Libertarian land ownership theory

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Can I drive drunk as long as I get the job done?

Driving drunk falls under the catagory of endangering non-consenting others and their property. This is an actual crime, so no.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Radar

There is no long term profit in doing business unethically.

I think you're in fairy-tale land on that one.

Sorry, I can't think of a better way to say that.

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by Radar

Nike is one of the most socially responsible companies on earth. They give jobs to people in other countries that would die of starvation without their help, yet there are some foolish people who accuse them of exploitation or other such nonsense.

Oh? Care to cite which countries?

[Radar]

Malaysia, Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Philippines, Korea, etc.

[Ibby]

Taiwan? I can definitely say that Taiwanese wouldnt be starving without Nike. Korea likewise.

[Radar]

The unskilled workers who take jobs at Nike might, but I'll give you those two.

[Aliantha]

Hair splitting is alive and well in the cellar I see...

[Stormieweather]

Originally Posted by Radar

...This is what ended child labor... not unions. When people speak with dollars, it is far more effective than any law. Businesses are in business to make a profit, and there is no long term profit in dishonesty or in harming people.

Riiiiight. So they move to the Far East where there are no child labor laws.

Originally Posted by Radar

Nike is one of the most socially responsible companies on earth. They give jobs to people in other countries that would die of starvation without their help, yet there are some foolish people who accuse them of exploitation or other such nonsense.

You do realize that the reason Nike, Coca Cola, Phillips Van-Heusen, Levi Strauss and other large manufacturers utilize Far Eastern countries (instead of say, Europe) for their manufactoring is because there are very few if any laws there to protect the laborers? The governments of those poor countries condone physical abuse, child labor, excessive working hours, pitiful working conditions, unauthorized withdrawals from their paychecks or refusing to pay the employees at all? Any attempt by these employees to unionize or organize is quickly squashed, even by assassins if necessary, in order to continue to operate at minimal costs. These companies are not there out of the goodness of their hearts or to 'help', they are there to get the maximum product for the least cost. It has nothing to do with being socially responsible.

You say that investors care, that unethical behavior is not profitable in the long run, but I beg to differ. We don't care. We want our stock dividends and our pretty Nike shoes at reasonable costs. As long as the manner in which they produce these products doesn't affect US directly, most people turn a blind eye to unethical behavior.

Would these people starve without these jobs? Maybe. So abusing another human being is justified if they will tolerate it in order to survive?

Stormie

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by Stormieweather

Would these people starve without these jobs? Maybe.

I've yet to read any study that concludes anything other than a plummeting quality of life after large corporations setup shop in developing countries and began employing locals for cheap labor. "Starving"? No. They may have not have made much/any money prior to the introduction of cheap labor, but it is often the case that they did not need it and their community/culture didn't rely on it.

After the introduction of the shop, though, they suddenly require money to survive thanks to the change in the local market. Not only that, but they have to work much harder and many more hours to achieve a similar life to what what they had before. I won't touch the topic of how to correctly handle this situation, but it is absolutely false to summarize the introduction of cheap labor shops into developing nations as "saving that population from starving".

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Radar

There is no long term profit in doing business unethically.

Originally Posted by Occam's Razor

When your belief system clashes with reality, guess which one is wrong?

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Stormieweather

Riiiiight. So they move to the Far East where there are no child labor laws.

I was referring to child labor in America. And eventually since these people are getting a taste of the freedom, money, and prosperity capitalism brings, they will eventually get there too.

Originally Posted by Stormieweather

You do realize that the reason Nike, Coca Cola, Phillips Van-Heusen, Levi Strauss and other large manufacturers utilize Far Eastern countries (instead of say, Europe) for their manufactoring is because there are very few if any laws there to protect the laborers?

You do realize that your entire last statement is completely false and is actually completely unrelated at all to the reasons they do business in Asia rather than Europe. The real reason is because labor costs are cheaper there. They pay people the going rate of salary (and sometimes a bit more) to produce their goods. They are also giving people opportunity to work that they wouldn't have without these companies. They are literally saving families from starving to death.

Originally Posted by Stormieweather

The governments of those poor countries condone physical abuse, child labor, excessive working hours, pitiful working conditions, unauthorized withdrawals from their paychecks or refusing to pay the employees at all? Any attempt by these employees to unionize or organize is quickly squashed, even by assassins if necessary, in order to continue to operate at minimal costs.

Not one of these people has a gun to their head. They willingly take these jobs knowing the conditions. Nobody is forcing them to stay. They can leave if they don't like it. They are paid exactly what they are worth; not a penny more or less. It's also a good thing they don't unionize. Unions suck, and have done nothing good for workers or for business. In fact, unions are why many people don't have jobs and why many businesses close down or go elsewhere.

