Sweatshops in a realistic light.

[AyeYo]

Taxes and laws are oppression, not job offers on a free market.

So if I give you a choice between death by gunshot or death by hanging... that's not oppression, right?  As long as you've got a choice, it's not oppression, right?

[1714110536]

1714110536

[1714110536]

1714110536

[1714110536]

1714110536

[1714110536]

1714110536

[1714110536]

1714110536

[michaelmclees]

Taxes and laws are oppression, not job offers on a free market.

So if I give you a choice between death by gunshot or death by hanging... that's not oppression, right?  As long as you've got a choice, it's not oppression, right?

That is only an analogy if the employer in the first statement is offering a job and then banning the potential employee from doing anything else.  Criminal A, in offering a choice between a gunshot or hanging to Victim B, is kind of like a Government A that offering choices to Employer B, either employ people at a particular wage Government A approves of or don't employ anyone at all.

In both cases, the A's oppression stems from the forceful limiting of B's liberty.  Criminal A arbitrarily takes away Victim B's liberty to simply be left alone.  Government A arbitrarily takes away Employer B's liberty to offer a wage below whatever wage Government A dictates.  In either case, you will forever lose this debate; not because you can't convince a majority of people to think like you (they already do), but because you rely on illogical non-analogies to support your fallacious premise, that you can make better decisions for people than they can make for themselves.

Give it up already.

[AyeYo]

Taxes and laws are oppression, not job offers on a free market.

So if I give you a choice between death by gunshot or death by hanging... that's not oppression, right?  As long as you've got a choice, it's not oppression, right?

That is only an analogy if the employer in the first statement is offering a job and then banning the potential employee from doing anything else.  Criminal A, in offering a choice between a gunshot or hanging to Victim B, is kind of like a Government A that offering choices to Employer B, either employ people at a particular wage Government A approves of or don't employ anyone at all.

In both cases, the A's oppression stems from the forceful limiting of B's liberty. 

Which is exactly how it works in the real world with sweatshops.  The native people have had their lands removed from their ownership, therefore they have the option to do the only job available (work in a sweatshop) or die by starvation.

Do you get it now?

[michaelmclees]

Taxes and laws are oppression, not job offers on a free market.

So if I give you a choice between death by gunshot or death by hanging... that's not oppression, right?  As long as you've got a choice, it's not oppression, right?

That is only an analogy if the employer in the first statement is offering a job and then banning the potential employee from doing anything else.  Criminal A, in offering a choice between a gunshot or hanging to Victim B, is kind of like a Government A that offering choices to Employer B, either employ people at a particular wage Government A approves of or don't employ anyone at all.

In both cases, the A's oppression stems from the forceful limiting of B's liberty. 

Which is exactly how it works in the real world with sweatshops.  The native people have had their lands removed from their ownership, therefore they have the option to do the only job available (work in a sweatshop) or die by starvation.

Do you get it now?

Then the oppression comes from the land theft, if that's what happened, not the employer.  You don't punish a doctor for dealing with your stab wound which was left by a mugger, do you?

[AyeYo]

Taxes and laws are oppression, not job offers on a free market.

So if I give you a choice between death by gunshot or death by hanging... that's not oppression, right?  As long as you've got a choice, it's not oppression, right?

That is only an analogy if the employer in the first statement is offering a job and then banning the potential employee from doing anything else.  Criminal A, in offering a choice between a gunshot or hanging to Victim B, is kind of like a Government A that offering choices to Employer B, either employ people at a particular wage Government A approves of or don't employ anyone at all.

In both cases, the A's oppression stems from the forceful limiting of B's liberty. 

Which is exactly how it works in the real world with sweatshops.  The native people have had their lands removed from their ownership, therefore they have the option to do the only job available (work in a sweatshop) or die by starvation.

Do you get it now?

Then the oppression comes from the land theft, if that's what happened, not the employer.  You don't punish a doctor for dealing with your stab wound which was left by a mugger, do you?

Exactly, but, ironically enough, the one who stole the land WAS the employer.

Isn't it magical how this all comes full circle?

[michaelmclees]

Taxes and laws are oppression, not job offers on a free market.

So if I give you a choice between death by gunshot or death by hanging... that's not oppression, right?  As long as you've got a choice, it's not oppression, right?

That is only an analogy if the employer in the first statement is offering a job and then banning the potential employee from doing anything else.  Criminal A, in offering a choice between a gunshot or hanging to Victim B, is kind of like a Government A that offering choices to Employer B, either employ people at a particular wage Government A approves of or don't employ anyone at all.

