[Rich]

Britain, between 1750 and 1851 the population increased from 6 and half million to 27 and half million. Many sections of the people experienced a fall in the quality of life in that period. I wonder if there could be any connection?

[truth_seeker]

Hysterical much? Working long hours in a difficult working environment for low pay is not a violation of basic human rights, no matter how much you insist it is. You have a very odd idea of basic human rights.

Of course it is ... why do you think these sweat shops no longer exist in places like NYC? Sweat shops energized a labor movement, with notable activists like Emma Goldman, marked by tragedies like the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire, and eventually would be exploiters were forced to find greener pastures (populations they could easier subjugate, with a government willing to accommodate the exploitation of its own people).

That is why no one who thinks about it for more than a few minutes can take this hackneyed old "argument" seriously. You ignore the fundamental nature of the relationship between human beings and the universe in which they operate. I don't misrepresent the situation, I describe it accurately, with no emotional overtones. Until you grasp the fact (and yes... it is a fact) that it is not "sweatshop" owners who established the requirement (and yes, it is a requirement) that humans must exert productive effort in order to further their existence, but the laws of the universe in which humans operate, you will continue to fall for wrong-headed ideas.

Oh please .... how about this, why don't you explain our fundamental relationship with the universe for all of us who lack your enlightenment (oh man)

"Sweatshops" produce goods that are bought by people, yes. If no one bought their stuff, they would not exist. This is true of course not only of sweatshops, but of every type of manufactory from an artisanal cobbler to a worker's co-operative steel mill. What's your point?

What's your point? Slave plantations produced cotton, used in textile mills, to produce consumer goods (like clothing).

How do you figure that? Explain how you came to this astonishing conclusion. How does the existence of my "sweatshop" prevent you from opening a competing factory and having your workers run the whole deal?

This warped sense of morality you're endorsing works in very strange ways. Choice: starvation or sweat shop. So I choose sweat shop, now I'm locked in a factory, under guard (so I don't escape or try to commit suicide), I must live in the company dormitory, sleeping in bunks that the average westerner can't even fit in, again, under guard (so I can't escape), etc. Under these conditions, where was the choice?

"Our"? Just what is your definition of "sweatshop", anyway? You are aware that a "sweatshop" is more likely to be owned by a national than a foreigner, are you not?

This is all apparently flying right over your head.

Doing what knowingly?

Sociopathy .... hopefully one day we come up with a gene therapy treatment for this awful disease.

Yes, they do. Including leaving the people free to continue doing whatever they were doing before the "sweatshop" opened. You insist that if I can't offer employment to these people under your preferred conditions, it is better for these potential employees to not even have the option to switch from what they are doing now to working for me. This is nonsense on stilts.

The neurological epilepsy of laissez faire morality ... if nothing else, never fails to amuse.

So you know better than the large swaths of Asians who are actually faced with the choice, what is best for them. Uh huh.

Apparently I do, since I have access to more information. They just know their conditions are terrible (which is why they try to kill themselves, even though the company keeps them under guard to prevent escape and suicide). We can thus assume they really didn't know what they were signing up for, they didn't realize they were signing themselves into serfdom.

No, it isn't. Clearly the people in the neighborhood weren't starving to death before the "sweatshop" opened, or there wouldn't have been any able-bodied potential employees for the "sweatshop" owner to offer employment to. The people have the choice between starvation and pushcarts, or starvation and petty theft, or starvation and begging, or starvation and subsistence farming, or starvation and husking coconuts, or starvation and being a barmaid, or whatever. Now there appears a new choice: starvation or working in a "sweatshop". Again, the "sweatshop" need not be owned by a foreigner.

I never said these sweat shops were "owned" by foreigners, they're not (they're owned by native exploiters, who produce goods for sale to foreign corporations).

No, it is accurate. There is absolutely nothing immoral in offering employment for wages to someone.

