Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
People should be free to choose what is best for themselves as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others to do the same. I created this blog to discuss issues I have with big government, liberal media,and to talk about my support for capitalism and the Iraq War.
27 comments:
I still maintain that, as a consumer, I don't have either the education or the information needed to determine whether every purchase I make day-to-day is ethical or safe or good for the community. That's why as a voter I want to elect someone who I trust to make those decisions, and who I get to kick out of office 2 years later if they end up not doing a good job. It definitely does interfere with the free market and the free market certainly gets us lots of good things, but I'm not convinced we don't gain more than we lose.
Amazingly you were able to buy all the consituent parts of your computer without a govermental department telling you all the possible information about those parts.
Your an idiot.
Did I say I didn't have teh education or time neccessary to tell whetehr I was getting good products at good prices?
I have absolutely no idea whether the parts in my computer were made with slave labor, or whether they have a tendency to overheat and catch on fire, or whether the business I bought them from uses unethical business practices which would disaprove of.
Pay attention FFS.
Gotcha. You bought shit parts.
If only their were businesses or people who review these products and companies and then write about them in magazines or online publications. I wish we had those. That way I would find out if Dell had batteries that tended to overheat and I could find out that I-pods were made in china with slave labor. Oh well - guess I will leave it up to the goverment
Diatribe-
WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?!?!?!
Your so stupid. How have you never heard of a publication called Consumer Reports. A for profit company that does all these tests on all sorts of different products and then reports on them in a magazine for you to purchase.
Your so stupid thinking that captilalism fails to provide ways to inform consumers independent of government intervention. Man your dumb. Thats the beauty of capitalism: if there is a demand there is a supply.
In my way home from work yesterday on my bike, I stopped and bought about 20 items at the supermarket. It took me about 10 minutes.
How long would it have taken me to look up every one of those products in the Consumer Report? Oh and also I would have had to go home and get on the internet first.
Luckily you would not have to go home to look up all that stuff because the private companies in charge of testing and reviewing these products would have allready given them the go ahead if they are on the store shelf. Why is the FDA the only one who can do that work? Do the people that work there have special powers that no one else can have? If people who work for the FDA left and went to do the same work at a private company would they not have the power anymore?
Does the retardation ever end?
1. If it is the case that the government is to provide information about all products then your governmental solution is weak to your current criticism. Your time for shopping does not magically increase because the government is in charge of writing the reports on the products you are considering purchasing.
2. Do you have any idea how markets work? I think I might get your a book on economics for Christmas. If a company makes a shitty product its likely you will never see it. Shitty products don’t last very long on the market when a comparable non shitty product is available. Thus, the process of determining the quality of a product is most often already done before you went into the store. Hence the free markets, have in fact, provided the most rapid way of determining if any given product is execrable. It required no governmental oversight at all.
3. I should also note that it’s not really even clear how your current argument is related to the article. The article is highlighting a city ordinance banning a type of retail store. Are you saying that the three councilmen out of the five that voted in favor of the ban have the information needed to determine whether the prospective Wal-Mart in the area will behave ethically and safe for that community? What does this say about the two dissenting voters? What does it say about the mayor that promises to veto the resolution?
4. Furthermore, in this case what if the council member in my area represents my view but that view is in the minority? What political recourse do I have then? Now I find myself in the odd position of not being able to shop at Wal-Mart despite having political representation of my position. The alternative position, the one I support, is to let Wal-Mart build its mega store. That gives me the ultimate say in whether I support a store that may be unethical and unsafe. If it’s the case that I find such a store unethical and unsafe I will most certainly not shop there. Especially if there is media coverage, which has a free market incentive to be produced since people will pay to read about Wal-Mart’s evil transgressions.
5. Its worth noting that underlying this particular political debate is the fact that the vast majority of those in favor of such mandates against Wal-Mart are also the people least likely to shop at Wal-Mart. This leads to yet another example of one group attempting to force their values onto another group of people. Christians want homosexual to stop engaging in same sex relations and Liberals want consumers to stop supporting stores with low labor wages. Please elucidate as to how liberal coercion is different from Christian coercion.