In both cases, the A's oppression stems from the forceful limiting of B's liberty. 

Which is exactly how it works in the real world with sweatshops.  The native people have had their lands removed from their ownership, therefore they have the option to do the only job available (work in a sweatshop) or die by starvation.

Do you get it now?

Then the oppression comes from the land theft, if that's what happened, not the employer.  You don't punish a doctor for dealing with your stab wound which was left by a mugger, do you?

Exactly, but, ironically enough, the one who stole the land WAS the employer.

Isn't it magical how this all comes full circle?

How did the employer steal the land then?  There is something you're not telling me.

[AntiVigilante]

Exactly, but, ironically enough, the one who stole the land WAS the employer.

Isn't it magical how this all comes full circle?

How did the employer steal the land then?  There is something you're not telling me.

You know the way macropolitics always works, economic destruction by officials, land purchase by corporations, jobs worked by people who could have never had a practical opportunity to influence either decision.

[AyeYo]

Exactly, but, ironically enough, the one who stole the land WAS the employer.

Isn't it magical how this all comes full circle?

How did the employer steal the land then?  There is something you're not telling me.

You know the way macropolitics always works, economic destruction by officials, land purchase by corporations, jobs worked by people who could have never had a practical opportunity to influence either decision.

Right on the money.

[LastBattle]

The workers are being kept from bargaining collectively by the local governments.  If they could bargain collectively (as the company does) then a fair market price could be reached.

...Which is a problem with governments, not sweatshops themselves.

Going by the same vein of logic, farming in the mid-early 19th century in the US is evil because the slaves worked on farms, ignoring the fact that government supported slavery is the problem, not farming.

Sweatshops are a symptom, and not the root of the problem, that doesn't mean they are ok.

Just because diorhea is a symptom of Cholera, and not the root problem doesn't change the fact that it is the Diorhea that will kill you.

Sweatshops are infinitely preferable to many of the other things a government could do instead.

Removing sweatshops before removing the government's ability to oppress the workers is like aggressively working to deal with the stuffy nose over the cancer.

That's right, it's ALWAYS the government's fault.


Libertarian rule #1: Everything is the government's fault

Libertarian rule #2: If something is actually a corporation's fault, blame it on the government (see rule #1)

I was unaware that corporations were capable of collecting taxes and passing laws, the two things that make the oppression of workers in Asia feasible.

Not relevant.

Oxygen content in air kept Hilter alive, thus making it feasible to execute his plan for the holocaust.  Oxygen did not cause the holocaust.

Jet fuel powered the planes that flew into the WTC on 9/11, thus jet fuel made the attacks of 9/11 feasible.  Jet fuel did not cause 9/11.

My argument has been destroyed by your brilliant argument! Arrgh!

Wait. That is a terrible analogy. Never mind. Also, who is Hilter?

Again: Government is not inanimate. If government was not oppressing workers, then sweatshops would not be a problem in the slightest due to increased competition. Inversely, if the sweatshops were removed forcibly by the government but the government's power was still there, the workers would be that much worse off.

[michaelmclees]

Exactly, but, ironically enough, the one who stole the land WAS the employer.

Isn't it magical how this all comes full circle?

How did the employer steal the land then?  There is something you're not telling me.

You know the way macropolitics always works, economic destruction by officials, land purchase by corporations, jobs worked by people who could have never had a practical opportunity to influence either decision.

So.... not theft then.  OK.

[AyeYo]

Exactly, but, ironically enough, the one who stole the land WAS the employer.

Isn't it magical how this all comes full circle?

How did the employer steal the land then?  There is something you're not telling me.

You know the way macropolitics always works, economic destruction by officials, land purchase by corporations, jobs worked by people who could have never had a practical opportunity to influence either decision.

So.... not theft then.  OK.

Oh, that's right!  As long as it's techinically LEGAL then it's perfectly ok... unless we're talking about taxes, then of course it's definitely theft because all our standards are completely arbitrary.  I think I'm getting the hang of this libertarian thing!

[michaelmclees]

Exactly, but, ironically enough, the one who stole the land WAS the employer.

Isn't it magical how this all comes full circle?

How did the employer steal the land then?  There is something you're not telling me.

You know the way macropolitics always works, economic destruction by officials, land purchase by corporations, jobs worked by people who could have never had a practical opportunity to influence either decision.

So.... not theft then.  OK.

Oh, that's right!  As long as it's techinically LEGAL then it's perfectly ok... unless we're talking about taxes, then of course it's definitely theft because all our standards are completely arbitrary.  I think I'm getting the hang of this libertarian thing!