I think Stalin, Lenin, and Trotsky must have had this same moral bearing. Invent a version of morality designed to suit their needs, and use it to justify the infliction of endless horrors. Again, hopefully one day we invent a medication for this disease.

Manufactured consent? LOL. Another sophomore Chomskybot sounds off. Sigh.

Ahhh, you heard the code words that made your knee go jerk

The impoverished welcome a "sweatshop" (whether it is owned by a foreign corporation or by the village headman) because it beats what options they have at the moment. Why do you think people are too stupid to judge for themselves which alternative is better for them? Why do you think they need you to restrain them from throwing their lives away in a "sweatshop" that produces furry toy animals that will end up being handed out as prizes at travelling carnival ring toss booths all over the American midwest next summer? Your arrogance is breathtaking.

When desperate, the sociopath tries to take the side of the people he exploits, in a dazzling display of lunacy, how dare you imply that people can't think for themselves. Oy

This is why no one takes you seriously. You have it exactly backwards. The "sweatshop" owner is doing the exact opposite of limiting choices. He is expanding choices. There is now one more choice available to the people in the area that they didn't have prior to the opening of the "sweatshop".

Linear thinking, the opposite of creativity and intellectualism, to which I can only respond .... duh!

LOL. More Chomskyite blather. No one is being coerced or misinformed or manipulated. It's pretty straightforward: the pay is such and such, the hours are from X am to Y pm five and a half days a week with two weeks annual paid vacation and four paid sick days a year, the job is operating that laminating press in the far corner of the work floor near the lunch room. If you want the job, show up tomorrow in a pair of steel toed work boots with no jewelry and your dreadlocks tied back securely in a hair net.

Is the sky purple in that imaginary world you live in?

Assumes facts not in evidence: that paying someone to work a laminating press is inflicting harm on them.


Phred

Oh man .... now you fancy yourself an attorney?

This is like arguing with a religious apologist (maybe more ridiculous, I'm not sure)?

[Phred]

Of course it is ... why do you think these sweat shops no longer exist in places like NYC?

It's long past time you defined exactly what you mean when you use the term "sweatshop". Be specific. What are all the essential characteristics an enterprise must possess in order to qualify as a "sweatshop" in your eyes? Don't leave any out.

Oh please .... how about this, why don't you explain our fundamental relationship with the universe for all of us who lack your enlightenment (oh man)

I have already done so. Human existence requires productive human effort.

Slave plantations produced cotton, used in textile mills, to produce consumer goods (like clothing).

"Sweatshop" employees aren't slaves, though. They could have refused to accept the "sweatshop" owner's offer of employment. Not so with slaves. Also, a "sweatshop" employee can always quit if he so chooses. Not so with slaves.

Choice: starvation or sweat shop.

You unsurprisingly ignore the more fundamental choice I've already pointed out repeatedly: starvation or work. That is the stark choice Mother Nature imposes on us all. Now the only thing left to decide is: what kind of work? Some choose to work in a "sweatshop". Others choose to continue working at whatever they were doing before the "sweatshop" appeared.

So I choose sweat shop, now I'm locked in a factory, under guard (so I don't escape or try to commit suicide)...

If this is an essential part of your definition of "sweatshop", then we are not speaking of the same thing, which is why your arguments make no sense to me. I thought you considered operations like the Triangle Shirtwaist factory an acceptable example of a "sweatshop".

I must live in the company dormitory, sleeping in bunks that the average westerner can't even fit in, again, under guard (so I can't escape), etc.

Again, it is long past time you fully defined your unique understanding of the term "sweatshop". If we are not speaking of the same thing there is no point continuing.

Under these conditions, where was the choice?

The choice was to continue working at whatever he was working at before the "sweatshop" opened its doors. Or, if the reality of working at the "sweatshop" turned out to be more unpleasant than he imagined, to quit working at the "sweatshop" and make his living at some other less unpleasant kind of work.

Apparently I do, since I have access to more information.