6. I suspect your argument will morph into something about how unfettered free markets will enable pedophiles to easily molest children. That is to say that free markets don’t protect citizens from harm when some citizens are willing to pay for something that will harm another citizen. From what I can tell, nobody is making the argument that free markets should be completely unrestricted. In the specific case, it’s not clear how being against city ordinance banning Wal-Mart implies that pedophiles should be allowed to molest children.
Diatribe: They wouldn't have the power to prevent those products from being on the shelf anymore. That's pretty much my point.
Sophist:
1. I'm not talking about the government making information available, I'm talking about the government banning products made with slave labor etc.
2. Are you deliberately missing my point? Slave labor can make really good products- and at really low prices too.
3. I'm responding to diatribe's post that "If the people do not shop at the store then it will go out of business on its own. Goverment should not be able to decide if a business can operate." I feel that there are certain times when a business should not be allowed to operate even if people are shopping there, ie if they employ slave labor.
4. Your political recourse is exactly the same as for every other thing the government ever does- convince people to vote it down or move. That may be inconvenient but it's an argument against the entire concept of a government, not against this particular policy.
5. If you actually want the difference, Christians are trying to stop 2 people doing something in privacy that doesn't hurt anyone else, and liberals are trying to prevent Wal-Mart from hurting the economy of an entire community. Also, I shop at Wal-Mart all the time because I don't have alot of money, and I feel ok about it because I know that if it were doing sufficiently harmful things it would get outlawed.
6. In response to your claim that "From what I can tell, nobody is making the argument that free markets should be completely unrestricted. " I repeat diatribe's original post, which is what I was actually respoding to in the first place: "Goverment should not be able to decide if a business can operate."
1. It’s not entirely clear in this passage:
“I still maintain that, as a consumer, I don't have either the education or the information needed to determine whether every purchase I make day-to-day is ethical or safe or good for the community.”
that you mean slave labor.
2. You were not clear. If you were trying to argue that unfettered markets lead to unsavory business practices then state that. You keep talking about information to make a decision which means much more then merely slave labor. In my defense several of your past arguments have been about just getting information in the hands of the consumer.
3. I’m willing to bet 454 Trillion dollars that Diatribe is against slave labor. Which begs the question are you deliberately missing the point? Practically nobody would be in favor of slave labor.
The actual question is whether you favor banning Wal-Mart from your city.
4. Government intractability is on some level an argument for no government, I suppose, but I like granting coercive force to one singular entity and then making it difficult for individuals within that entity to consolidate the power. I would like the power to be sparingly used only in cases where obvious harm is being done. Its unclear how the construction of a Wal-Mart will lead to the kind of harm slave labor would cause to warrant government intervention.
5. Someone suffers from Aaron Sorkin syndrome. I can’t remember the last time a Christian was in favor of restricting same sex relations while at the same time honestly felt homosexuality caused no harm. That would be like a liberal demeaning the prohibition of the construction of a Wal-Mart despite believing that the store would do no harm. It makes no sense.
Apparently you disagree with the council’s action putting you on our side. This only further baffles me as to why you are countering Diatribe’s position. If you are seriously making the trivial point that on some level business must be regulated by the state then I’m sorry I wasted my time with discussing this obvious truism.
6. Diatribe most certainly meant by his proclamation that businesses trading in child prostitution and slave labor should not be stopped by the state. Your objection is so jejune as to suggest intentional misinterpretation given your intellectual caliber.
Yep, this whole issue disgusts me. It doesn't surprise me that this city councel is openly under the direct control of the labor unions. We should ban labor unions from San Diego, not Walmart, which by the way is the definition of the American Dream.
Sophist:
I was going to go through the points one by one again but it sounds like we've all come to the point where you're saying 'yes of course we agree the government should stop some businesses from operating even though we say "Goverment should not be able to decide if a business can operate"'. It seems to me we come to this point alot, and it's because of somethign I object to all the time- your use of hyperbolic rhetoric.
