Justice, Episode 3

44 Responses to Justice, Episode 3

1. anna123 says:

   October 17, 2009 at 6:03 am

   Wow this was a great lecture.

   I agree with Victoria and Raul viewpoints from the video

   Libertarianism sounds not so good, they dont care about society, it seems a really selfish worldview, and quite frankly sounds like something that white people would invent to justify their selfishness and privilege as being morally correct.

   Did anyone notice when the libertarians were speaking (who all happened to be white people) the people of colour in the audience were shaking their heads? i think even in this lecture about philosophy, real world racism, class, and privilege are intersecting in the discussion.

   I think libertarianism ultimately needs its limits, as theres no real free will if you choose to live in a society with others you have to be responsible and take into account the rights and needs of the people around you( asVictora said), just pragmatically, without paternalistic laws, business and corporations will rule the world!! and in time, without redistributionof wealth, everyone will REALLY be slaves, with no equalityof oportunity at all.

   As an aside, i didnt know that 10% owns 70% of the wealth in the U.S!!? thats ffed up, and unjust!! “American Dream” my ass!! sounds like “American Propaganda” more like it lol, without economic democracy how canthere be equality of opportunitiy?~~ in a free market society access to resources means access to opportunities…… ??!!
2. mojorider says:

   October 17, 2009 at 10:53 am

   anna123,

   your response sort of dovetails into what my concerns are about the unregulated free market over in the “return of depression economics” thread with king and eric j.

   with wealth concentrated to such a huge degree in a small percentage of people, well, that equates to power. and in the US, where it’s been culturally ingrained into us about the needs for checks and balances on power, therein lies the suspicions i have about people who would control the means of production without any regulations on the market. in a completely free market, i have to go on faith that these people will be benevolent and ethical captains of industry and that market forces will solve social ills or pick up the responsibilities that are abdicated by those who control people’s livelihoods.

   i haven’t viewd the clip in its entirety, but as far as the libertarian view on re-distribution of wealth, it seems to me that it clashes with those who feel that a society should have some sort of social contract that all members should sacrifice to help out with the collective good. individualistic needs versus the collective needs. individual responsibility versus collective responsibility.
3. American Girl says:

   October 17, 2009 at 3:36 pm

   I agree with Locke, that we own our own labor, and I agree with fundamentals of property rights of mixing labor with a thing to capture property. But when we come from a family or a society, we do not own ourselves and I believe the state has a right to impose a tax. There are other reasons taxes are imposed as well. Fundamentally, it is because we cannot control behavior through laws. We encourage good behavior through tax deductions, but that is a different class.

   As babes and children, we are dependant on our family and our families or lack thereof are dependant on society. If we truly lived in the wild and did everything on our own, I could agree with the libertarians that our property is our own. But we don’t. Bill Gates would not have a market for his idea if there were no one to to buy it. Michael Jordan would not have made millions if people did not, buy into his team or the Wheaties box he was on. It is a small price to pay to tax people because he or she had the opportunity to earn.

   There are reasons people live in suburbs and urban areas. Even those living in rural areas benefit. We need neighbors to support the local grocery store, to support us and the farmer. We need schools to educate the youth. We need resuce services like EMT, police and fire departments to help us when we are in need. We need government services to protect us from those who would want to import products that are harmful to our local environment. We need a military to protect our land. We need courts to enforce our laws.
4. jaehwan says:

   October 17, 2009 at 11:15 pm

   I agree with Anna that this was a great episode. I think Victoria nailed it on the head at the end by challenging the whole notion of personal sovereignty. By participating in society, we cede some ourselves over to the common good.

   Mojo brings up a good point about money and power. I’ve noticed (and I may have remarked on this blog) that just having money brings power, disproportionately so. It’s up to government to even this out so that the rich do not abuse the poor. In a real free market, money would bring even more power than in a regulated free market.

   AG, good point about living in society vs. living in the wild. Both Gates and Jordan benefit from the structures set up by the American people. They benefit from their lives in America, and to tax Gates at 35% or whatever is a drop in the bucket–other people need it more than he does. It’s funny because Gates and Buffett, the two richest guys in the country, support taxation that redistributes wealth.