Describe that information you possess which - if the "sweatshop" employee possessed the same information - would lead to him rejecting employment at the "sweatshop".

They just know their conditions are terrible...

Exactly. How are their conditions made more terrible by a new "sweatshop" opening for business nearby?

...even though the company keeps them under guard to prevent escape and suicide). We can thus assume they really didn't know what they were signing up for, they didn't realize they were signing themselves into serfdom.

Obviously we are not discussing the same thing. An enterprise where employees are not allowed to quit is not a "sweatshop", it is a slave pen. I hold the same view as you do regarding slave pens: they are immoral. But the Triangle Shirtwaist factory, for example, was not a slave pen. Its employees could (and often did) quit to do other work elsewhere.

When desperate, the sociopath tries to take the side of the people he exploits, in a dazzling display of lunacy, how dare you imply that people can't think for themselves.

That was my question to you, and you haven't answered it. Why do you believe you can choose better for someone else (from an admittedly less than ideal menu of options) than they can choose for themselves?

Linear thinking, the opposite of creativity and intellectualism, to which I can only respond .... duh!

So you cannot deny the truth of the situation: the opening of a new "sweatshop" - far from limiting choices - does the exact opposite. It expands the menu of choices for the people living nearby. No surprise there.



Phred

[truth_seeker]

I have already done so. Human existence requires productive human effort.

Slavery is "productive effort" ... so obviously productive effort (in itself) is not a very enlightened standard.

"Sweatshop" employees aren't slaves, though. They could have refused to accept the "sweatshop" owner's offer of employment. Not so with slaves. Also, a "sweatshop" employee can always quit if he so chooses. Not so with slaves.

It depends on the sweat shop (the term is not as monolithic as you seem to be implying).

You unsurprisingly ignore the more fundamental choice I've already pointed out repeatedly: starvation or work. That is the stark choice Mother Nature imposes on us all. Now the only thing left to decide is: what kind of work? Some choose to work in a "sweatshop". Others choose to continue working at whatever they were doing before the "sweatshop" appeared.

You dumb down this distinction so it fits within your very disturbing world view.

If this is an essential part of your definition of "sweatshop", then we are not speaking of the same thing, which is why your arguments make no sense to me. I thought you considered operations like the Triangle Shirtwaist factory an acceptable example of a "sweatshop".

Employees were trapped in the Triangle Shirtwaist factory (which is why so many of them were killed in its fire). So yes absolutely, I include the Triangle Shirtwaist factory in my definition of sweat shop, but also operations like Foxconn China, and other modern day sweat shops in Asia, where workers are under guard, not allowed to leave, forced to live in company dorms (where they're also under guard), etc.

In other words, I consider neo-feudalism, or quasi-slavery, as falling within the definition of sweat shop.

Sweatshop (or sweat factory) is a negatively connoted term for any working environment considered to be unacceptably difficult or dangerous. Sweatshop workers often work long hours for very low pay, regardless of laws mandating overtime pay or a minimum wage. Child labour laws may be violated. Sweatshops may have hazardous materials and situations. Employees may be subject to employer abuse without an easy way, if any way, to protect themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweatshop

Again, it is long past time you fully defined your unique understanding of the term "sweatshop". If we are not speaking of the same thing there is no point continuing.

If all my descriptions of the horrors being visited upon third world workers haven't been enough, then I'm saddened by the poor state of your literacy (but there's not much I can do about that in the span of an internet discussion).

The choice was to continue working at whatever he was working at before the "sweatshop" opened its doors. Or, if the reality of working at the "sweatshop" turned out to be more unpleasant than he imagined, to quit working at the "sweatshop" and make his living at some other less unpleasant kind of work.

Choice only exists where there's adequate information regarding those choices. Manipulating or limiting information to solicit consent is called fraud, and assent gained through fraud or deceit cannot be reasonably defined as a free choice.

