Sweatshops in a realistic light.

[Anonymous]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VaHmgoB10E

"Nobody in this country (Kenya) thinks about companies exploiting them. When there is a new company opening -- a factory -- people are excited about it. I wish we had more "sweatshops" in my country."

[1714157518]

1714157518

[1714157518]

1714157518

[hugolp]

While it is certainly better to work on a factory than being forced to prostitute or die of hunger, the problem is taht the sweatshops are not a product of free market. In the majority of those countries there is no respect for property rights, the governments have confiscated big parts of the land and distributed among a few people. This situation sends the majority of the people into poverty and forces them to sell their labor cheaper than they would in a free market. By removing all their options they take their bargaining power for better wages.

It is true that girls working at sweatchops statistically get schooled more and get independent quicker than the ones that reamin in the country side, but again, this does not mean that they could not be in a better position if the governments would not have violated their individulal rights so they had better bargaining power, or maybe even save and start their own business.

[Anonymous]

While it is certainly better to work on a factory than being forced to prostitute or die of hunger, the problem is taht the sweatshops are not a product of free market. In the majority of those countries there is no respect for property rights, the governments have confiscated big parts of the land and distributed among a few people. This situation sends the majority of the people into poverty and forces them to sell their labor cheaper than they would in a free market. By removing all their options they take their bargaining power for better wages.

It is true that girls working at sweatchops statistically get schooled more and get independent quicker than the ones that reamin in the country side, but again, this does not mean that they could not be in a better position if the governments would not have violated their individulal rights so they had better bargaining power, or maybe even save and start their own business.

Even in a freemarket, we must accept there will still be hard labor such as this although better assurance of safe working conditions and a fair objective pay.

[hugolp]

Even in a freemarket, we must accept there will still be hard labor such as this although better assurance of safe working conditions and a fair objective pay.

Yes, but this is not the case. And I agree that denouncing industrialization of those countries is stupid, but a real libertarian would denounce the violation of the individual rights of those people that foced them to accept those conditions.

Also, in a free market there would be much more welfare (in the sense of people enjoying a better standard of living) and hiring people for those jobs would be more difficult, promoting automatization of those kind of jobs, or higher wages for the ones that needed a human.

[Anonymous]

Even in a freemarket, we must accept there will still be hard labor such as this although better assurance of safe working conditions and a fair objective pay.

Yes, but this is not the case. And I agree that denouncing industrialization of those countries is stupid, but a real libertarian would denounce the violation of the individual rights of those people that foced them to accept those conditions.

Also, in a free market there would be much more welfare (in the sense of people enjoying a better standard of living) and hiring people for those jobs would be more difficult, promoting automatization of those kind of jobs, or higher wages for the ones that needed a human.

So be it but I have never seen anything wrong with a man working hard to sustain himself.  I come from quite a line of farmers and laborers and not one of them regrets their lives of sweat. My father may have been nearly killed in an iron working accident but I think it's just the natural tragedy of life.

[hugolp]

So be it but I have never seen anything wrong with a man working hard to sustain himself.  I come from quite a line of farmers and laborers and not one of them regrets their lives of sweat. My father may have been nearly killed in an iron working accident but I think it's just the natural tragedy of life.

I think too hard working is a good thing. It keeps you straight.

But how would have your ancestors felt if the government would have taken their land? That is a violation of their property rights and has nothing to do with your ancestors being lazy.

[bittersweet]

But these students don't protest against governments. They protest against private companies.
They want even more government and more regulations.

[hugolp]

But these students don't protest against governments. They protest against private companies.
They want even more government and more regulations.

Yes, the interventionists are ignorant. Thats not news. But my point is that libertarians should not defend sweatshops just because interentionists attac them. We should denounce violations of individual rights when we see them, no matter whos side that puts us on.

[bittersweet]

The violation is that someone took their land or other property by force, not that someone built a factory and offers them a job.

[AyeYo]

The violation is that someone took their land or other property by force, not that someone built a factory and offers them a job.

Yea, just keep playing the semantics game so that you never end up admitting the negatives of a free market.


Quick reality check:
Someone took their land and property BECAUSE someone else wanted to build a factory and employ people for next to nothing.  The government didn't one day just up and take land from people at random, and then Happy Smilie Nice Company just happened to be passing by and see a nice empty piece of land to buy and establish a factory on.  FIRST came the need for cheap labor.  THEN came the interventionism by the US or whoever else to swing the local government's opinion, bribe them, kill them, or straight up invade and replace them, so that Happy Smilie Nice Company could come in and build its cheap labor factory.  The US government is an acting agent of the corporations that control it, NOT the other way around.  The local government that took the land is an agent of the US government that is an agent of the corporation that wanted the land.  All roads lead back to greedy big business and money, NOT to the government.  The goverment is merely one enabler along the way, it is NOT the root of the problem.

[bittersweet]

negatives of a free market.

LOL, I think you are the one who needs reality check dude.

[AyeYo]

negatives of a free market.

LOL, I think you are the one who needs reality check dude.

Think again.  What I just described is the end product of a free market.  In a free market, the people with the money make the rules.  The corporations of the world are the people with the money, so they will always make the rules, and their rules include controlling the government.  The end result of unhindered capitalism is the people at the top owning and controlling everything, including governments.