Voluntary transactions are not theft; taxes are not voluntary.  If you're looking for inconsistencies in the libertarian position, you won't find in there.

[AyeYo]

Exactly, but, ironically enough, the one who stole the land WAS the employer.

Isn't it magical how this all comes full circle?

How did the employer steal the land then?  There is something you're not telling me.

You know the way macropolitics always works, economic destruction by officials, land purchase by corporations, jobs worked by people who could have never had a practical opportunity to influence either decision.

So.... not theft then.  OK.

Oh, that's right!  As long as it's techinically LEGAL then it's perfectly ok... unless we're talking about taxes, then of course it's definitely theft because all our standards are completely arbitrary.  I think I'm getting the hang of this libertarian thing!

Voluntary transactions are not theft; taxes are not voluntary.  If you're looking for inconsistencies in the libertarian position, you won't find in there.

Taxes sure as hell are voluntary.  You're free to leave the country or stop paying them at any time.  If you choose to stop paying them, you'll face jail time or fines, but no one is preventing you from making that choice.

Just like the people getting their land taken away, they're free to fight back and get killed.  They have a choice (albeit a crappy one), so according to libertarians, choice (no matter how terrible) = voluntary.

They have a choice to not work in the sweatshops.  They can skip the work and starve to death.  That's a choice, so it must be voluntary.

[LastBattle]

Exactly, but, ironically enough, the one who stole the land WAS the employer.

Isn't it magical how this all comes full circle?

How did the employer steal the land then?  There is something you're not telling me.

You know the way macropolitics always works, economic destruction by officials, land purchase by corporations, jobs worked by people who could have never had a practical opportunity to influence either decision.

So.... not theft then.  OK.

Oh, that's right!  As long as it's techinically LEGAL then it's perfectly ok... unless we're talking about taxes, then of course it's definitely theft because all our standards are completely arbitrary.  I think I'm getting the hang of this libertarian thing!

Voluntary transactions are not theft; taxes are not voluntary.  If you're looking for inconsistencies in the libertarian position, you won't find in there.

Taxes sure as hell are voluntary.  You're free to leave the country or stop paying them at any time.  If you choose to stop paying them, you'll face jail time or fines, but no one is preventing you from making that choice.

Just like the people getting their land taken away, they're free to fight back and get killed.  They have a choice (albeit a crappy one), so according to libertarians, choice (no matter how terrible) = voluntary.

They have a choice to not work in the sweatshops.  They can skip the work and starve to death.  That's a choice, so it must be voluntary.

I don't think you understand what coercion is.

Also, being extorted by the mafia is voluntary, too. You can leave the country or get shot if you don't want to pay, but no one is preventing you.

[AyeYo]

Exactly, but, ironically enough, the one who stole the land WAS the employer.

Isn't it magical how this all comes full circle?

How did the employer steal the land then?  There is something you're not telling me.

You know the way macropolitics always works, economic destruction by officials, land purchase by corporations, jobs worked by people who could have never had a practical opportunity to influence either decision.

So.... not theft then.  OK.

Oh, that's right!  As long as it's techinically LEGAL then it's perfectly ok... unless we're talking about taxes, then of course it's definitely theft because all our standards are completely arbitrary.  I think I'm getting the hang of this libertarian thing!

Voluntary transactions are not theft; taxes are not voluntary.  If you're looking for inconsistencies in the libertarian position, you won't find in there.

Taxes sure as hell are voluntary.  You're free to leave the country or stop paying them at any time.  If you choose to stop paying them, you'll face jail time or fines, but no one is preventing you from making that choice.

Just like the people getting their land taken away, they're free to fight back and get killed.  They have a choice (albeit a crappy one), so according to libertarians, choice (no matter how terrible) = voluntary.

They have a choice to not work in the sweatshops.  They can skip the work and starve to death.  That's a choice, so it must be voluntary.

I don't think you understand what coercion is.

Also, being extorted by the mafia is voluntary, too. You can leave the country or get shot if you don't want to pay, but no one is preventing you.

If we're using your standard than you're 100%.


I do understand what coercion is, I just refuse to let you use the word arbitrarily.  Arguing a societal system is all about consistency.  It's easy to come up with seemingly viable systems if you use arbitrary application of principles and standards, but those systems, like your libertarian system, don't pass the consistency test.  Real-world workable systems must be consistent, because the real world is too complex and includes people of too many differeing opinions for you to get away with using YOUR arbitrary standards.

