How would you define "individualism"?

Originally posted by Wajoma
Is the multinational corporation forcing individuals into contracts?

Is the National Government forcing individuals into contracts?

Mmmm. Answering my direct question with two questions of your own, eh?

I asked you: What aspect of 'Multinational Corporation + local National Government' can be described as an "individual" (whose "sovereignty is paramount", or so you say) for the purposes of settling on a 'mutually beneficial' contract for two "individuals"?

I'll put it another way: you talk about contracts freely entered into by "individuals" on both sides, so you seem to be granting a multinational corporation which is in cahoots with a local National Government the status of an "individual" for the purposes their contractual relationship with a single person, is that so? Do multinational corporations working hand-in-back-pocket with a local National Governments enjoy this 'sovereignty of the "individual"' which you deem to be paramount? Who enjoys this sovereignty? The sweatshop worker? The corporation? Or both?

Originally posted by FMF
Do multinational corporations working hand-in-back-pocket with a local National Governments enjoy this 'sovereignty of the "individual"' which you deem to be paramount? Who enjoys this sovereignty? The sweatshop worker? The corporation? Or both?

Predicted reply by Wajoma

If the sweatshop workers don't like it they should find something else. And furthermore when you are prepared to provide better employment conditions than Nike et al, then be my guest and start your own version of low cost grouped labour.

Originally posted by FMF
Mmmm. Answering my direct question with two questions of your own, eh?

I asked you: What aspect of 'Multinational Corporation + local National Government' can be described as an "individual" (whose "sovereignty is paramount", or so you say) for the purposes of settling on a 'mutually beneficial' contract for two "individuals"?

I'll put it another way: you ...[text shortened]... Who enjoys this sovereignty? The sweatshop worker? The corporation? Or both?

Why don't you front up with your angle.

Ideally the role of guvamint is to uphold individualism i.e. the right of persons to live free.

And corporations are just collections of individuals.

So in answer to your question: Who enjoys this sovereignty? They all do.

Originally posted by FMF
In the world of sweatshops, sovereignty is determined by wealth. The more money you have, the more "rights" you have. On the employers' side, I don't see where the "individual" comes into it - Adidas is not an individual, Nike is not an "individual", and yet you champion the corporations' right to pay as little as they can, while saying "sovereignty of the indiv ...[text shortened]... rations, is over their own poverty and insecurity despite working a 60 hour week.

"In the world of sweatshops......."

Is that the world of GM sweatshops where UAW slaves make $75/hour and can't get fired, or the world of Indonesian Nike workers who used to make as little as $5/day, but improved their earnings exponentially by going to work for Nike?

As long as there is no force involved in the workers or employers decisions they both have sovereignty. If the workers can't work without submitting to union jackboots supported by government, the corporations lose their sovereignty and the workers theirs.

Why do powerful corporations pay more than the local average wage? Simply, supply and demand. They want to hire the best of a limited labor pool, and do as Henry Ford did almost a century ago, pay above local scale to obtain the best qualified work force. Nike in Indonesia is not competing with GM in America for workers, so comparisons of wage scales in the US, Japan, or Germany is meaningless, and has nothing to do with individualism or collectivism.

Now if you can show me interference by government, to artificially either inflate or deflate wages in favor of either workers or corporations, both are a violation of individualism. Protecting slothful, dishonest or incompetent workers is also a violation of individualism, as is paying those workers the same as those who excel in productivity.

Originally posted by kmax87
[b]Predicted reply by Wajoma

If the sweatshop workers don't like it they should find something else. And furthermore when you are prepared to provide better employment conditions than Nike et al, then be my guest and start your own version of low cost grouped labour.[/b]

Good stuff kmax, you're learning, there's hope for you yet.

Before the 'sweatshops' set up business the 'worker' had one less choice.

You're on to it. Where's the thumbs up emoticon.

Originally posted by Wajoma
.....corporations are just collections of individuals.

....... in answer to your question: Who enjoys this sovereignty? They all do.

In the regulation lite real world who gets more sovereign protection?

Tick a box

Box A : The corporation

Box B : The Individual

Box C : The corporation and the individual have access to equal protection

Originally posted by FMF
What aspect of 'Multinational Corporation + local National Government' can be described as an "individual" (whose "sovereignty is paramount", or so you say) for the purposes of settling on a 'mutually beneficial' contract for two "individuals"?

Both multinational corporations and all governments are collectives. They act in a bargaining sense as individuals. A corporation is a mechanism for individuals with similar goals to voluntarily cooperate in applying capital to business, with protections for the individuals regarding legal liability against their personal assets.

Unions are collectives which serve individual laborers in much the manner that corporations serve investors. If either uses or attempts to use the force of government to enhance their honest bargaining positions, it is a misuse of their positions against the rights of individuals.

When corporations or unions are married to or overly controlled by governments (fascism) the combined power over that of the individual due to force is overwhelming and evil.

Originally posted by kmax87
In the regulation lite real world who gets more sovereign protection?

Tick a box

Box A : The corporation

Box B : The Individual

Box C : The corporation and the individual have access to equal protection

That depends on where in the real world you live.

Over all, corporations and labor unions both tend to enjoy more power and protection than individuals. That it is so, doesn't make it right or moral. Two centuries ago, slavery was generally accepted to be right and moral.

Originally posted by FMF
"The exercise through public participation of our obligations to the body of the citizenry."

That's how Canadian philosopher and historian John Ralston Saul defines "individualism". Anyone have a different take on it?

That's not a bad description. I'd define it as: "Empowering the individual to make there own decisions" 😏

Originally posted by Wajoma
Ideally the role of guvamint is to uphold individualism i.e. the right of persons to live free.

What about protecting the individual from the excess or abuse of power by corporations?

Originally posted by FMF
What about protecting the individual from the excess or abuse of power by corporations?

What excesses? Define or give examples.

Originally posted by normbenign

When corporations or unions are married to or overly controlled by governments (fascism) the combined power over that of the individual due to force is overwhelming and evil.

Aha! So we are agreed then that one role of government is to prevent such "fascist" exploitation.

Originally posted by FMF
What about protecting the individual from the excess or abuse of power by corporations?

How about protecting either from force or fraud by the other.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Aha! So we are agreed then that one role of government is to prevent such "fascist" exploitation.

It can only do so by remaining neutral, as an arbiter, protecting all from force and fraud, including protecting the corporations.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Before the 'sweatshops' set up business the 'worker' had one less choice..

Yeah for sure if by choice you mean that the worker had one less chance of being exploited by some foreign owned trans-national corporation! 🙄😲🙄