|
 Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
 Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik  [Re: ]
#3011622 - 08/16/04 11:58 PM (19 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
"sweatshop labor" in the third world admittedly contains elements such as child labor, violent union-breaking, and a lack of government regulation of wages and hours.
And you agree that far right libertarians on the board have defended sweatshop labour?
these elements are borne of the same cause, that being a general lack of government enforcement of any standards, due or undue, in the market
But isn't your idea to reduce government influence and give "the market" more power? Why do you think the markets would dispense with child labour when it creates enormous profit for them? That would be ridiculous.
it is therefore not inconsistant to advocate free-market wages and hours while at the same time opposing child labor or forceful anti-union activities.
Profits are greater utilising child labour and brutally suppressing unions. How do you increase the power of the "free market" while getting rid of those features that make the most enormous profits? Especially when you've demolished all government inteference? The market WILL utilise child labour because profits are greater, it is easier to intimidate and brutalise little girls etc. Are you now saying you don't want to see a "free market" at all but "government interference"?
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: silversoul7]
#3011639 - 08/17/04 12:03 AM (19 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Looks like we can safely say the enlightenment thing didn't work out. Takes a bit more work than just a shroom trip doesn't it. 
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
 Tao
Village Genius
Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 8 years, 10 months
|
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: ]
#3011643 - 08/17/04 12:04 AM (19 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
to the libertarians--from a laissez-faire and non-interventionist point of view, should the U.S. government make laws against U.S. corporations using sweatshops in other countries where there is child labor (and i mean real sweatshop labor, not this mowing the lawn and delivering newspapers shit)?
|
Anonymous
|
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Xlea321]
#3012408 - 08/17/04 07:43 AM (19 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
And you agree that far right libertarians on the board have defended sweatshop labour?
they've advocated certain parts of it. why is it impossible to advocate the removal of controls on wages and hours, other price controls, subsidies, and excessive licensing, while maintaining a prohibition on child labor, slavery, extortion, fraud, theft, etc.?
But isn't your idea to reduce government influence and give "the market" more power?
no, the idea has never been to completely remove the government from the market. the idea is to limit the government's actions in the marketplace to the use of defensive force.
libertarians oppose the initiation of force. preventing theft, fraud, slavery, extortion, the murder of one's competition, violent strike breaking, child labor, excessive pollution, etc., are all legitimate government actions that are supported by libertarians and lassiez-faire capitalists alike.
Profits are greater utilising child labour and brutally suppressing unions. How do you increase the power of the "free market" while getting rid of those features that make the most enormous profits?
huh? the market can do just fine with unions and without child labor. what are you trying to say?
Especially when you've demolished all government inteference? The market WILL utilise child labour because profits are greater, it is easier to intimidate and brutalise little girls etc.
sheesh alex. i thought you'd been hear long enough to comprehend what libertarians and lassiez-faire capitalists are calling for. i perfectly understand what people will do in the absence of government enforcement. that is not, and has never been, what i or anyone else here has called for.
what the libertarians call for is limiting the government to keeping the peace, allowing people to make only free, voluntary transactions in the market, hence "free market". it has never been about turning the market into an anarchic free-for-all where those willing to use child labor, slavery, theft, murder, and extortion are free to do as they wish.
Are you now saying you don't want to see a "free market" at all but "government interference"?
for it to be a free market, the government must do things like protect people from violence, prevent the exploitation of children, and enforce contracts. a market in which there is slavery, violent strike breaking, and extortion is not a free market at all.
Edited by mushmaster (08/17/04 07:58 AM)
|
Anonymous
|
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Tao]
#3012486 - 08/17/04 08:18 AM (19 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
to the libertarians--from a laissez-faire and non-interventionist point of view, should the U.S. government make laws against U.S. corporations using sweatshops in other countries where there is child labor
that's a tough question with a lot of closely related questions that i'm sure you can think of. while i'm leaning toward "yes", i have to admit that enforcement would be quite difficult in some cases...
|
Evolving
Resident Cynic
Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
|
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Xlea321]
#3012622 - 08/17/04 09:03 AM (19 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Alex, being against the initiation of force means just that. It does not matter if the force is initiated by a government a private individual or a corporation. It can not be stated any more simply than that. If you are unable to grasp that concept, you are beyond all hope of engaging in rational discourse. Your repeated use of logical fallacies as an argument technique does not serve to strengthen your position.
--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.' Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence. Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains. Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.
|
Evolving
Resident Cynic
Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
|
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Tao]
#3012653 - 08/17/04 09:13 AM (19 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
TaoTeChing said:
to the libertarians--from a laissez-faire and non-interventionist point of view, should the U.S. government make laws against U.S. corporations using sweatshops in other countries where there is child labor (and i mean real sweatshop labor, not this mowing the lawn and delivering newspapers shit)?