   I’m looking forward to the next episode on Locke.
5. Eric Jacobus says:

   October 18, 2009 at 6:58 pm

   Gates and Buffet aren’t the only rich folk who approve of wealth redistribution. Democrats in the house represent the richest people in the US, not Republicans. No more nonsense about Republicans representing the rich, in the house anyway:

   http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-10-13-House-wealth-gap-Democrats-richest-districts_N.htm
6. mT says:

   October 18, 2009 at 9:20 pm

   What’s your point?
7. Eric Jacobus says:

   October 29, 2009 at 1:31 pm

   My point is that rich people sometimes approve of income redistribution. That doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. It means they approve of bad things. Some of them like Hugo Chavez too.
8. Eric Jacobus says:

   October 29, 2009 at 1:33 pm

   To reiterate the point: quoting a rich person and adding, “Even he is in favor of income redistribution” does not mean income redistribution is a good thing. It only means that this one person believes in its virtues.
9. American Girl says:

   October 30, 2009 at 6:47 pm

   @ej

   I’d rather make $500,000 and give 30% to taxes than make $28,000 and give 9-11% to taxes.

   In once instance I am giving $150K to the IRS and the other I am giving about $2,800 to the IRS. I’m still ahead if I have to give $150K to the IRS. The people smart enough to earn $500K are smart enough to figure out some fine tax deductions.
10. Eric Jacobus says:

    October 30, 2009 at 7:22 pm

    AG,

    Your 30% figure is misleading. That’s only for income and doesn’t account for capital gains taxes, taxes on dividends, property tax, state tax, and whatever other taxes one encounters on the road to their bank. Try 40-45%.

    An interesting note on that: when our founding fathers were colonizing the East Coast for Britain, their taxes were mostly voluntary to the crown. The only tax that wasn’t voluntary, a tax that England imposed as a symbol, was the tea tax. And we know what happened there.

    It’s American tradition to oppose tax, even reasonable tax (1%). It’s also become American tradition to increase it, especially on those at the bottom through hidden measures. Boy are they good at it.
11. Eric Jacobus says:

    October 30, 2009 at 7:28 pm

    However, 30% is still too much. Let’s cut it 2%.
12. Eric Jacobus says:

    October 30, 2009 at 7:29 pm

    *cut it to 2%. That’s what I meant to type.
13. King says:

    October 30, 2009 at 9:02 pm

    Why 2%?
14. Eric Jacobus says:

    November 2, 2009 at 2:57 pm

    2% because it’d produce some real productivity. Rather than businesses shelling out 30-40% of their cash to fund stuff they’ll never take advantage of they could be making jobs and hiring people, maybe even producing some new technology at a faster rate.

    If I say 0% everyone will throw mud at me. 2% can pay for a decent militia.
15. American Girl says:

    November 3, 2009 at 12:27 am

    Property tax and state taxes are not more than 40%. Plus, if you pay property tax, the tax is deductable from your fed income tax. Don’t forget there are many tax deductions that can bring what ordinarily would be 30% down to 9-11%. And in case you did not know, there are capital losses which can off-set capital gains taxes and if I made thousands of dollars trading stock, tat is better than making $0.00. If I lose money, I can use part of my losses to off-set my gains. It is all good if you know what you are doing.

    There are volumes of books on tax related law that create the need to stratigecly place remote contol fart machines to lighten the mood in such a stuffy room.

    Still, I’d rather make $500,000 and pay 34% than $28,000. Do I wish the tax rate was lower? Absolutely.
16. mojorider says:

    November 3, 2009 at 9:10 am

    @King,

    you just had to ask and start EJ up again, didn’t ya?

    @American Girl,

    I agree, I’d much rather make a high salary and pay the 30+% tax than make $28,000 and pay 15% in tax. Really, at some point, if you’re making well into the millions, like these pro athletes or some of these Wall Street bankers and financiers are (not to mention executive compensation bonuses), is a 39-40% tax really going to affect how you live?

