Subject:
|
Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 17 Jun 2001 15:21:24 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1178 times
|
| |
|
|
Daniel Jassim wrote:
>
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > 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".
Can you provide cites on this?
> 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.
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.
> 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.
I seriously thought about this when I learned LEGO was shutting down
several factories and moving brick production outta Enfield.
> <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.
Larry- I can't see how you can state this. The majority of the world's
resources flow into our country and the major thing that flows out is
our consumer culture.
> 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?
well said
> 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.
Daniel, I believe what you are referring to here is something called the
Evolutionary-Ecological Land Ethic. This was an idea developed during
the middle of *last* century by a wildlife biologist named Aldo Leopold
and published in his book of essays called "The Sand County Almanac".
He thought that mankind cannot exist without a healthy love and respect
for the land with a high regard for its value (and that's value more so
in the spiritual sense than the economic one).
Here's part of the ethic if any of you care to read it:
http://www.tipiglen.dircon.co.uk/landethic.html
Here's what I believe to be one of the most important phrases from book.
"A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability,
and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends
otherwise."
I use this as the foundation for my decisions... it works reasonably
well.
-chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda)
|
| (...) Well, whenever I'm considering buying anything I always look at where the product was made. Generally, I look for the product made in the U.S.A., Japan or in Western European countries because, as far as I know, their labor laws coincide with (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda)
|
| (...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 17-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
|
|
|
|