I agree no one here really thinks that we should allow businesses to use slave labor. yet that could certainly be implied from diatribes statement, and why should I be charitable to his statement when YOU YELL AT ME FOR BEING TOO CHARITABLE ALL THE TIME.
I wish that the orignial statement had been more nuanced so that I didn't have to immediately disagree with it and break out slave labor as an example. maybe if the orignal statements was something like "Gvernment should pass laws against certain practices across the board and should not be able to interfere with any business unless they're breaking one of those laws" then we could have had an interesting discussion about the nuances of that statement (for instance, using slave labor in China doesn't break any US laws, how should we deal with that? Maybe we DON'T agree on that issue).
The hyperbolic rhetoric always disguises your true position and forces us into these straw-man debates. You yell at me alot for being too nuanced and not taking a hard position, but when I try to use blunt-force examples like slavery or child prostitution you see where the discussion goes. I think this is a very nuanced issue and if people are going to make sweeping blanket statements then I'm going to object.
If anyone would like to refine the statement "Goverment should not be able to decide if a business can operate." into something that ACTUALLY reflects their viewpoint on the matter, I'd be happy to discuss it.
When I say these statments - it is just implied with people I know that we are not for slave labor - just like we are against murder. I vote no on murder - i vote no on police brutality. These are implied I do not need a bumper sticker or pin that says these things. I mean who in their right mind is for that. you think wallmart supports murder
But that's like me saying "I'm for government-sanctioned preferential treatment based on race" and then saying 'well my friends know I'm just talking about affirmative action, not segregation or not allowing black people on busses or anything."
I'd probably really like tot alk to you about the nuances and grey areas of your opinions on the matter (for instance, how do you feel about american companies using sweatshops in other countries?), butn't know what they are because you're using blanket statements with implied caveats instead.
I am not sure I want to use the word sweatshop - becuase it automatically has negative meaning.
What I am okay with is businesses setting up shop overseas or in mexico and paying their employees less than if they had to pay them here.
Many companies set up shop in these impoverished nations becuase these people will work for little becuase little is more than what they have now. So if Kathy Lee's clothing line is made by some lady only making 1.25 an hour in Columbia I am okay with that becuase that is $1.25 an hour that lady was not making before becuase finding a job in these poor ass places is extremely difficult. This job is probably saving her ass from selling her body.
Also there are private groups who expose the fact that many of these companies (liz clairborn, nike etx) use cheap labor. So if you do not support it - do not buy from them.
Ok, good. Now, what if a company is employing children (let's say 6-10 years old) for these lower wages, in bad conditions (let's say that 15% of the workforce suffers work-relaed injuries or diseases each year) and those children's parents are forcing them to work there. However, this is all legal in that country, and since it's in a foreign country it doesn't break any US laws. Are you ok with that practice, or would you want the government to prevent those goods from being sold in the US, even though no laws were broken in their production?
If Nike is using 7 year old kids and paying them a wage in crappy work conditions - you say 15percent of the work force is sick. How do we know that comes from the job. But lets say it does. I still really do not care. If a parent is forcing their kid to work - do not be mad at Nike - be mad that the parent is forcing them to work. Nike is just going to a place where this is legal. Does not make it morally right - but that is okay becuase i do not have to buy there shoe. Should a country have 7 years old work - NO - but if they do and Nike takes advantage of that - that in on Nike's conscious - and on mine if I buy the product. Now if they were not paying these kids at all and it was like Indian Jones and the temple of doom then our goverment should go there and knock that shit off. But that is not the case. Yes I can guarantee there are some crappy work situations. Crappy for our standards. But for them its life. It is what they know. I doubt they go to this job and say - wow this condition is alot worse than other jobs i tried to get - or its worse than the house i live in. They do not say that - instead they are probably more like - PLEASE hire me and my kids- we need that money to buy rice and live. Remember these people are choosing to work there. Nobody is making them work there. Now you can make that argument for the 7 year old. They are being forced to by their parents. And that is messed up if the parent forces their kid to do that. But it is not the responsibility of Nike to make sure that does not happen. WOuld it be nice if they did. Absolutely. In no way to I say good for you Nike for being complaisant in exploiting children. I would be against them doing that - but there does not need to be a law forcing them to do it. Like I said before it is on their conscious and mine if I buy the product.
