I've written.
>> 4) Dialectical Ad Hominem for Rafal: On Nike's slavery commitments,
>> 20 seconds on google will get you all the information you need.
>> You've been informed, the responsibility is now yours. (first
>> reference: http://www.geocities.com/cslnews/ ). It did, after all,
>> make it to the supreme court. WHY do you think that major US
>> corporations ship their labor oversees if not to take advantage of
>> cheaper labor? Do you think that labor doesn't become inhumanely
>> cheap so as to be morally equivalent with slavery?
>
> ### Well, yes, this exactly what I deny - slavery is slavery, cheap
> labor is
> cheap labor. Nike is not a slave driver.
Fine, it's BAD to use INHUMANELY CHEAP LABOR. Are we now in agreement
or is there something more to your position along the lines of "It's
okay WHATEVER NIKE might be doing"?
In what sense is "Slavery" not MORALLY equivalent with FORCING people
to work for $.01/day?
I didn't say they were the same thing, just that they were morally
equivalent. "Salva veritae" in moral distinctions.
If someone should be punished for enslaving someone else, they should
be punished for forcing them to work in self-perpetuating sub-poverty
conditions.
>> Slavery is vague word like other words "fraud" or "peace" or "bald",
>> etc.
SNIP
>> BUT if you think that obfuscating this issue into an issue about the
>> meaning of words is going to CONVINCE THIS AUDIENCE, I sincerely hope
>> you're fooling yourself.
>
> ### The following characteristics are true of slavery as defined by the
> dictionary:
SNIP
> Their labor or services are obtained through force;
SNIP
As I said, if you want to make this a game of words, the only one you
fool is yourself. From now on you can exchange "Effective Slavery" for
"Slavery" IF IT MAKES YOU FEEL BETTER ABOUT IT.
> Also, I would like to point out to you that, as is obvious to anybody
> who
> read my posts, I do not consider the condition of having to labor for
> 1 cent
> a day to be, as you wrote "GOOD". I stated (and you jeeringly
> commented on
> it) "Poverty is wrong". Please do not try to demonize me be ascribing
> to me
> a hatred and contempt for humanity.
My mistake, so you're in agreement that any humane (and Extropic)
political program should include as a primary goal the lifting of the
political conditions that contribute to chronic poverty and that
Oligarchies, disenfranchisement, state oppression and unfair business
practices are among the main causes thereof?
> The adequate words to describe the plight of those who are paid little
> by
> global companies for their labor in e.g. Burma, are "poverty",
> "disenfranchisement", "state oppression", and "oligarchy". More global
> investment is the best cure for these ailments.
Not sure what you mean by "Global Investment" but I'd suggest an
alternative for global investment as it is actually practiced today is
the political elimination of the anti-competitive nature of oligarchies
SUCH AS the policies of the United States, China, Burma and just about
every-other state. Otherwise your global investment is likely just to
end up in the hands of the wealthy - as it always has.
The a priori argument is simple - if Nike is allowed to continue its
current "Global Investment" strategy, it will use its economic power to
perpetuate its power and in particular will invest in situations that
will tend to keep labor cheap and profits high. This will include
sponsoring "sub-humane" labor conditions in third-world nations. If
they can find some military fiend to assist them in Burma, so much the
better. Similarly, the banks that own Nike will continue lending
practices which empower those nation-states which enforce sub-humane
labor to continue that practice as long as possible and will seek to
create new slave-states wherever possible and profitable.
On the other hand, if we were to call the owners of Nike to account
PERSONALLY for the actions of the corporation, for instance, by making
it illegal to be an owner of a company that utilizes child-labor or
forced labor or sub-poverty labor, then we'd have something worth
talking about.
Best,
Robbie Lindauer
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Aug 13 2003 - 18:23:44 MDT