    @EJ,

    we’re beating a dead horse here, dude. You know where I and some others stand, I know where you stand. Nothing more is to be accomplished by our continuing on with this economics/ideological debate.
17. King says:

    November 3, 2009 at 11:40 am

    @mojo

    I know… it’s just that 2% seemed so ridiculously arbitrary. My fault.
18. Larry says:

    November 3, 2009 at 5:36 pm

    Libertarianism is one of the great bullshit ideologies of the USA. And that’s saying quite a bit given all the lies that the American Empire is based upon.

    Behind all its faux populism and anti-state rhetoric, Libertarianism serves the interests of the (White) propertied class and their greed.

    That’s why they hate the idea of taxes or any other kind of redistributive policies.
19. Eric Jacobus says:

    November 4, 2009 at 11:52 am

    Larry, what, to you, is the foundation of libertarianism? Why is the idea of economic freedom so appalling to you?
20. Larry says:

    November 4, 2009 at 4:52 pm

    The Libertarian definition of “economic freedom” in practice means the freedom for the rich to extract wealth off the backs of everyone else, without restraint (particularly those imposed by government), without limits, and without regard of the consequences for broader society.

    The Libertarian impulse is thus exemplifed by things such as the deregulation of the financial markets (e.g. the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act) that in large part was a proximate cause to the minor little economic cataclysm called the Wall Street implosion of 2008.
21. King says:

    November 4, 2009 at 5:42 pm

    The Libertarian definition of “economic freedom” in practice means the freedom for the rich to extract wealth off the backs of everyone else”

    It calls for the “level playing field” now, after the Power Brokers have broken the ankles of all the other competitors.

    Like Communism—it looks good on paper.
22. Eric Jacobus says:

    November 5, 2009 at 1:13 pm

    “The Libertarian definition of “economic freedom” in practice means the freedom for the rich to extract wealth off the backs of everyone else, without restraint (particularly those imposed by government)”

    How do the rich extract wealth from people? Please explain.
23. Larry says:

    November 6, 2009 at 10:13 pm

    @ Eric Jacobus

    Exploitation of labor is a primary means of extracting wealth. For instance, Nike sets up of factory in the Developing world to take advantage of low-wage labor, pays the workers a pittance, and then sells its products (shoes) at a significant mark-up above labor costs.

    Nike extracts value from the worker.

    This is in part what Captialist globalization is about. It’s often called the “Washington Consensus” or Neoliberal market reforms.

    Confessions of an Economic Hit Man: How the U.S. Uses Globalization to Cheat Poor Countries Out of Trillions
    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8171.htm
24. Eric Jacobus says:

    November 7, 2009 at 5:33 pm

    Does Nike force the worker to work for them? Is this really extraction?

    Would you consider it “theft” to fire a worker and replace him with a machine?

    Would you consider it “exploitation” for an employer to pay a worker to make profit for the employer’s business?

    - I’ve read that book. Very leftist bias, and rarely takes into account the role of corrupt governance in all the shady dealings in the Developing world. Always remember that all these countries have extremely corrupt governments (Africa and Middle East are notorious) that don’t properly enforce property rights, and thereby have the ability to make bad deals that screw millions of people over.
25. anna123 says:

    November 7, 2009 at 10:50 pm

    Hey Larry,

    Do you think a workers utopia can be practical? Do you believe that without capitalism, would wealth be able to be created efficiently?
26. Larry says:

    November 9, 2009 at 4:26 am

    @ Eric Jacobus.

    Those scenarios depend on the context. In the Developing world, being exploited is not really an option one freely choose. It’s compelled by necessity. Workers have a choice between bad and worse.

    So when Nike or other American corporations go there to take advantages of the labor there, it’s not only extracting wealth, it’s straight up exploitation. The maquiladoras of Mexico and sweatshops of Asia are testament to this.

    In terms of John Perkins and his supposed “leftist bias.” Perkins was a former NSA (National Security Agency) operative and later worked for a consulting firm Chas T. Main. He has direct, first-hand experience with being an economic hitman for the American government. He lived it.

