From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Wed Aug 20 2003 - 12:31:59 MDT
On Friday 15 August 2003 18:10, Robbie Lindauer wrote:
> > ### 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.
Please define your terms. What the heck is "corporatism"? What precisely is
the difference between selling one's labor/skills/knowledge to a
non-corporate vs. corporate customer/buyer?
>
> 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.
>
What is your alternative exactly?
> > 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.)
>
Doesn't reality itself give "economic pressure" in that on most places on
earth food and other necessities, much less satisfaction of wants doesn't
drop out of the sky? If I want that which is not present for no effort then
I must engage in efforts to procure it. If it is a reasonably complex need
then it probably will pay to specialize. If enough people want certain
things then economies of scale may be had by running larger companies. Is it
automatically "non-consensual violence" if I must either pay some others or
some company for something or work for them if they are the primary source
of that something? I am really unclear on what you do and do not include
under "economic pressure".
> > 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.
>
I didn't see anything like "the ends justify the means" in the above.
> >> ### 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.
>
Is this contention actually proved?
> > ### If you are talking about protecting the free market from state
> > interference, I am all for it.
>
> Definitely. Including freedom of currency?
>
You bet!
> >
> > ### 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.
>
What valuable resources? Valuable to whom if Nike wasn't present? How
valuable? Burma has a great number of reasons its economy suck that have
nothing to do with Nike.
> 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?
>
In part. You will get no argument from me that some of the policies of
WTO/IMF cause increased poverty and instability. However, I don't think the
formula is a simple as the above and I certainly don't think that having Nike
go away from Burma would help their situation one whit.
> > 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?
>
It has been done to death in standard economic texts.
> > Businessmen do not keep people poor. Politicians do.
>
> Technically, they work together to keep people poor.
>
For what purpose? Do you believe wealth is static? Is there some reason
that being employed is going to make one poorer than not being employed?
Less skilled?
> > 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?
>
What property is that? The factories are not their property. Off of their
wages and growing skills they can acquire property and start businesses of
their own.
> > 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.
>
However, I don't notice very concrete proposals or thought on what "nice"
really is. What I do see is a lot of broadsides against business,
capitalism, corporations and so on.
> > 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.
>
Selling some system of throught that brings psychological comfort will not
neccessarily address many real problems. Doing the equivalent of triage and
teaching a little that is useful is of some help. But it does not take a
missionary to do that nor need it be sacrificial. Starting a business or
opening branches in such a country is one non-sacrificial way of improving
conditions.
> 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.
If Adidas wants more dedicated workers or to take the workers already trained
by Nike, then Adidas will pay more. In practice this is how real business
works.
>
> Do you seriously think that we're going to run out of poor countries in
> which workers can be exploited?
>
Do you seriously think there is that large a market for utterly untrained
human labor? Do you believe that trained labor will not increase in value
and be competed for?
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Aug 20 2003 - 12:40:02 MDT