Describe that information you possess which - if the "sweatshop" employee possessed the same information - would lead to him rejecting employment at the "sweatshop".

We can safely presume, where suicide rates among sweat shop employees becomes such a profound problem, the sweat shop owner needs to post guards to prevent employee suicide .... that the sweat shop employees lacked adequate information regarding what they were signing up for, and indeed now lack the capacity to escape those circumstances.

Obviously we are not discussing the same thing. An enterprise where employees are not allowed to quit is not a "sweatshop", it is a slave pen. I hold the same view as you do regarding slave pens: they are immoral. But the Triangle Shirtwaist factory, for example, was not a slave pen. Its employees could (and often did) quit to do other work elsewhere.

Right, I'm describing reality, you're describing an imaginary world.

That was my question to you, and you haven't answered it. Why do you believe you can choose better for someone else (from an admittedly less than ideal menu of options) than they can choose for themselves?

Trying to juxtapose yourself as the defender of free choice is laughable. It's the ultimate twist of irony, but sadly, all too typical.

So you cannot deny the truth of the situation: the opening of a new "sweatshop" - far from limiting choices - does the exact opposite. It expands the menu of choices for the people living nearby. No surprise there.


Phred

Not true, it does indeed narrow the menu of available choices. It begins by exploiting unfortunate circumstances, pitting itself as the only choice between subsistence and squalor, then it entrenches itself, to where other options are no longer realistic or feasible. It preys upon the weak, it's vulture capitalism. It is not I who pretends to know better than indigenous populations what their own needs are, it is those who justify this activity with sophistic gibberish (like the imaginary contention that these operations somehow expand choice). It is such an unsophisticated analysis, which ignores the underlying social and psychological dynamics to such a profound extent, there's no reason why any reasonably intelligent person should take your position seriously, or ascribe any degree of merit to it. This is text book sociopathy. Inventing an imaginary reality to justify horrific treatment of human beings, for the personal enrichment of the exploiter class. This is an old story, you're certainly not reinventing the wheel.

Good and decent people have always had to fight against these pseudo-justifications for exploitation, which is why the western world has saw such an improvement in human living standards. I'm under no delusions, this dynamic still exists, people like you are still around, ponying the same old stuff. As always, this twisted ideology will be marginalized by history, exposed for the horrors it visits upon humanity.

It's the never ending struggle of good against evil, but the trajectory of history is on the side of good (and in that ... I take solace).

I suppose you would view this as somehow trying to impose my views on the world, and indeed, I expect sociopaths and would be exploiters, will invariably take this same position (after all, they must) ... and it is true, I do not believe one has the right to harm other human beings (or else the concept of non-coercion becomes an absurdity), and I believe that exposing human beings to sweat shop conditions, is harm; and I do not believe consent based on misinformation and manipulation can be defined as consent, much less non-coercive.

The claim of objectivists (and others who hold to a similar ideology) is that morality should be narrowly defined, to avoid subjectivity (and arbitrary definitions of what comprises good moral behavior). Of course this winds up reducing to the thing they claim to be against, moral relativism. Indeed, their narrow (and virtually meaningless) definition of morality so conveniently fits within their laissez faire ideology, only the most obtuse could view this as a coincidence. Giving it the benefit of the doubt, I suppose we could characterize this as intellectual laziness (and in some cases it probably is).

[Phred]

Slavery is "productive effort" ... so obviously productive effort (in itself) is not a very enlightened standard.

You are deliberately trying to evade the essential rule of human existence by playing silly bugger false "equivalency" games. You know as well as all the readers here that I am right: human existence requires productive human effort. All that is left to decide is whose effort supports whose existence. We both agree that slavery is immoral, because the effort of the slave goes towards supporting his master's existence, not his own.

It depends on the sweat shop (the term is not as monolithic as you seem to be implying).

