They are not recent examples. How can you claim that the political tensions of 18th century are comparable to the political tensions of today? Or that a simple piece of import legislation will be comparable to the events of the American and French revolution.



Madame Guillotine. :shock:

You've got it wrong.
Government intervention is the revolution that stops oppression.

Then why add the following:

Where did I say that I agreed with income and property distribution? I didn't. You asked me to define social justice and I copy and pasted a paragraph from wikipedia. If you wish you can browse the page and see other definitions and theories for social justice which do not involve income and property distribution- they were never necessary. Trying to screw me over with semantics is counter productive and a huge waste of time.


I don't understand how you can accuse me of using the term 'amoral'. To use the term 'morally correct' implies a sense of morality, so why accuse me of using the term 'amoral' when that would imply an absence of immoral/moral principle which is clearly not conveyed in the deeply rooted ethics my argument is based on.
For clarity I will explain exactly what I meant; I used the term 'morally correct' in generalized sense, meaning that people are forced to live in terrible poverty due to their circumstances rather than their own choice.



Oh yes, because standing outside PRIMARK handing out leaflets about sweatshops is going to so much more effective then a government ban on imported goods manufactured by sweatshops, *sarcasm*.

That a bold accusation, no pun intended ;) I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'll try and clarify the situation for you so we both know where we are.
You used those examples to demonstrate 'the unsavory effects' of 'recent' governments. You use the following argument here:

I understand you are not equating my revolution to those other revolutions as you clarified in a previous post. You used them to demonstrate negative effects on government intervention. I attacked this point because the given examples were outdated, meaning that the government systems of the 17th century are different from the government systems of the 21st century. The 17th century governments were very oppressive so we can not use history as a compass to predict future problems as our modern western governments have very much changed. So using the term 'history repeats itself' applied in this context is a weak argument... and there you have it :)




From my perspective the government is heavily invovled in regulating most things and I have no problems with letting it get on with it's job. Laws and legislation will constantly be updated, expanded, scrapped, reworded so and on so fourth. That is the nature of our legal systems and I'm not afraid of it.

Sorry, don't eat me :(

Immoral, (amoral is devoid of morals while immoral is bad morals), basically they are being denied the opportunity to pull themselves out of those circumstances. =3



How do you deduce that from improving labor conditions? The effects would be far from devastating, all you have to do is look at past cases studies of fair trade programs to learn the impacts on workers, families and local communities- Fair trade impact studies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sorry to interrupt, but sorry. I gotta call bullshit on you this time.

Sounds like you've never had to work two jobs just to keep a roof over your head while living on 50 for food a month or less ( more often than not less). Imagine feeling that kick in the pants from the financial aid office of your local college telling you that you can't get help because you're 21 - not 24, and according to state law your legal guardian is supposed to pay up.

Your grandmother who is in another state living with your mom until she finds a job and an apartment of her own. Yeah. I'll just go ask grandma for a couple thousand while they're tying to make enough to scrape by.

Although, to be fair to the government if I'd popped out a kid at sixteen I'd get a full ride.

Is the system better than some countries? Yes, definitely. But it's not perfect. It's a lot harder than it looks to rise up in this nation. My well to do friends and their families have a hard time understanding that. They think the same way you do - "If you just work hard enough."
My grandma worked two jobs most of her life. She fought tooth and nail to raise three kids and send herself to school as a single mom. She was a police office, security guard, CNA.

And you know what. For all her work she still doesn't have squat.

Trust me. The system is a lot trickier than it looks.

17th century was a typo, sorry!
What parts of governments have stayed constant over the last few centuries then?

No, I don't believe it because it is so far fetched but that doesn't mean I'm not open minded. From my perspective governments are always changing from the people, parties, legislation, the government type- France for example swung between republic and monarchy a few times after the French revolution. There is so very little evidence to suggest the government systems have stayed constant over the years.


Surely not all of it. I can understand if you are suspicious of some aspects, every one has certain reservations about odd articles of legislation. Or are you thinking on a broader scale like how the legal system functions entirely opposed to specific parts of legislation?


Socio-economic advantages and disadvantages within American society is a complicated but very interesting subject, (and it wouldn't surprise me if a few other people challenge your assertion). But as I have told you before business is global and the worst hit area are developing countries where developed countries choose to locate their industry. This can be for a number of reasons such as cheap labor, cheap land, natural resources ect. Our economy is exploiting their countries and limiting their growth and opportunities for their people. For example children are working instead of being educated, they have to work because their parents are poor, their parents are poor because the factories they work in do not pay them a living wage.... and it spirals on. Their economy does not have luxury of telling these big businesses to leave. If they did the industry would simply relocate creating more poverty in the local areas.

