From: Robbie Lindauer (robblin@thetip.org)
Date: Fri Aug 15 2003 - 19:10:45 MDT
> ### 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.
They should be prevented, in NEGATIVE a way. That is, the social
structures that tend to coerce people into selling themselves (and
under-selling themselves) should be removed. The only way a person can
be brought into a position where they bargain their lives for money is
if the damage of force, corporatism and statism is already done.
When you see thousands upon thousands of people put in the position of
having to bargain for their lives, you know that something has gone
desperately wrong, in general, it's economic oppression enforced by the
state.
> ### No, I don't think it is bad to use inhumanely cheap labor.
Ah, well, I do. Cf. the meaning of "inhumanely".
> 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.
Here we are in partial agreement, although you don't want to extend
"non-consensual violence" to economic pressure. I do. It's backhanded
to say someone is freely entering into a contract if not accepting that
contract would cause them irreperable harm (either economic, social,
physical, etc.)
> 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.
I understand the ends justifying the means, however, I see that the
ends are children living in puddles of their own pee. You seem to
think the ends are immortality or something.
>> ### Well, it is exactly the point - Nike is not forcing anybody to
>> work for
> them, they come begging for work.
You're right, Nike isn't forcing them, but their government is. Nike
is paying the government for that particular service. Even more
relevant, the largest shareholders of Nike are paying them for that
service through the WTO and World Bank.
> 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.
Contracting for child labor ENABLED by protectionism?
> ### If you are talking about protecting the free market from state
> interference, I am all for it.
Definitely. Including freedom of currency?
>> 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.
Well, here we just have a plain disagreement. Nike takes valuable
resources from Burma and relocates them to the United States and takes
the profits for themselves. This has the generalized effect of making
Burmese poorer, Nike richer and American's better-shod. Since the
Burmese are becoming poorer, Nike richer and American's better-shod,
they are likely to be able to, if they so desire, perpetuate the system
that impoverishes Burma. Indeed, we know that this is the case BECAUSE
IT IS HAPPENING.
It happens both at the direct level - shoes and money for nike - and at
the global-economic level. Cash from the WTO (funded by Citigroup,
Deutchebank, Credit Lyonnaise, Barclays, etc.) goes to the Government
of Burma which then buys military supplies to ensure it's ongoing
ability to enforce its rule over its people. Meanwhile, Nike which is
majority owned by those same interests, goes and takes advantage of the
cheap labor created by the oppressive government.
Do you see it differently?
> Businessmen invest where labor is cheap, thus causing labor to get more
> expensive.
What's the mechanism by which this happens exactly? Can you site any
historical precedent?
> Businessmen do not keep people poor. Politicians do.
Technically, they work together to keep people poor.
> 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.
Are you familiar at all with the World Bank?
> ------------------------------
>>
>> 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.
Well, since "the law" was set up specifically to prevent the owners of
Nike from taking any responsibility WHATEVER for the actions of their
corporation, here we just have a straight disagreement. The law really
should be changed to make the owners of a company jointly and severally
responsible for the "official" actions of the company.
> 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.
How often, would you say, are children sold into slavery consensually?
> Liability of joint stock corporations for harms inflicted can easily be
> handled by a compulsory, free-market liability insurance.
You think this would make things better for the people living in mud
huts? Once again, can you explain the mechanism?
> 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.
Again, I hear your claim, but the mechanism has been around FOREVER and
yet, there they are, children playing in pee in the streets because the
sewage has never worked...
> 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),
How about enabling them to become productive themselves by releasing
the ownership of their property to them?
> perhaps more attractive than wages at Nike - and
> not trying to shut down Nike by political fiat.
No one's trying to shut down nike. Just make Nike play nice.
> 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.
Agreed. Being a missionary is ONE good way of directly helping poor
children in Burma. Will that solve the long-term problems there? No.
If you look at the workers of an impoverished country as desperate for
work, what incentive could someone capable of providing better wages
have for actually going and competing for resources in that country.
It's bad business. If Nike is paying $2/day, Addidas wants to pay $1.
So if Nike is doing business in Burma, Addidas will go to Angola.
That's how "REAL BUSINESS" works.
Do you seriously think that we're going to run out of poor countries in
which workers can be exploited?
A good missionary would want both short-term comfort for the poor and
long-term abating of the conditions that contribute to poverty -
including and especially Globalized Banking.
Best,
Robbie
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Aug 15 2003 - 19:25:06 MDT