    Anna, I don’t know about workers’ utopia. But the existing global capitalist system clearly does not serve the interests of the majority of people in the world–especially non-Western Developing nations.

    According to a recent UN report, 1 billion people (or a staggering 1/6 of the human race) is now undernourished.

    1.02 Billion People Hungry: One Sixth Of Humanity Undernourished, More Than Ever Before
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090619121443.htm

    Another UN reports suggests that 1 billion now also live in slums. We are living on what Mike Davis calls a “planet of slums.”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2006/aug/19/shopping.society

    It should go without saying who is the majority of these undernourished and slum-dwellers: the black, brown, red, and yellow people of the world.
27. Eric Jacobus says:

    November 9, 2009 at 2:16 pm

    To clarify, you agree that these people choose to be exploited by Nike. You also agree that they must make more money thanks to their decision, that choosing “bad” over “worse” yields a greater return for them, otherwise they would not choose the job.

    Do you oppose Nike for giving people of the Developing world the option to choose bad over worse? If so, would you prefer a “worse” scenario for them over a “bad” one? And why would you oppose their choice of employment?
28. Larry says:

    November 10, 2009 at 4:35 am

    Those workers “choose” to be exploited by Nike in the same way that a slave would choose 10 lashes from a slavemaster’s whip over 50 lashes.

    Either way, he will still taste the lash.

    Choosing between bad and worse in a rigged game with an economic gun at your head is not real choice.

    It’s like having to “choose” between the donkey or elephant wings of the Republicrat Party, and thinking that you live in some kind of democracy.
29. Eric Jacobus says:

    November 10, 2009 at 9:52 am

    The slave’s choice is between slavery and death. Regardless, he is never paid. The worker’s choice is between employment and unemployment. He is paid for his employment, otherwise he continues working in the trash heap. Don’t you think the freedom of the worker is far better than the slave?

    Do you advocate we remove these jobs to end “slavery”? Do you think people in the Developing country would approve of that?

    How are employment and slavery the same? Do you consider all employment slavery? Only certain employment in certain places? Do you consider Dell’s call centers in India slavery? And do you really think Indians would feel the same way?
30. mojorider says:

    November 10, 2009 at 11:07 am

    I get busy for a few days and come back to find out you folks are still beating that dead horse, ha! This isn’t a discussion anymore where things are to be learned or discovered from each other, so nothing good can come from this.

    EJ, your Socratic method isn’t getting you anywhere because you haven’t addressed the flaws inherent in your utopian vision. Rather, you nitpick at smaller details, avoiding the central points I brought up before. how does the unregulated market fix the unwanted social consequences? King brought up racism that his uncle endured even though he was the best book keeper guy around. So, how rational was that market? I’ve brought up unwanted pollution as the result of manufacturing. So, who’s to over see this? The market ain’t so benevolent and willing to work things out on its own without some sort of intervention, ie, government. If it weren’t for government intervention, would this country even had civil rights for black people? How was the market going to fix segregation and Jim Crow laws?

    Look, I don’t begrudge you the things you believe in, but from my perspective, what I see is a utopian philosophy. The libertarian and anarchist, free marketeer models just ain’t gonna cut it in the real world. I’m not saying it’s completely wrong, but I think it’s highly idealistic….and proponents of your philsophical beliefs have this fanatical zealotry, the same as the socialists and Marxists, that they are right. And when things don’t go the way they thought, they shift the blame to something else rather than looking inward. All you have to do is read about Phil Graham’s sophistry, the guy who helped engineer and lobby for a lot of these deregulatory practices and then backs away from accepting blame when the economy tanked, “oh, don’t blame the market, it had nothing to do with that”. Bullshit! The market is not some “invisible handed” abstract entity—the market is PEOPLE engaged in a transaction of goods and services. It is not some mystical ghost in nature, it’s made up of people. Some good, some bad, and that’s why you need oversight.