Real question now is how many companies are doing this and how bad is it really in these places?
If I did not say it or make it clear in my previous post - It is not the place of our goverment to get involved. Nike is just taking advantage of a countries laws. This does not make it morally right but in the end it is up to the company if they want kids in crappy places making their product.
OK, good. I'm not sure I agre with oyu there, but lets keep going. What if Nike sets up in a country where slavery is legal, and it simply buys a bunch of people and locks them in a warehouse, working until they drop dead, chained to their benches, etc etc, but it's totally legal in that country. You still feel that the governemnt should allow them to sell those goods in the us? Or to go further, is there ANY atrocity that a compnay could commit, without breaking US laws, that would make you say htey shouldn't be allowed to operate in the US?
So did you ream my comment or not - I am agaisnt anything that resembles Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. Having slaves like that is wrong, becuase all people are being forced into doing something they dont want to do. Those working at sweatshops are not being forced to do something they do not want to do.
Well, in my previous example I said that the kid's parents were forcing them to work and you said ok, but whatever. The point is you do in fact feel that it's ok for the government to shut down a business based on moral grounds, even if they're not breaking any laws. That means that the only question is what your particular criteria for shutting someone down are. You step in for slavery, but not for child labor; other people want to step in much sooner, for instance if they think a store is hurting the local economy. What criteria would you use for making the decision as to whether a specific practice is morally offensive enough for the government to shut down a business?
So wait, does that mean Diatribe is against Slave Labor?
What does a store do to hurt the local economy? And if that store was hurting the local economy doesnt that mean it would close down becuase people do not have the leftover money for the product that companies sells.
As for you criteria question.
If your freedom is taken away from - I am against it. Which means - Do they choose to work there - which means if a child is forced to work there i am against it - Why is this hard?
If people choose to work there and they know the conditions suck - i do not care.
I only care if being are being forced to do something against their will. THats IT
How a store hurts local economy: use a massive national infrastructure to sell things at low prices that local businesses can't afford to match, driving them out of business; then pay local workers lower wages than the stores you drove out of business, then send all the profits you make to a board of directors in New York or to upgrade a processing plant in Alabama instead of spending it locally. Also the store won't go out of business for a long time if it's selling grocerises - which is psecifically what this particular legislation was about - because people will stop buying all kinds of other thigns before they stop buying food, putting yet more local businesses out of business.
Keep in mind I'm just saying this is hwo a business could hurt a local economy, I have no idea whether Wal-Mart actually does this.
As to your criteria: ok, fine, your only criteria is freedom. Do you think it's reasonable for a different person's criteria to be both freedom and physical harm, ie, they'd outlaw a business which was pumping waste toxins into the drinking water of some town or village in a country with no pollution laws, which was demonstrably making many of the local people sick/dead? Obviously you wouldn't outlaw that business since they're not impinging on freedom, but how would you argue against someone who wanted to shut them down?
Of course its possilbe for another person to have a different set of criteria.
Why wouldnt the town have a law against dumping toxins in the water? If they dont have one - they get one. Also how successful will a business be if it kills all its workers?
And yes it does impend on their freedom - we have a freedom to LIFE.
I favor allowing business to come into a market and applying a competitive flame to the feet of local business. I also support legislation that allows foreign companies to invest in US airline companies. Legislation opening up the airline industry serves the consumers best interest.
This regulation is heavily opposed by the democrats primarily because they argue it will hurt the local economies specifically unions, a group that traditionally votes democratic. The only question i have is where does Darwin stand on the issue of hurting local economies when the most demonstrable part of that harm is done to corporations conducing business in that region.
Post a Comment