03 Mar 10
Originally posted by adam warlockWhat bearing do "theoretical exercises" have on child labour and sweatshoppery? You have the right making excuses for it and the left hypotheticizing about it.
I see what you mean. But I thought this was more of a theoretical exercise than anything. I didn't think you were think that I thought that removing force and fraud from the world could be done just like that.
Which part of that you didn't understand?
03 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFNo bearing. That's why later I talked about organizing.
What bearing do "theoretical exercises" have on child labour and sweatshoppery? You have the right making excuses for it and the left hypotheticizing about it.
And what are you doing about it? Whining on chess forums?
03 Mar 10
Originally posted by adam warlockWhat business is it of yours what I do for a living? What bearing does it have on this debate?
What are you doing about other than labeling what other people are doing about it?
You're starting to remind me of StarValleyWy Thread 126947
03 Mar 10
Originally posted by FMFI never asked what do you do for a living. I asked you about what do you do about poor destitute children. I couldn't care less about what do you do for a living to tell you the truth.
What business is it of yours what I do for a living? What bearing does it have on this debate?
You're starting to remind me of StarValleyWy Thread 126947
I'm asking you this because all I see from you is finger pointing. I want to know if you have some kind of solution or if you're nothing more than hot air.
03 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by adam warlockI am offering the analysis that poverty is a form of 'violence' and that proponents of laissez-faire economics should not be allowed to distort the debate about child labour and sweatshops by perpetuating the "fraud" that transactions between the destitute and corporations involve freewill and no "force" ...I don't see how this is "finger pointing".
I'm asking you this because all I see from you is finger pointing.
03 Mar 10
Originally posted by FMFSolutions please. You said this: "You have the right making excuses for it and the left hypotheticizing about it." Since you aren't making excuses for it nor hypothesizing about it I want to know what you have to offer. Just saying that those that offer solutions are offering imaginary solutions isn't very helpful in my view.
I don't see how offering the analysis that poverty is a form of 'violence' and that proponents of laissez-faire economics should be allowed to distort the debate about child labour and sweatshops by perpetuating the "fraud" that transactions between the destitute and corporations involve freewill and no "force" ...is "finger pointing".
I think we're going on very big tangent on this but the discussion is being kind of interesting. I also feel that we may agree on this a lot more that what is transpiring.
03 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by adam warlockNothing so grand. But some ideas, perhaps.
Solutions please...
Criminalizing or penalizing, in the 'West', the taking advantage of atrocious labour standards overseas at the point when such goods are imported. Handle it as if it were contraband and the whole thing a criminal enterprise. Tax some semblence of decency into them. Punitively.
We talk about supporting "the opposition" in places like Iran with money and other resources. Well, then we can support organized labour and advocacy groups, farmers' consortia etc. etc. and other movements that oppose predatory neo-liberal impunity.
Convert wishy washy aid gravy train programmes that channel money into bureaucracies into a plethora of micro-credit schemes, training courses, investments - all in partnership with local NGOs, bypassing (in so far as is possible) the local governments.
Heres' a pie-in-the-sky one: Put inter-governmental relations on the line.
But what it all comes down to in the end (from the Western point of view) is that people in the West don't give too hoots, generally. Or if they do, the breaking point is close to being the same as apathy, it scarcely matters. When asked if they are happy with the cost of their $70 shoes, they typically say 'yes'. Are they worried about the conditions in which they were made? Yes, of course. Would they be willing to pay more if the conditions were improved? Yes, of course. How much more would they be willing to pay? Dunno. $3? Yes. $4? Yes. $5? Er... yes. $6? No.
And there's the nub of it. $6 is too high a price to pay to go some small way towards alleviating the desperate suffering of the people who make their shoes.
Until the battle for hearts and minds of the 1st world people who benefit directly from sweatshoppery is won, everything else - solutionwise - is pretty much moot.
As for me, for the last 7 or 8 years I have had my shoes made by a cobbler.
03 Mar 10
Originally posted by FMFSo you paid him $800 for the pair of shoes? Sounds fair for all the time he must have put into his work.
Nothing so grand. But some ideas, perhaps.
Criminalizing or penalizing, in the 'West', the taking advantage of atrocious labour standards overseas at the point when such goods are imported. Handle it as if it were contraband and the whole thing a criminal enterprise. Tax some semblence of decency into them. Punitively.
We talk about supporting "the opposit ...[text shortened]... h moot.
As for me, for the last 7 or 8 years I have had my shoes made by a cobbler.
GRANNY.
03 Mar 10
Originally posted by smw6869The price I paid him was the same as I would have paid for a pair of 'mass produced' shoes (stitched together in a dungeon somewhere) for sale in a chain shop down the road.
So you paid him $800 for the pair of shoes? Sounds fair for all the time he must have put into his work.
03 Mar 10
Originally posted by FMFMust have taken the guy a week (40 hrs.) to make a pair of custom shoes for you at, say, $20/hr. equals $800. That's a fair price is all i meant.
The price I paid him was the same as I would have paid for a pair of 'mass produced' shoes (stitched together in a dungeon somewhere) for sale in a chain shop down the road.
GRANNY.