    All Marxists and socialists and all free marketeers and Ayn Rand objectivists use the excuse of, “yeah, well, they didn’t really implement it the way it is supposed to be” or “Well, they distorted what Marx had in mind” blah blah blah….they ALWAYS find a convenient excuse for why their models or theories didn’t work.

    Somalia—looks pretty close to anarchy to me and it’s a fucked up situation with an ineffectual, nominal government as is, with lots of warlords really running the country and their feifdoms, a return to the state of nature. And sorry, don’t buy the “well, if the common citizen had access to guns to protect their property rights…” Even if the common Somalian citizen did have guns, what kind of a society is that? You’d still have a society in conflict and no rule of law or adherence to a civil society when there is no social contract.

    Lookit, I’m not anti-capitalist, but I think some philosophies are just too impractical and idealistic to really work. YNice classroom theories, good to stimulate thought, but it’s just that…theories. yeah, our situation is fucked up, but until there is a paradigm shift, this is the way the world evolved, liberal democracy.

    Oh, and to answer you question of how the rich extract wealth from the poor? Ever hear of colonialism? Your free market didn’t stop wealthy nations from exploiting the natural resources of less advanced societies and treating people like shit.

    and i promised myself i wouldn’t get dragged back into this….
31. Eric Jacobus says:

    November 10, 2009 at 12:36 pm

    I’m trying to get at Larry’s underlying principles. At least he’s good at being succinct. I’ll answer your questions:

    Pollution: property rights enforcement allows private parties sue the polluter, incentivizing polluter not to pollute, can only be done with private, profit-seeking judicial system, characteristic of ancap ideas (and Scotland, where people can own parts of rivers).

    Racism: happens between different shades of black people anyway. And different shades of white people. And all in between. Not sure why the market has to “fix” this if it’s something that happens on a primal level, especially since we dragged one group against their will over here in the first place (often with the help of a slightly differently colored group). State was major driver of slavery and segregation, both of which were unable to survive without state subsidies. Let different races unite or separate however they want.

    Colonialism: free market didn’t stop this any more than communism stopped 100 million murders. Colonialism did result in some decent economies, though. In fact, I live in one.

    Somalia: yeah, it sucks. Needs good governance, does not need a state. Wanna try democracy out there? Good luck.
32. King says:

    November 10, 2009 at 12:50 pm

    You see mojo, you can’t just blame me for keeping this debate alive!

    I agree with you that Eric hasn’t fully addressed many of the other points that we’ve brought up thus far. However, that doesn’t necessarily invalidate his current point. It’s a fair enough question.

    And you’re making great points!
33. Eric Jacobus says:

    November 10, 2009 at 1:40 pm

    You guys bring up 10-15 points per post! I have a full time job on top of this! I try to answer everything, though sometimes I’m sure you feel my answers don’t “address” your question properly because you don’t follow the same logic as I do.

    THEREFORE, I’m asking Larry these questions and getting surgical so we can get to the heart of the logic you DO follow. Then at least, if we disagree, we can see exactly what logic we follow that causes disagreement.
34. King says:

    November 10, 2009 at 4:04 pm

    Full-time job???!!!

    You greedy capitalist!!!!
35. King says:

    November 11, 2009 at 2:20 am

    I think that a lot of what mojo has said makes sense, but I also think that Eric raises a valid question about the nature of exploitation. I don’t know that I necessarily have the answers to refute his assertion.

    If Nike is paying employees in underdeveloped countries $4.00 a day (American) that sounds terrible! But the question does have to be asked, “Well, how much money were they making before Nike moved a factory there?” Because if the answer is $1.00 a day, then it changes the perspective somewhat. If people who were surviving, in their own on $1.00 a day, are now making $4.00 (all things being equal) it’s a net gain.

    But then the first thing that comes to my mind is, “Would it kill them to pay the workers $1.00 an hour for a total of $8.00 a day?” I mean, they’re still saving a whole LOT of money on labor costs. Certainly they can afford to be a little more generous than that! But then, when you think about it, generosity can cause unforeseen problems too.