[LastBattle]

Exactly, but, ironically enough, the one who stole the land WAS the employer.

Isn't it magical how this all comes full circle?

How did the employer steal the land then?  There is something you're not telling me.

You know the way macropolitics always works, economic destruction by officials, land purchase by corporations, jobs worked by people who could have never had a practical opportunity to influence either decision.

So.... not theft then.  OK.

Oh, that's right!  As long as it's techinically LEGAL then it's perfectly ok... unless we're talking about taxes, then of course it's definitely theft because all our standards are completely arbitrary.  I think I'm getting the hang of this libertarian thing!

Voluntary transactions are not theft; taxes are not voluntary.  If you're looking for inconsistencies in the libertarian position, you won't find in there.

Taxes sure as hell are voluntary.  You're free to leave the country or stop paying them at any time.  If you choose to stop paying them, you'll face jail time or fines, but no one is preventing you from making that choice.

Just like the people getting their land taken away, they're free to fight back and get killed.  They have a choice (albeit a crappy one), so according to libertarians, choice (no matter how terrible) = voluntary.

They have a choice to not work in the sweatshops.  They can skip the work and starve to death.  That's a choice, so it must be voluntary.

I don't think you understand what coercion is.

Also, being extorted by the mafia is voluntary, too. You can leave the country or get shot if you don't want to pay, but no one is preventing you.

If we're using your standard than you're 100%.


I do understand what coercion is, I just refuse to let you use the word arbitrarily.  Arguing a societal system is all about consistency.  It's easy to come up with seemingly viable systems if you use arbitrary application of principles and standards, but those systems, like your libertarian system, don't pass the consistency test.  Real-world workable systems must be consistent, because the real world is too complex and includes people of too many differeing opinions for you to get away with using YOUR arbitrary standards.

That sure is some strange logic.

The world is complex, therefore there must be thugs who extort people for their money and control what they can/cannot do.

You do realize that in a libertarian system, each individual would have his own standards and therefore it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference whether a person had a differing opinion or not, right? Seems like the real world is too complex for your arbitrary standards.

[AyeYo]

Exactly, but, ironically enough, the one who stole the land WAS the employer.

Isn't it magical how this all comes full circle?

How did the employer steal the land then?  There is something you're not telling me.

You know the way macropolitics always works, economic destruction by officials, land purchase by corporations, jobs worked by people who could have never had a practical opportunity to influence either decision.

So.... not theft then.  OK.

Oh, that's right!  As long as it's techinically LEGAL then it's perfectly ok... unless we're talking about taxes, then of course it's definitely theft because all our standards are completely arbitrary.  I think I'm getting the hang of this libertarian thing!

Voluntary transactions are not theft; taxes are not voluntary.  If you're looking for inconsistencies in the libertarian position, you won't find in there.

Taxes sure as hell are voluntary.  You're free to leave the country or stop paying them at any time.  If you choose to stop paying them, you'll face jail time or fines, but no one is preventing you from making that choice.

Just like the people getting their land taken away, they're free to fight back and get killed.  They have a choice (albeit a crappy one), so according to libertarians, choice (no matter how terrible) = voluntary.

They have a choice to not work in the sweatshops.  They can skip the work and starve to death.  That's a choice, so it must be voluntary.

I don't think you understand what coercion is.

Also, being extorted by the mafia is voluntary, too. You can leave the country or get shot if you don't want to pay, but no one is preventing you.

If we're using your standard than you're 100%.


I do understand what coercion is, I just refuse to let you use the word arbitrarily.  Arguing a societal system is all about consistency.  It's easy to come up with seemingly viable systems if you use arbitrary application of principles and standards, but those systems, like your libertarian system, don't pass the consistency test.  Real-world workable systems must be consistent, because the real world is too complex and includes people of too many differeing opinions for you to get away with using YOUR arbitrary standards.

That sure is some strange logic.

The world is complex, therefore there must be thugs who extort people for their money and control what they can/cannot do.

You do realize that in a libertarian system, each individual would have his own standards and therefore it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference whether a person had a differing opinion or not, right? Seems like the real world is too complex for your arbitrary standards.

Absolutely unture.  If they're within a libertarian system then they are being forced to abide by that system and everything that comes with it.  No man is an island unto himself, you'll learn that someday when you grow up.

[shady financier]

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.

Fucking A.

[Anonymous]

People could take up land like that because there is no competent law system since there is a monopoly on it by a single government. There is no incentive for sound law.

[Anonymous]

It is the root because they are the only men that can fund an odious debt with a monopoly on force. Corporations can only be enabled by government.