To no one's surprise, you refuse to define your terms. You hem and haw and waffle but refuse to respond to a standard request - "define your terms". Until you do, there is no point continuing this farce. Your understanding of the term "sweatshops" remains nebulous and ever-changing.

You dumb down this distinction so it fits within your very disturbing world view.

I am not dumbing anything down, nor is my world view disturbing to anyone other than a Chomskybot. The basic choice facing humans is: exert productive effort or die. You keep pretending this is irrelevant to the discussion, when in fact it is at the very core of the discussion. There is nothing "disturbing" about acknowledging facts on the ground.

Employees were trapped in the Triangle Shirtwaist factory (which is why so many of them were killed in its fire).

No they weren't "trapped". Any one of them could have quit working there at any time. They were not "locked in a factory, under guard" so they couldn't "escape or try to quit suicide". They went home at the end of every shift, and voluntarily returned at the beginning of the next shift. Or - in many cases - decided not to, and went to work somewhere else.

So yes absolutely, I include the Triangle Shirtwaist factory in my definition of sweat shop...

So you admit that the people we are talking about - "sweatshop" workers by your definition - were at all times capable of leaving the "sweatshop" and doing something else with their lives. Or even to have just walked on by the "sweatshop" in the first place, ignoring the offer of employment by the owners of the "sweatshop".

...but also operations like Foxconn China, and other modern day sweat shops in Asia, where workers are under guard, not allowed to leave, forced to live in company dorms (where they're also under guard), etc.

I don't know if your characterization of that particular firm (Foxconn China) operating in a non-Capitalist country is accurate. But if the workers are not allowed to quit, then the enterprise is more than a "sweatshop", it is a slave pen. You conflate the two terms deliberately in order to avoid facing facts: your argument holds no water.

In other words, I consider neo-feudalism, or quasi-slavery, as falling within the definition of sweat shop.

Stop with the jargon and answer the question asked:

"What are all the essential characteristics an enterprise must possess in order to qualify as a "sweatshop" in your eyes? Don't leave any out."

So far the best you've done is to provide this:

Sweatshop (or sweat factory) is a negatively connoted term for any working environment considered to be unacceptably difficult or dangerous. Sweatshop workers often work long hours for very low pay, regardless of laws mandating overtime pay or a minimum wage. Child labour laws may be violated. Sweatshops may have hazardous materials and situations. Employees may be subject to employer abuse without an easy way, if any way, to protect themselves.

Is that the definition you are going to go with? Because it says nothing about people being rounded up against their will and imprisoned in company dorms, nor does it say that employees may not quit.

If all my descriptions of the horrors being visited upon third world workers haven't been enough...

Such descriptions aren't a definition. How hard is that to understand? Are you going to go with the wikipedia definition (above) you cut and pasted or not?

Choice only exists where there's adequate information regarding those choices.

Re-read my offer of employment to the dreadlocked guy applying to be an operator of one of my laminating presses. What do you find inadequate about it?

Manipulating or limiting information to solicit consent is called fraud, and assent gained through fraud or deceit cannot be reasonably defined as a free choice.

What did I manipulate or limit to the prospective employee? How was my offer in any way fraudulent?

Phred: Describe that information you possess which - if the "sweatshop" employee possessed the same information - would lead to him rejecting employment at the "sweatshop".

truth_seeker: We can safely presume, where suicide rates among sweat shop employees becomes such a profound problem, the sweat shop owner needs to post guards to prevent employee suicide .... that the sweat shop employees lacked adequate information regarding what they were signing up for, and indeed now lack the capacity to escape those circumstances.

So you can't answer my question. No one reading this thread is surprised.

Phred: That was my question to you, and you haven't answered it. Why do you believe you can choose better for someone else (from an admittedly less than ideal menu of options) than they can choose for themselves?

truth_seeker: Trying to juxtapose yourself as the defender of free choice is laughable. It's the ultimate twist of irony, but sadly, all too typical.

So you can't answer my question. No one reading this thread is surprised.

