From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rafal@smigrodzki.org)
Date: Fri Aug 15 2003 - 05:12:34 MDT
Robbie Lindauer wrote:
>>> 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.
### OK, now I can understand more, and I agree with parts of the list,
although there is still not enough detail in some items.
--------------------------------
>
>>> 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).
### While I agree with the specifics you provided this time, I have to
protest that my initial objection (that you are using a taboo-tradeoff
rejection) was well-justified from reading of your initial statement. You
did say that individuals should be prevented from bargaining their lives for
money and other considerations, by some persons "morally responsible" for
these individuals. I very strongly reject such limitation of freedom.
----------------------------
>
> 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"?
### No, I don't think it is bad to use inhumanely cheap labor. As long as
there is no breach of contract, fraud, neglect of parental duties, monopoly
ownership of resources, and no use of non-consensual violence, an action is
not immoral, according to my consequentialist ethical system. Since the
outcomes of actions which do not exhibit the features I mentioned are almost
guaranteed to improve the average well-being of humans, I consider such
actions to be good or neutral until proven otherwise.
----------------------
>
> 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.
### Well, it is exactly the point - Nike is not forcing anybody to work for
them, they come begging for work.
----------------------------------------
>> 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?
### Oh, yes, by all means! You might note that I joined the thread in part
to point out that protectionism, in addition to harming Americans, harms
foreigners as well, and this is, as I wrote before "rubbing me the wrong
way".
This said, the term "unfair business practices" has been used in very vague
ways, so I would need more details before agreeing on it. For me, the only
unfair (=wrong, bad, unjust, immoral) business practices are the ones
involving breach of contract, fraud, neglect of parental duties, monopoly
ownership of resources, and use of non-consensual violence (the same list I
wrote in a paragraph above). By this definition, protectionism is an unfair
business practice, contracting for child labor is not.
--------------------------------------------------
>
>> 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.
### If you are talking about protecting the free market from state
interference, I am all for it.
-----------------------------------
>
> 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.
### No, poverty does not exist because of Nike, but despite Nike.
Businessmen invest where labor is cheap, thus causing labor to get more
expensive. Businessmen do not keep people poor. Politicians do. Businessmen
can only become a force of evil if they buy the services of politicians and
armies, which is actually a rare occurrence. In most cases, political
systems *feed* on business, not the other way around.
------------------------------
>
> 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.
### Owners of Nike (I might be one too, I haven't looked at the list of
stocks in my mutual funds for a long time) should not held responsible for
their actions, beyond the value of the stock they bought, in accordance with
the law. It should not be illegal to utilize child-labor, or sub-poverty
labor (whatever this might mean), since it is not immoral for children and
poor people to contract for sale of their labor. Only the use of forced
labor is wrong, since it involves non-consensual violence.
Liability of joint stock corporations for harms inflicted can easily be
handled by a compulsory, free-market liability insurance.
The correct way of helping poor children is to offer education support
(perhaps in the form of a loan) and protection from abusive parents, rather
than prosecuting persons who offer gainful employment to them.
The correct way of helping poor people in general is to offer attractive
employment to them (or removing the political obstacles to it, as I
definitely agree with you), perhaps more attractive than wages at Nike - and
not trying to shut down Nike by political fiat.
Unfortunately, prosecuting "villains" is a more exciting path than actually
helping others to a better life by a consensual exchange of considerations,
so the former strategy achieves undue prominence.
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Aug 15 2003 - 02:28:28 MDT