How you can state is mind boggling. You live in a country that has anti child laws, anti sweatshop laws, living wage legislation, anti-discriminatory acts, health and safety laws ect... and you are telling me your country is on the road to ruin :shock: Seriously you can use most developed countries as examples of where these anti child laws, anti sweatshop laws, living wage legislation, anti-discriminatory acts, health and safety laws ect; have worked.

Governments do expand and the purpose of a government is to regulate the country so there will always be an element of control. The wants and needs of these 'people' are entirely subjective.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland more commonly known as the UK ;)


My views on corporations is based on what I learnt at GSCE and a-level geography plus whatever extra reading I have done for various case studies ect.
Transnational corporations (TNC) locate to less economically developed countries (LEDC) because manufacturing in LEDC is much cheaper then more economically developed countries (MEDC). LEDC have cheaper labor with less employment rights and less health and safety regulations that keep costs low. TNC do have a positive impact on local community i.e improving roads, introducing host country to global market; providing work; some companies have health care; bringing new technology into the country ect. The disadvantages of TNC is that profits go back into the company opposed to the host country; create pollution; work is low skilled; depleting LEDC natural resources for MEDC; exploitation of child labor; exploitation of work force; destruction of environments ect.
These factors differ between individual TNCs and TNCs that do improve the local community and have decent wages, teaching programs, health care ect. I'm focusing on the TNCs that do all the bad things in my disadvantage list. LEDC need ethically orientated TNCs to develop and to become a MEDC other wise the LEDC is unable to pull itself out of poverty.
This is simplified, there other factors to consider i.e types of industry, distribution of types of employment ect. And I did not touch on primary industry- I'm a little exhausted from above but if you look at the following links they will be able to offer you an insight into the benefits of fair trade type programs in LEDC:

http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/
http://www.european-fair-trade-association.org/
http://www.fao.org/




Why do you think the US is on the road to ruin?
Again how is anti child laws, anti sweatshop laws, living wage legislation, anti-discriminatory acts, health and safety laws ect going to ruin the world in the future?


Why not? As I already said MEDC do not allow companies to treat their citizens like this so why are you so afraid of extended it to the LEDC employees of MEDC TNC?

This is entire speculation. It's like saying all doctors and nurses do their jobs because they want to help people therefore that makes them good people. It's a paint by numbers ideology that will not bare up to scrutiny, simple because it is a sweeping generalization.



How? Just curious...

...

Companies currently set their own ethically standards and in some companies the standards are not high enough. They are not setting the standards that they should be setting. They have failed. We need government intervention to set basic standards so companies can not go abroad and flout the legislation that is being used to protect it's own countries employees.




How will the government effect the economy through these laws? We have anti-discriminatory laws that have been in situ for many years that have not caused an economical catastrophe. It has the opposite effect and has given people equality and protected them from wrong doings.
Your rationale about the disastrous consequences of government intervention is very ambiguous. I'm afraid, 'I don't like it', is going not to justify your argument and gives us very little to discuss.

These companies that employ children, they exploit their work forces ect, are the ones who set those standards. You say you believe the people should control the matter- but they already do. These atrocities still exist and further procrastination will only prolong the existence of such horrors.

I do not believe in slapping huge generalizations onto groups of people.



I never said that I flat out disagree with capitalism. I live in capitalist system too.
There are certain factors which constitute a 'darker side of capitalism' which needs to be dealt with.

The government has no internal control of how the company works. The company must find it's own methods of operating with in the law something that companies except perhaps the mafia (lol), is used too.



I'm sorry but I thought the whole reason you did not want these laws being passed was on the grounds that government would intervene with the economy which would cause further problems down the road. I'm not twisting your words, I'm going by what you are telling me. I can quote you.

Because you haven't given any reasoning other than, if x happen y will happen. So I'm asking why will that happen when such laws are implemented?

As I have already stated, there is lack of consumer awareness and companies are not obliged to divulge how they manufactured their products. Plus without any legislation that puts the consumer into authority then the company is not legally obliged to operate with in the consumer's set standards, aka you are opting to give power to the powerless who do not have the power to enforce their decisions onto the companies, nor do they have power or the facilities to regulate and reinforce such standards.... however the government does ;)

If you took that as a no, then that would also lead to mass generalization. I'm not canonize or demonize the government.


You said that I did not see the 'merits of capitalism'. That kinda implies that I do not see the good side of capitalism, which as I have indicated in the past is not true.

The same complex political intrinsics that stop the government from using their authority to penetrate the inner workings of US companies and control them now. This sounds like communist conspiracy theory to me and that makes me sad.

Our debate is about those specific laws. These specific laws are life changing and I don't want to equate them to some oppressive evil law where the government controls the company internal operations.