    What happens when an American company is paying people that much more money than the indigenous companies? For one thing, all of the best employees will leave their native vocations and in a scramble to get a job with Nike. Also, many native entrepreneurs may decide to work for Nike rather than starting their own businesses. Educated professionals may discover that Nike factory work pays more than being a nurse or an accountant, and abandon their careers accordingly. And, of course, the relatively more affluent factory workers will become totally dependent in a lifestyle that is based on their high Nike wages. Nike ends up becoming a kind of career lottery win that everyone wants to play.

    This might be even more destructive to the indigenous culture than poverty.
36. Larry says:

    November 11, 2009 at 5:01 am

    @Eric Jacobus.

    You are missing the point of the 10 vs 50 lashes analogy. The point is to question your definition of “free choice.” You assert that workers in the Third World freely choose to be exploited. After all, it’s better than their other options.

    What you don’t question is the legitimacy of this “choice” when you are playing in a rigged game to begin with, where you have no power to determine the nature of your options, and where you are subject to *structural* forms of economic coercion.

    Choose to be a Nike sweatshop worker, or you might starve and be compelled to send your daughters into the sex trade.

    Is that “free choice”?

    Only from the perspective of one who benefits from this exploitation and hopes to rationalize it.

    In some ways, this reminds me of how American “democracy” (and consumerism) works.

    Voters/consumers are given a choice between different options that the system has already decided for them:

    Democrat vs. Republican.

    Coke vs. Pepsi.

    Burger King vs. McDonald’s

    Choose … and lose.
37. mojorider says:

    November 11, 2009 at 8:56 am

    @King-

    hahahahaha!!! Yes, I’m back to flogging that carcas as well, so I can’t lay the blame on all y’all for keeping this alive. You make some good points about globalization….

    @ EJ -

    working full time? Back to exploiting the masses and creating alienated labor, i see! (j/k…)

    Your point is taken, I am throwing out lots of notions and thoughts. As for finding what logic to “follow”, it isn’t about “finding” the logic to follow. It’s really boiled down to, “do i accept your premises or central principles of your philosophy?” because there’s no syllogistic following if any of the premises or propositions are faulty to begin with! It’s apparent that we don’t agree with each other’s central viewpoint:

    I believe that there must be some governing oversight of the market, and you don’t. I believe I established my points where intervention is needed in society. And I bring up the effects of racism as an example because, to my understanding, your philosophical beliefs in the market won’t solve it. You’re making a huge leap of faith, IMO, that a society with no governance or state could remedy such societal ills if it only has the free market as a major force. Your remedy is, “let groups segregate”—which to me, is a return to a Hobbesian state of nature, where you wind up with warring factions. Especially when Group A is in the majority and control the majority of resources or means of production and Group B , the minority group, is left to basically go somewhere else. The “don’t like it, leave” sentiment isn’t much of a solution to me.

    Same goes for pollution—you’re making an assumption every business would abide by having this so-called for profit judicial system. We have an EPA and businesses are STILL trying to skirt their responsibility to clean up their messes. It goes back to the brief discussion we had about regulating greed. You said “maybe we shouldn’t” and I’m saying we should

    You distrust government and the nation-state concept and I distrust the corporate entities that would make up an unregulated market, with little to zero governance. Ironically, it seems as if we’re both for protecting the individual, but we differ on how to do it: state versus market. Different side of the same coin.

    You say, “does too!” and I say “does not!” and it’s becoming circular. Okay, NOW maybe I can extract myself from this thread, ha ha…!
38. Eric Jacobus says:

    November 11, 2009 at 11:57 am

    King: you’re making some good points about culture, but let’s let those people choose whether to change their culture or not. If they’d rather keep their culture, then they can simply not apply for the Nike jobs. It seems they don’t want to do this though, that they’d prefer to make more money.

    Larry: three things

    1. It is definitely a free choice to choose between your life of poverty on a garbage heap or a job in a sweatshop (or call center in India, now), provided you’re lucky enough to score such a job. Fact is, nothing better than Nike comes along. One could blame Nike, or one could blame the Developing country for an environment where people prefer Nike sweatshop jobs.