Not true, it does indeed narrow the menu of available choices.

How? Yesterday there were five choices on how to make a living: pushcart vendor, barmaid, prostitute, coconut husker, street beggar. Today there are six: pushcart vendor, barmaid, prostitute, coconut husker, street beggar, "sweatshop" employee.

It is such an unsophisticated analysis, which ignores the underlying social and psychological dynamics to such a profound extent, there's no reason why any reasonably intelligent person should take your position seriously, or ascribe any degree of merit to it.

LOL! Yeah, right, Sparky. Six isn't really more than five, because one of those six makes Chomskybots upset.

This is text book sociopathy.

You are exhibiting textbook denial of reality.

Inventing an imaginary reality...

There is nothing imaginary about the fact that Mother Nature presents us all with a choice: work or starve.

...to justify horrific treatment of human beings...

Oh, stop being such a hysterical little girl. There is nothing "horrific" about most of the "sweatshops" operating in the Third World. I live in a country (Dominican Republic) where what you call "sweatshops" the people working in them (and more tellingly, the people who desperately want to work in them) call a sweet deal.

Good and decent people have always had to fight against these pseudo-justifications for exploitation...

Define "exploitation". I assure you, the people working in the "sweatshops" here don't feel exploited. That's probably because they aren't being exploited.

... and I believe that exposing human beings to sweat shop conditions, is harm; and I do not believe consent based on misinformation and manipulation can be defined as consent, much less non-coercive.

The readers of this thread have noted that you believe all kinds of things that aren't so.

The claim of objectivists (and others who hold to a similar ideology) is that morality should be narrowly defined, to avoid subjectivity (and arbitrary definitions of what comprises good moral behavior). Of course this winds up reducing to the thing they claim to be against, moral relativism. Indeed, their narrow (and virtually meaningless) definition of morality so conveniently fits within their laissez faire ideology, only the most obtuse could view this as a coincidence.

This is just gibberish, and whiney gibberish at that.


Phred

[truth_seeker]

You are deliberately trying to evade the essential rule of human existence by playing silly bugger false "equivalency" games. You know as well as all the readers here that I am right: human existence requires productive human effort. All that is left to decide is whose effort supports whose existence. We both agree that slavery is immoral, because the effort of the slave goes towards supporting his master's existence, not his own.

The slave master (by necessity) supports the existence of the slave (or I should say, even the slave is afforded a small slice of his or her productive efforts, usually in the form of minimal subsistence), so surely "where the worker [or slaves'] efforts are directed" cannot be the distinguishing factor between immoral and moral forms of subjugation.

To no one's surprise, you refuse to define your terms. You hem and haw and waffle but refuse to respond to a standard request - "define your terms". Until you do, there is no point continuing this farce. Your understanding of the term "sweatshops" remains nebulous and ever-changing.

To "no one's" surprise, or just your own? I see no else jumping in to defend you ... are these imaginary friends you keep referring to?

I am not dumbing anything down, nor is my world view disturbing to anyone other than a Chomskybot. The basic choice facing humans is: exert productive effort or die. You keep pretending this is irrelevant to the discussion, when in fact it is at the very core of the discussion. There is nothing "disturbing" about acknowledging facts on the ground.

In a mind polluted by the pseudo-gibberish of people like Ayn Rand, I'm sure things may seem this way.

No they weren't "trapped". Any one of them could have quit working there at any time. They were not "locked in a factory, under guard" so they couldn't "escape or try to quit suicide". They went home at the end of every shift, and voluntarily returned at the beginning of the next shift. Or - in many cases - decided not to, and went to work somewhere else.

Wow, holy duh batman. They were trapped, doors were locked, no escape exits, they had to break down doors, jump out windows, and as a result, many were killed.

So you admit that the people we are talking about - "sweatshop" workers by your definition - were at all times capable of leaving the "sweatshop" and doing something else with their lives. Or even to have just walked on by the "sweatshop" in the first place, ignoring the offer of employment by the owners of the "sweatshop".