That was not evidence Shonta. Those revolutions were the results of oppressive regimes hundreds of years ago. You cannot equate anti child labor laws ect to laws about nobles taxing peasants to the point they cannot feed themselves.
Anti-child labor laws ect are not oppressive. To suggest they are is silly hence why I regarded your argument as defunct.

The workings of those companies are the problem. What's the point in even protesting poor working conditions, and child laborers ect if you are not allow to interfere with the company's workings or even get it to change.


That's awfully supercilious.

The consumer has no authority over the companies. Consumers can campaign, protest, boycott, lobby ect, companies to try and get them to change their policies but the actually consumer has no legal power over these companies. The consumer also does not have the power nor the facilities to inspect and maintain such laws. Companies are not obliged to give details about the methods of how they manufacture and even if a law was passed there would be no way of knowing if the company had been manufacturing according to legislation because there is no one to regulate it. Secondly consumer awareness groups already exist and pressure companies to change their bad ways by raising awareness ect, but as I said before a government ban is more effective then standing outside PRIMARK handing out leaflets. Thirdly somethings we consume such as oil, gas and electric can't really be boycotted ect, and again the consumer does not have the resources or the facilities to monitor and regulate environmental factors such as soil erosion, pollution caused by the exploitation of these products.
Consumer power has limitations.

The company knows that which the consumer will buy. The company makes that which the consumer will buy. The company is in full power because they are able to manipulate the consumer in paying them to keep them running their business and producing their products. The consumer is simply a tool and nothing more. The consumer holds no power, unless backed by the government in legal cases of possible lawsuits for defective, malfunctioning, or hazardous products that are sold.

No it doesn't. The almighty dollar no longer exists. Do you think consumers like paying near 3 dollars a gallon for gas? How about $2000.00 for a mere Apple Laptop. Can't forget about the near Microsoft Monopoly, or the Google Empire either. The mere millions they spend to make sure the customer will buy their product at their chosen price does nothing to dent the enormous profits they get out of it. Like the old saying goes, you must spend money to earn money.

It is a massive generalization that undermines the complexity of human beings. I'm denying that there are some people that are motivated by power and influence, but I completely disagree that the majority of people are motivated by power and influence. What motivates me is definately not the desire to dominate or manipulate other people. There are so many examples of the selflessness of human nature and I know it sounds mawkish but have a little faith in humanity some folks are contented by the simple things like having a nice garden or a cat or drawing a picture ect.



Again anti-discriminatory laws already exist in the market. The government already has it's finger in the pie. Hypothetically if we were to speculate what would happen when the government intervened in an absolute free market society, we could use our society as a basis of comparison for what may happen to this hypothetical society. Either way it looks like we're going to have to agree to disagree.
The government already regulates imports so it could just amend that and the market would have to follow suit.




Those laws a relevant to the topic at hand. I do not see how talking about these other ambiguous laws are productive to the argument based specifically upon these anti-discriminatory laws.


I'm very confused. You used those examples of how government intervention can go wrong then you say, well actually the examples have no relevance.. and I'm sat at my keyboard going meh? You clearly said in this post:


So when your analogy did not bare up to scrutiny you start reply with:


The suddenly in post 115#


So you use those examples to back up your premise then retract them when I highlight the vast political, socially, and cultural differences today in comparison with the 18th century.


Clearly they were examples of 'unsavory effects' of government which was exact context in which you used it. Finally those examples are not historically recent, here is an article on contemporary history http://en.wikipedia.or/wiki/Contemporary_history , you'll find that a loose definition of contemporary history will go back as far as the events of world war II.



But that is not what I'm proposing! The company will have to create its own framework which complies with government regulations- which is what most companies have anyway i.e health and safety ect.



Again if the consumer is not aware and the company is not obligated to tell then the situation will continue to stagnate. You also ignored my key point that consumer does not have facilitates and the resources to monitor and regulate such legislation. I wouldn't ask some random guy off the street to be in charge of international trading affairs when he has no knowledge or ties with international trading bodies.

The market is not black white and some commodities such as electricity, gas, fuel etc are essential. I need fuel for my car to go to work, I cannot boycott an oil company because they are causing mass deforestation in the amazon basin.

The media and crime rates!

The media is a wrong of society?

Would you rather get information from government press releases?

Selfishness. Not many care for a cause unless they are affected. The gays fight laws against themselves but don't help out animal rights activists and so on. The rich get richer through investing on the work of the middle class and poor while they struggle to get by. Shit like that.

I don't have faith that the government would be honest unless the media made it. I mean, they still haven't released photos from Gitmo despite media involvement. In the name of "national security."

And do you think the government would have released information about Watergate? Or Clinton's affair? Or a number of other things that aren't kosher enough for them to talk about on their own?

That's actually quite funny. You believe that egoism is the main detriment to society. Whereas I believe that altruism is :D. We are like polar opposites. xD