Subject:
|
Re: Property Rights are the foundation of freedom
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 30 Apr 2003 16:03:42 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
273 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Costello writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > so opines Khaled Saffuri, saying "For Iraq to be free, property must belong
> > > to its people.", in a editorial column in today's USA Today.
> > >
> > > http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-04-29-opcom_x.htm
> > >
> > > This view is also held by Hernando de Soto, and by me... quoting:
> >
> > Do you extend that to intellectual property? The evidence suggests otherwise.
> >
> > >
> > > - start -
> > >
> > > Iraq is not the only country hampered by a lack of property rights. Hernando
> > > de Soto, author of The Mystery of Capital and head of the Institute for
> > > Liberty and Democracy in Peru, says: "The principal reason for the failure
> > > of capitalism to gain a stable foothold in most of the developing world is
> > > that nations have tried to modernize their economies without putting into
> > > place the foundation stone of capitalism — a comprehensive and inclusive
> > > property system."
> >
> > I would have thought that "The principal reason for the failure of capitalism
> > to gain a stable foothold in most of the developing world" is the tendency for
> > "capitalists" to exploit the lack of freedom and social provision in these
> > countries. When I look at Iraq, I see an absolute tragedy that the “west” is
> > largely responsible for; when others look at Iraq they see only its oil. When I
> > look at the developing world I see a need for education and empowerment; when
> > others look at the developing world they see cheap labour, exploitable natural
> > resources and a lack of environmental regulation.
> >
> > What use are “property rights” when one cannot even earn enough to feed ones
> > own family
>
> And so there goes the myth presented by the anti-capitalists, these big fat
> cat tycoons light their cigars with $100 bills while their employees all
> slave away in sweat shops. Poor economic conditions in Iraq are the fault
> of the west?
Did I say that?
> This is the worst example of blame America first thinking that
> I have ever heard.
Who mentioned the USA?
> When you look at Iraq and only see oil, you look at it
> precisely like Sadam looked at it, and so he completely confiscated all the
> oil fields and put them under government control, basically funneling their
> entire economy through him, and his corrupt cronies.
...and who supported him? The "West" perhaps?
>
> Third world countries remain in poverty simply because they do not implement
> capitalism. Look at all the current examples, show me one country where
> government runs the majority of industry that out performs a similar
> capitalist country. Why does India out perform all it’s neighboring
> countries? Why does Japan, and Hong Kong per capita out perform mainland
> China? It is precisely because of capitalism.
Hong Kong has [or at least had] one of the freest markets in the world. Have
you seen what life is like in that country? I'll stay in Scotland for now.
>
> As for your assertion about exploitation, bear in mind there are two worlds,
> the way things should be and the way things are. Let’s use Nike as an
> example, as anti-capitalists everywhere seem to revel in tearing them down.
> First off why does a company like Nike move it’s manufacturing out of the
> US? Well that’s easy because they know that minimum wage laws cut deeply
> into profit, so they look to under-developed countries like Indonesia for
> inexpensive labor.
... and slacker health and safety laws?
... and less workers rights?
> They do not enter villages with guns forcing these people
> to work, there is no overseer with a whip beating them if their performance
> is sub par. They simply build a factory, and offer what they believe is a
> fair wage for that part of the world, in many cases locals find the wages
> sufficient, and sometimes generous, so they come to work for the plant. If
> they could improve their situation by making more money working somewhere
> else, I am sure they would. If Nike says I offer you $10 a day to make shoes
> in a difficult working environment, and someone agrees to it, how is that
> exploitation?
Take a look an see:
http://www.motherjones.com/news_wire/nike_gallery.html
> Who is exploited?
.... does Nike allow union representation in its sweatshops?
Take a look:
http://www.caa.org.au/horizons/august_2001/nikewatch.html
==+==
Workers employed by Nike contract factories in poor countries are still forced
to work excessive hours under high pressure. They're not paid enough to meet
their most basic needs, and are subject to harassment, dismissal and violence
if they stand up for their rights. We want Nike to commit to a wage that would
meet the basic needs of a small family. We want them to ensure that Nike
workers are free to form unions, and we want them to agree to independent,
transparent factory monitoring.
==+==
>
> Here is finally an issue where I agree with Larry, all governments, US and
> otherwise should uninvolved themselves in business as much as possible,
You mean like how Bush "involved" himself with Eron?
> while still enforcing laws against corrupt business practices.
Why not let the market decide on that too?
> That would
> solve many of the economic woes of many third world nations.
Yeah, but the price of trainers & oil would go up! ;)
Scott A
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
30 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- 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
|
|
|
|