Just as there are prohibitions domestically against receiving stolen goods, there should be prohibitions against property aquired through illicit means from all sources. That the property should come from forced labor in China or the forced labor of U.S. inmates incarcerated for victimless crimes does not negate the justification of these prohibitions.
--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.' Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence. Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains. Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: ]
#3012780 - 08/17/04 09:59 AM (19 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
huh? the market can do just fine with unions and without child labor.
So why isn't it doing so right now throughout the third world?
Profits are higher without unions and with child labour. The market will demand child labour and union-busting. Just like it did in the 19th century when they had a free hand to conduct business however they wanted.
it has never been about turning the market into an anarchic free-for-all where those willing to use child labor, slavery, theft, murder, and extortion are free to do as they wish.
And yet even with government controls at the level they are now the corporations still ignore and pay off government inteference. Are you saying we will need to give the governments even more power than they have now? I've never heard a libertarian say that before.
for it to be a free market, the government must do things like protect people from violence, prevent the exploitation of children, and enforce contracts. a market in which there is slavery
Where are you getting your definition of the free market from? The defintion of a free market is an economic system that operates according to the laws of supply and demand without government interference. What definition are you using?
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: ]
#3013586 - 08/17/04 12:54 PM (19 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
why is it impossible to advocate the removal of controls on wages and hours, other price controls, subsidies, and excessive licensing, while maintaining a prohibition on child labor, slavery, extortion, fraud, theft, etc.?
One teensy problem I see with this mush is the day your fine upstanding libertarian government comes to power in some third world country and says "We will introduce workers rights and end child labour by September 27". Come September 26 every single corporation will have moved production out of there and into another country with a corrupt right-wing dictator who will gladly help them crush unions and put little girls to work.
For your ideas to work does it mean every country on earth has to convert to far right libertarianism at the same time? Jeez. And you talk about communism being impractical..
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
retread
-=HasH=-
Registered: 07/14/04
Posts: 851
|
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Xlea321]
#3015518 - 08/17/04 08:19 PM (19 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Alex123 said:
And you agree that far right libertarians on the board have defended sweatshop labour?
No person who truely follows the credos outlined and pertaining to libertarianism would support "sweat shop labor", in the true sense of the phrase. Since you seem to think that having any child under 18 working any sort of job in a third world nation automatically equates to slave labor, you are mudding the waters of the issue. What do YOU define a "sweat shop" as?
Quote:
But isn't your idea to reduce government influence and give "the market" more power? Why do you think the markets would dispense with child labour when it creates enormous profit for them? That would be ridiculous.
People have morals, thats why. If you look at the way that American businesses treat their employees it doesn't reflect this Oliver Twist-esque fantasy that you are describing. Wouldn't not offering benefits such as, say, tuition reimbursement make more money? Then why do most companies do it?
Quote:
Profits are greater utilising child labour and brutally suppressing unions.
I don't even know if thats true. I don't think that a 12 year old child would be capable of performing certain tasks as well as a 20 year old. I still would like a definition, your definition, of a sweat shop.
Quote:
How do you increase the power of the "free market" while getting rid of those features that make the most enormous profits?
I don't think that companies, for the most part, really try to use sweat shop labor. They might outsource it to another country where the costs owuld be lower, but I think that most of them would express the same moral repugnancy at forcing children to work in horrible conditions
Quote:
Especially when you've demolished all government inteference? The market WILL utilise child labour because profits are greater, it is easier to intimidate and brutalise little girls etc.
If employers are so anxious to cut costs in any way possible, why are they offering incentives that are unnecessary, such as the aforementioned benefits?
Quote:
Are you now saying you don't want to see a "free market" at all but "government interference"?
In a "free market", if a child had the desire, or need, to work in a clothing factory, they'd be allowed to do so, but a company wouldn't be allowed to force htem into it.
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Xlea321]
#3015527 - 08/17/04 08:21 PM (19 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Alex123 said:
Looks like we can safely say the enlightenment thing didn't work out. Takes a bit more work than just a shroom trip doesn't it.
If you've done shrooms, I can say with certainty that they do not automatically lead to enlightenment.
--------------------
 
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: retread]
#3016372 - 08/17/04 11:53 PM (19 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
No person who truely follows the credos outlined and pertaining to libertarianism would support "sweat shop labor", in the true sense of the phrase.
So you don't believe it is a persons "right" to choose to work in a sweatshop if they want to? That certainly isn't the view expressed by the far right libertarians on the board.
People have morals, thats why
So why do american corporations employ children and non-unionised labour all around the world?