    So, how would you explain India’s recent development? My answer: exploitation of Indian labor. What’s yours? Expansion of Indian culture? Redistribution of income (communism)? They tried that for a while, weee!

    2. Consumerism: what is the problem with it? Is it really all that bad that producers make things that consumers want? What’s a better alternative? Should consumers be given the “right” to vote on how these businesses are run? Would that create profitable businesses?

    3. You may think you’re dissing the Democrats when you’re really swallowing their platform like a champ; democracy, redistribution, and regulation, cornerstones of the Democratic Party. Everything you’re advocating represents leftist Social Democracy, which caters to special interests in order to garner votes. Do you think Democracy can have a different result?
39. jaehwan says:

    November 11, 2009 at 12:09 pm

    If we take the paradigm of slavery and apply Hegel’s parable of the slave to the Nike question, it could be arguable that these well paid (by emerging world standards) manufacturing laborers could be picking up good know-how from the presence of these factories too by working with their hands. Not child laborers of course–that’s something different–but adults who see how corporations work could be learning, saving capital, and getting valuable training for future entrepreneurship. India could be an example of this. China too–look at how China is almost leading the way in the production of solar panels. They would have probably learned this on their own of course, but perhaps the presence of international corporations has expedited the development process.

    (I like Mojo’s points and have argued with Eric about the “invisible hand” thing before, but I’m trying to look for areas where I might agree with him…even if I only agree a little bit…)
40. jaehwan says:

    November 11, 2009 at 12:15 pm

    Oops…looks like Mojo’s post got caught in the Spam filter. Not sure why…great points though. Eric’s (or King’s, or Larry’s) turn!
41. Eric Jacobus says:

    November 11, 2009 at 12:49 pm

    Mojo:

    Racism: forced integration is the problem, so whether the market is the solution is irrelevant for now because it wasn’t the cause in the first place. Slavery wasn’t a market phenomenon, but a statist one, subsidized by the same structure that you support. Markets give little support for slavery because it’s far too expensive and has to be subsidized.

    The “don’t like it, leave” sentiment is how the world works, but forced integration has given people the strange notion that nobody should have to move, that “the state will force others to accept you.” Problems result. Love It or Leave It is why people commute, or do what I do (www.seasteading.org). Voting for change doesn’t seem to work.

    Pollution: if businesses don’t abide by the judicial system, they suffer penalties, jail time, bad reputation, etc. All done through private sector. Commerce begets laws, not the other way around. Laws are required to do commerce, and it’s in the interest of all businesses to enforce them. Those who don’t follow the laws are punished. The private sector is very good at creating good laws. I always point to this, but the Better Business Bureau is a great example of a private firm enforcing good business practices. Organic labels do the same.

    You’re not just pro-government, you’re pro-state. You approve of a monopolized protection racket that is the sole arbiter in all decisions, even those against itself. Right?
42. Larry says:

    November 12, 2009 at 2:48 pm

    @ Eric Jacobus

    Would you trade places with a sweatshop worker in Asia or a aaquiladora worker in Mexico and enjoy some of that “freedom to be exploited” that you believe these people have?

    You can move to Mexico or Asia and slave for some American corporation or subsidiary, while someone there can move here and enjoy your life … permanently. Would you make that swap?

    If you really believe that these workers in the developing world have “free choice,” you should.
43. Eric Jacobus says:

    November 12, 2009 at 6:03 pm

    I choose not to trade places with them. They choose not to trade places with those who still work on garbage heaps.

    All you’re saying is that we’re better off than they are. What you’re not making clear is why you oppose measures to improve their standards of living only by small amounts. To you, if it’s not at least $X, it should be $0.00. So what’s X to you?
44. Eric Jacobus says:

    November 12, 2009 at 6:18 pm

    To clarify, X is the increase in wages you deem appropriate for a company to move overseas. What I’m reading from you is that you oppose any increase in wages until X is reached. Until then, Nike shouldn’t come in to “exploit” the workers, because your logic seems to say that Nike doesn’t exploit when they pay $X or more.