Duh, see above.

Stop with the jargon and answer the question asked:

Is there a question hidden somewhere in all this mindless drivel?

Is that the definition you are going to go with? Because it says nothing about people being rounded up against their will and imprisoned in company dorms, nor does it say that employees may not quit.

Wow, okay now I get it .... [no comment]

Phred: That was my question to you, and you haven't answered it. Why do you believe you can choose better for someone else (from an admittedly less than ideal menu of options) than they can choose for themselves?

Do you think treating people like subhuman pieces of shit is immoral (and yes, we do not assess this under a primitive standard, we assess this under contemporary standards, we do not pretend the enlightenment never happened, is that really difficult for you to grasp).

How? Yesterday there were five choices on how to make a living: pushcart vendor, barmaid, prostitute, coconut husker, street beggar. Today there are six: pushcart vendor, barmaid, prostitute, coconut husker, street beggar, "sweatshop" employee.

Yet today there's only two choices, continue working in the sweat shop (and live in chronic despair), or when the overseer isn't watching, kill yourself. Is this really too difficult for you to grasp (no one can possibly be that stupid)?

LOL! Yeah, right, Sparky. Six isn't really more than five, because one of those six makes Chomskybots upset.

Just say no to drugs dude

There is nothing imaginary about the fact that Mother Nature presents us all with a choice: work or starve.

Sure, work is necessary (our bodies convert chemical energy into kinetic energy, and it needs to produce ATP constantly), and what's the point? You could work for a slave master, feudal lord, sweat shop owner, a good company that treats its employees well, a unionized firm, a worker cooperative, a nonprofit, a government agency, a partnership, for yourself, freelance, or whatever. Again, your point is?

We can only blame nature for needing to constantly replenish our chemical energy supply, for the rest of it (slavery, feudalism, sweat shop[ism], etc.) .... we can only blame ourselves (since we're sentient creatures).

Oh, stop being such a hysterical little girl. There is nothing "horrific" about most of the "sweatshops" operating in the Third World. I live in a country (Dominican Republic) where what you call "sweatshops" the people working in them (and more tellingly, the people who desperately want to work in them) call a sweet deal.

If you think sweat shops are a "sweet deal" ... you're just slavish (not much use talking to someone who, at least implicitly, rejects western enlightened moral standards). The thing is, if there were reason to believe that these third world inhabitants were aware of all the different organizational models available to their exploitative employer, and still took the job (without coercion, and to reiterate, become a hooker, starve, or work in the sweat shop, is not a free choice); that would be fine. Given that we can assume a significant knowledge deficit on the part of third world inhabitants (or some form of coercion), obviously I'm not looking at this from the reference frame of the exploited worker, but rather, the employer, and particularly, the western money that makes the existence of that employer possible.

Define "exploitation". I assure you, the people working in the "sweatshops" here don't feel exploited. That's probably because they aren't being exploited.

Well, you're a third world inhabitant, so maybe you're not familiar with western enlightenment ideals. We hold ourselves to OUR OWN standard, which is a high standard. We don't reject subjugation because of who YOU are (or what you think), we reject it because of WHO WE ARE and how we think.

This is just gibberish, and whiney gibberish at that.

At least spell whiny correctly

[Phred]

The slave master (by necessity) supports the existence of the slave (or I should say, even the slave is afforded a small slice of his or her productive efforts, usually in the form of minimal subsistence), so surely "where the worker [or slaves'] efforts are directed" cannot be the distinguishing factor between immoral and moral forms of subjugation.

Who are you quoting? Not me.

To "no one's" surprise, or just your own? I see no else jumping in to defend you ... are these imaginary friends you keep referring to?

To no one's surprise, you prefer to continue to arse around and play silly buggers rather than defining your terms.

In a mind polluted by the pseudo-gibberish of people like Ayn Rand, I'm sure things may seem this way.