I guess you just can't see that your belief system is one of perpetual blame shifting for its many short comings.  You can simply keep blaming all these short comings on the market not being free enoug.  This is what Friedman did when doing economic consulting for post-coup Chile - he continued telling them to make the market more free until the country was ran right into the ground.  Because a 100% free market (as you define it) will never exist, like Friedman, you'll never have to face the music that your belief system simply doesn't work as you think it does in the real world.

[bittersweet]

I suggest you to educate yourself what is free market:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eP6iujgeWI

[hugolp]

Yea, just keep playing the semantics game so that you never end up admitting the negatives of a free market.


Quick reality check:
Someone took their land and property BECAUSE someone else wanted to build a factory and employ people for next to nothing.  The government didn't one day just up and take land from people at random, and then Happy Smilie Nice Company just happened to be passing by and see a nice empty piece of land to buy and establish a factory on.  FIRST came the need for cheap labor.  THEN came the interventionism by the US or whoever else to swing the local government's opinion, bribe them, kill them, or straight up invade and replace them, so that Happy Smilie Nice Company could come in and build its cheap labor factory.  The US government is an acting agent of the corporations that control it, NOT the other way around.  The local government that took the land is an agent of the US government that is an agent of the corporation that wanted the land.  All roads lead back to greedy big business and money, NOT to the government.  The goverment is merely one enabler along the way, it is NOT the root of the problem.

Well, not all the cases were like this, although this you explain would not surpirse me. But some places their own governments were fucking the people and the multinationals just went there to get cheap labour.

Think again.  What I just described is the end product of a free market.  In a free market, the people with the money make the rules.  The corporations of the world are the people with the money, so they will always make the rules, and their rules include controlling the government.  The end result of unhindered capitalism is the people at the top owning and controlling everything, including governments.

This you are describing is what happens in a social-democracy. Political darwinism. In social-democracy the people with money can and do use it to screew the poor and the middle classes. If the government can not intervene or directly there is no government it can not happen.

I guess you just can't see that your belief system is one of perpetual blame shifting for its many short comings.  You can simply keep blaming all these short comings on the market not being free enoug.  Because a 100% free market (as you define it) will never exist, you'll never have to face the music that your belief system simply doesn't work as you think it does in the real world.

You need a reality check and a history lesson.

[AyeYo]

I suggest you to educate yourself what is free market:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eP6iujgeWI

lol youtube lessons

I suggest you take some courses on basic economics and then do, at the very least, a solid skim through of world (that means the whole world, not the first-world) history.  Your mind will be blown.


In the mean time, you can try to actually address what I'm saying instead of just posting a youtube video.

[AyeYo]

Well, not all the cases were like this, although this you explain would not surpirse me. But some places their own governments were fucking the people and the multinationals just went there to get cheap labour.

And why were the governments fucking the people?  Were they doing it for the lulz?

This you are describing is what happens in a social-democracy. Political darwinism. In social-democracy the people with money can and do use it to screew the poor and the middle classes. If the government can not intervene or directly there is no government it can not happen.

You're right.  Corporations cannot control the government if the government doesn't exist.  Instead, they'll just control people directly.  Explain to me how that's better.  You've removed a tool, but you haven't addressed the root of the problem - like banning guns instead of getting rid of criminals.


Government is the collective bargaining power of the common man.  The trick is to keep is strong and focused enough that it cannot be controlled by corporations and those with money.  Castrating it or removing it all together is simply removing the only power the common man has, that of organization and unity.

[hugolp]

Well, not all the cases were like this, although this you explain would not surpirse me. But some places their own governments were fucking the people and the multinationals just went there to get cheap labour.

And why were the governments fucking the people?  Were they doing it for the lulz?

This you are describing is what happens in a social-democracy. Political darwinism. In social-democracy the people with money can and do use it to screew the poor and the middle classes. If the government can not intervene or directly there is no government it can not happen.

You're right.  Corporations cannot control the government if the government doesn't exist.  Instead, they'll just control people directly.  Explain to me how that's better.  You've removed a tool, but you haven't addressed the root of the problem - like banning guns instead of getting rid of criminals.


Government is the collective bargaining power of the common man.  The trick is to keep is strong and focused enough that it cannot be controlled by corporations and those with money.  Castrating it or removing it all together is simply removing the only power the common man has, that of organization and unity.

Yes, government is there to protect you, specifically you. The politicians of your country went to bed yesterday thinking in ways of making your life easier. Good luck.

[Anonymous]

Corporations can't control anybody if they are the same playing field. Corporations have power because of the government. It's called limit liability.

[AyeYo]

Corporations can't control anybody if they are the same playing field. 

And I could fly if I could fly... but I can't fly so I can't fly.  No multi-billion dollar mega-corporation is on a level playing field with Joe Shmoe making $30k/year.

[kylesaisgone]

But these students don't protest against governments. They protest against private companies.
They want even more government and more regulations.

Yes, the interventionists are ignorant. Thats not news. But my point is that libertarians should not defend sweatshops just because interentionists attac them. We should denounce violations of individual rights when we see them, no matter whos side that puts us on.

I agree.