Subject:
|
Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 17 Jun 2001 03:38:52 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1072 times
|
| |
|
|
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Let me try again. To me *any* price that a willing buyer pays a willing
> seller in a free market is a "fair" price, whether it is above, at, or below
> the average market price. Do you agree or disagree? (note the codicils, the
> market has to be free and neither party can be coerced)
Yes, I would agree because "willing" is the operative here. But I'm talking
about "having to" situations, where prices are dictated by a dominating
power rather than made by mutual, good faith agreements. I'm talking about
dirty trade practices that lead to the [further] destabilization of a
country's economy (such as in Colombia). Look at how the US helped the
collapse of the International Coffee Agreement in 1989? The Agreement kept
prices stable, but thanks greatly to the US, thousands of small scale coffee
growers in Colombia went out of business. Is it any wonder that they turned
to growing coca? I think there's a bigger US scheme of establishing a strong
military presence in Colombia (a Naval base as I understand) since our
presence in Panama concluded. Here's some interesting food for thought
regarding coffee:
http://www.gsb.columbia.edu/botline/coffee.html
> Could the market be freer? Yes. But pragmatically, opposing every partly
> free trade because it isn't free doesn't seem to be the way to get things to
> be more open. Partly free trade seems to tend to make things more free trade
> in the long run. Not always... but "seems to tend".
This is my opinion: As best as I possibly can, I want to avoid buying any
product or partaking in any sevice that resulted from a cruelly exploited
work force (as in slaves, child labor, forced prisoner labor, etc). I carry
this personal ethic to not wanting my country to contribute to unethical
industrial, agricultural or commercial practices. I want my country to value
fairness and equity rather than one-sided profiteering.
If I discovered tomorrow that LEGO was manufactured by child or slave labor,
or that the company obtained raw materials through exploitive labor, I would
stop buying the product and throw it all in the garbage.
<snipped a lot of discussion>
> > I don't have all the answers and what you or I say here makes no big
> > difference. But I see no reason why we couldn't subsidize "saving the whole
> > world" in certain ways. We certainly have enough money for it. The problem
> > with that idea is that there MUST be a true humanitarian doctrine, with no
> > intent of profit. However, our nation seems a little too consumed in it's
> > excesses to realize, collectively speaking, that what it does affects the
> > whole world in very bad ways sometimes. I'm sure you'll agree on this too.
>
> No, I don't agree with this as it's posted. I don't see a country consumed
> by its excesses and I don't see that on balance that we have had a negative
> effect on the rest of the world. I am much more positive about the US than that.
Positive, but not very realistic in my opinion. I'd say the American public
has gotten a little better as far as showing concern for ethics in our
international business dealings, but I still think our government and all
it's lobbyists have a long, long way to go. That's just my opinion.
> But most importantly I don't agree that doing things without regard for
> one's stockholders and investors ("with no intent of profit") is a good
> idea, or, especially, even a moral one. I'd go so far as to say that
> abrogating the fiduciary trust placed in one is out and out immoral. But
> maybe you meant via charities rather than by having corporations deliberatly
> do things at price points unfair to themselves. Again, some concrete
> examples or suggestions will clarify what it is you are advocating.
In my opinion, f*ck the stockholders and investors if all they're going to
be concerned about is their profit. To advocate morality on Wall Street is
like asking a dog to be a cat. It's time people see the bigger picture and
invest in the world for the world, not for some selfish, deluded need for
creating and leaving behind a legacy. What, a legacy of greed and lust over
gold and silver (now oil as well)? Hasn't that been the story of elitism
throughout the centuries? How is it any different now?
Everything that has ever happened or will ever happen with mankind has taken
place on this tiny, blue world. Since we all must share this one small world
for the next billion years, why not make it better, greener, cleaner, safer
and more sustainable for all? I realize that competition is a driving force
in nature and helps life flourish. But doesn't cooperation have an equal, if
not more valuable, effect on our progress? So, how specifically we achieve
this I cannot decide at this moment, but I can speculate it beginning
through education. The next generation (all children around the world) must
have a multicultural appreciation and earth-friendly skills. It's more of a
revolution of thought at the grass roots level, in my opinion. Like any
idea, it's lots of small steps leading to bigger steps and so on. I think
erasing poverty would hasten progress but that goal is at the mercy of those
who control all the money and power, Americans or otherwise.
When your neighbor's house is blown away by the storm, do you let him stay
in your house? Do you let him eat your food? Do you help him build another
house? Or do you turn him away even though you have the room to spare? Do
you ignore is hunger when you have food to spare? Does he labor alone when
you have the time to spare?
Dan
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda)
|
| (...) Where do you get this ridiculous notion from? Are you SERIOUSLY going to tell me you think we'll never get off this planet in the next billion years? I suppose you believe we haven't really been to the moon already? (...) That isn't going to (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda)
|
| (...) Can you provide cites on this? (...) How successful are you at this Daniel? I try to as much as I can. I'm curious about your attempts. Reply offline if you would like. (...) I seriously thought about this when I learned LEGO was shutting down (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda)
|
| (...) It's not that the example doesn't suit me, it's just that it's incomplete. I gave an example similar to your scenario of pricing above the prevalent retail and asked if it was fair or not under your definition. I think you need to give another (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
271 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