Originally Posted by Stormieweather

These companies are not there out of the goodness of their hearts or to 'help', they are there to get the maximum product for the least cost. It has nothing to do with being socially responsible.

Nobody said they were there out of the goodness of their heart. They are there to make the maximum profit they can for their investors....people like housewives, mechanics, computer network administrators, secretaries, doctors, lawyers, nurses, grocery store clerks, etc. Luckily, making a healthy profit does not mean they aren't helping people out too. They are giving people opportunity they would not have otherwise. They are following the laws of the country they are in, they are not abusing anyone, they are not forcing anyone to stay or to apply for work. They are offering a fair salary for the work that is being done in the location for the job.

Nike is making a profit because they are fiscally responsible to their investors, and giving jobs to poor people because they are a socially responsible company that cares about those in need.

Originally Posted by Stormieweather

You say that investors care, that unethical behavior is not profitable in the long run, but I beg to differ. We don't care. We want our stock dividends and our pretty Nike shoes at reasonable costs. As long as the manner in which they produce these products doesn't affect US directly, most people turn a blind eye to unethical behavior.

Some people will turn a blind eye to misdeeds. Nike isn't responsible for any, but if they were, some people would turn away. If Nike were enslaving children and beating them when they worked slowly and locking them up so they couldn't escape, you can bet your ass the first people to say something would be the investors, and they'd demand that it stop immediately. The consumers would do the same. If you say otherwise, you only prove your own ignorance and inability to grasp reality.

Originally Posted by Stormieweather

Would these people starve without these jobs? Maybe. So abusing another human being is justified if they will tolerate it in order to survive?

Stormie

Nobody who works for Nike is being abused, exploited, or harmed by Nike. None of them are lied to. None of them are forced to apply or forced to stay. When they took the job, they agreed that the pay was what their labor was worth, and the conditions were acceptable. Otherwise they wouldn't have taken the job.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Flint

I guess it's a good thing my belief system doesn't clash with reality in the slightest. I didn't give you my opinion about there being no long term profit in doing business unethically, I stated a fact.

[footfootfoot]

Originally Posted by Radar

All of the laws against smoking in public are also ridiculous. There has not been a single speck of evidence to suggest that second hand smoke (especially outdoors) has caused a single case of cancer in the entire history of the world.

Frankly, I'm not worried about my health from second hand smoke. I can't stand the stench which clings to my clothes. I want to be able to go out and have a drink at a bar and come home and not need to have my jacket dry cleaned.

Your right to swing your fist or smoke in a public place ends at the tip of my nose. To expect me to approach every smoker in a bar and get them to pony up their share of my dry cleaning bill is ludicrous and impractical. I don't oppose smoking sections or smoking bars.

For what it's worth I also object to over perfumed and cologned people, and especially to stinky magazines, i.e. the ones with perfume samples. They really hurt my nose, it is like someone shining an extremely bright light in my eyes, it is physically painful.

Would a libertarian society have any laws, and if so, how would it be decided what they were?

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Radar

I didn't give you my opinion about there being no long term profit in doing business unethically, I stated a fact.

Fact: 99% of American business owners are named Jimmy. I stated a fact. Mine had numbers in it, which makes it double-true.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by footfootfoot

Frankly, I'm not worried about my health from second hand smoke. I can't stand the stench which clings to my clothes. I want to be able to go out and have a drink at a bar and come home and not need to have my jacket dry cleaned.

Your right to swing your fist or smoke in a public place ends at the tip of my nose. To expect me to approach every smoker in a bar and get them to pony up their share of my dry cleaning bill is ludicrous and impractical. I don't oppose smoking sections or smoking bars.

For what it's worth I also object to over perfumed and cologned people, and especially to stinky magazines, i.e. the ones with perfume samples. They really hurt my nose, it is like someone shining an extremely bright light in my eyes, it is physically painful.

Would a libertarian society have any laws, and if so, how would it be decided what they were?

Whether or not you personally like it is irrelevant. Your right to keep your nose away from smoke is just fine with me. It means you have a responsibility not to bring your nose into smokey areas. The right of people to smoke does not have a limit at the tip of your nose.

If you go into a bar, you know the bar will have smoke in it before you enter. If you don't want to be around smoke, nobody is forcing you to go into the bar. Likewise, nobody is forcing anyone to apply to work in a smokey bar.

Telling someone they can't smoke in a bar is like telling someone they can't read in a library. The owner of the bar, and nobody else, has legitimate say in the matter. If the owner wants a smoke free bar, he'll get more non-smokers. If he wants to allow smoking in his bar, nobody has any legitimate complaints when they go in and breathe in smoke.