If you look at the way that American businesses treat their employees it doesn't reflect this Oliver Twist-esque fantasy that you are describing.
Er..because workers struggled, fought and died for a hundred years to get some rights? Read up on the history of american labour in the 19th century. You'll find it all there - child labour, breaking unions etc.
I don't even know if thats true
So why do you think american corporations relocate to third world countries and use child labour?
I still would like a definition, your definition, of a sweat shop.
Check out the definition in any dictionary. That will be fine by me. What is your definition of one?
I don't think that companies, for the most part, really try to use sweat shop labor.
But somehow, by accident, they do?
They might outsource it to another country where the costs owuld be lower, but I think that most of them would express the same moral repugnancy at forcing children to work in horrible conditions
But not enough repugnancy to say to the subcontractors, "stop employing the kids, give them union rights, spend money giving them safe working conditions, make their hours reasonable, pay them a living wage. We'll foot the bill"?
If employers are so anxious to cut costs in any way possible, why are they offering incentives that are unnecessary, such as the aforementioned benefits?
Not quite sure what you're getting at here. Why do you think corporations use sweatshop labour if not to cut costs?
In a "free market", if a child had the desire, or need, to work in a clothing factory, they'd be allowed to do so, but a company wouldn't be allowed to force htem into it.
That's not what mushmaster has been saying - he says child labour would be banned in a free market.
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: silversoul7]
#3016420 - 08/18/04 12:05 AM (19 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
If you've done shrooms
No need to look at me, look at yourself.
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Xlea321]
#3016462 - 08/18/04 12:13 AM (19 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Alex123 invites us to use the dictionary definition of any dictionary when discussing sweatshops, even though he has made it abundantly clear that in in his mind an essential definition of a sweatshop is that it must employ twelve year old girls, force employees to work fourteen (or more... depending on which post of his you choose) hour shifts, cheat employees out of overtime hours, violently suppress union organizers etc, etc,
Okay, Alex... here is the very first dictionary site I came across when I typed "dictionary" into Google -- dictionary.com. I then typed "sweatshop" into their search field, and this is what it delivered:
Quote:
A shop or factory in which employees work long hours at low wages under poor conditions.
The American Heritage? Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright ? 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Do we see mention of the employment of pre-adolescent children? Nope. Union-busting? Nope. Fraudulent withholding of overtime hours? Nope.
So from here on in, we have Alex123's express blessing to define "sweatshop" as specified above. This means we don't have to read any more straw dog logical fallacies about 12 year old girls, anti-union headbashers, toxic waste running across the sandalled (or bare) feet of employees, etc.
Congratulations to all who stayed the course. Savor this accomplishment. It likely won't soon be repeated.
pinky
--------------------
|
Cyber
Ash
Registered: 06/14/04
Posts: 1,476
Loc: Dearborn Michigan
Last seen: 11 months, 4 days
|
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Phred]
#3017221 - 08/18/04 06:57 AM (19 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Alex123 and others,
Answer a simple question:
Why is it that the 10-12 year old working in a factory is "Child Labor" and "Exploitive", but the 10-12 year old knocking on your door offering to mow your yard for $20 (when the lawn service charges $40) is a "Enterprising young man" or "A young man learning the value of a buck?"
|
Anonymous
|
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Cyber]
#3017240 - 08/18/04 07:20 AM (19 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Probably because the "enterprising young man" can go to the bathroom whenever he likes and take a break from 100 degree heat whenever he likes, while he's 'on the job.'
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: ]
#3017501 - 08/18/04 09:22 AM (19 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Max Headroom said:
Probably because the "enterprising young man" can go to the bathroom whenever he likes and take a break from 100 degree heat whenever he likes, while he's 'on the job.'
Wouldn't that depend on the person hiring him?
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Phred]
#3017537 - 08/18/04 09:39 AM (19 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Do we see mention of the employment of pre-adolescent children? Nope.
Depends who the "employees" are doesn't it.
Union-busting? Nope. Fraudulent withholding of overtime hours? Nope.
Excuse me, but what is your point? Are you trying to deny these conditions exist in sweatshops?
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Cyber]
#3017575 - 08/18/04 09:50 AM (19 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Why is it that the 10-12 year old working in a factory is "Child Labor" and "Exploitive"
So you don't think children working in factories is child labour? Would you like to see one of your children working there?
|
Anonymous
|
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: silversoul7]
#3017625 - 08/18/04 10:01 AM (19 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
It certainly would. I don't see a problem with 12 year olds working in factories as long as they are there because they want to be and are treated well.
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Certified Organic All-In-One Grow Bags by Magic Bag 
Red Vein Kratom
Edit 
Reply 
grib
newuser1492
silversoul7
DigitalDuality
Ancalagon
1 2 3 all )