Do you deny that human effort is required to sustain human existence?

Wow, holy duh batman. They were trapped, doors were locked, no escape exits, they had to break down doors, jump out windows, and as a result, many were killed.

To no one's surprise, either through dishonesty or stupidity (which would you prefer the readers to conclude?) you conflate a onetime emergency situation (fire doors locked when a fire broke out) with the day to day existence of the workers. Just as was the case with dozens (probably hundreds) of "sweatshops" essentially identical to the Triangle factory, workers could quit at any time. Many did.

Phred: Is that the definition you are going to go with? Because it says nothing about people being rounded up against their will and imprisoned in company dorms, nor does it say that employees may not quit.

truth_seeker: Wow, okay now I get it .... [no comment]

So you still refuse to define your terms? Gee... what a surprise.

Do you think treating people like subhuman pieces of shit is immoral...

How is my offering a dreadlocked guy employment operating my laminating press treating him like a subhuman piece of shit? How were the employees of the "sweatshops" in the New York garment district a century ago treated like "subhuman pieces of shit"?

Phred: How? Yesterday there were five choices on how to make a living: pushcart vendor, barmaid, prostitute, coconut husker, street beggar. Today there are six: pushcart vendor, barmaid, prostitute, coconut husker, street beggar, "sweatshop" employee.

truth_seeker: Yet today there's only two choices...

No, there aren't. There are six. The opening of the "sweatshop" didn't eliminate the options of making a living as a pushcart vendor, barmaid, prostitute, coconut husker, or street beggar. All those options still exist.

Sure, work is necessary (our bodies convert chemical energy into kinetic energy, and it needs to produce ATP constantly), and what's the point?

The point is that you keep using the hackneyed old false analogy of "sweatshop" owners "putting a gun to the head" of workers: "Work for me or starve!" as if the same cannot be said for every other form of employment, including a cushy job as an Apple programmer. The fact that in order to survive we must work, completely negates the hysterically exaggerated catch phrase you see as your trump card: do this or starve. Do that or starve. Whoop de doo. Mother Nature has decided long before any "sweatshop" owner arrived on the scene that you had to work or starve. So your whole Leftie catch phrase is defused. "Do this or starve" or "Do that or starve" are revealed as the meaningless mantra they are. It's like saying "Breathe or die". Well, duh! You gonna blame the necessity to breathe on "sweatshop" owners, too? If not, why not?

You could work for a slave master, feudal lord, sweat shop owner, a good company that treats its employees well, a unionized firm, a worker cooperative, a nonprofit, a government agency, a partnership, for yourself, freelance, or whatever.

Exactly. Now you are finally beginning to grasp the folly of your "argument". You could do one of those things on your list, or - if there were a "sweatshop" nearby (you still haven't defined what you mean when you use the word, by the way) you could work in a "sweatshop". All the "sweatshop" owner has done is offer an alternative to those unable or unwilling to work for a slave master, feudal lord, sweat shop owner, a good company that treats its employees well, a unionized firm, a worker cooperative, a nonprofit, a government agency, a partnership, themselves, freelance, or whatever.

If you think sweat shops are a "sweet deal" ... you're just slavish (not much use talking to someone who, at least implicitly, rejects western enlightened moral standards).

What matters isn't what *I* think is a sweet deal, it's what the people who accept employment in "sweatshops" think. I understand that. You... not so much.

The thing is, if there were reason to believe that these third world inhabitants were aware of all the different organizational models available to their exploitative employer, and still took the job (without coercion, and to reiterate, become a hooker, starve, or work in the sweat shop, is not a free choice); that would be fine.

Why do you assume they aren't aware of these various models that are not to be found anywhere near them? I live among these people. For over two dozen years now. I assure you they understand quite well the various dream jobs available here and there far from where they live. They're not stupid. They are not uninformed. They all have radios and almost all have televisions. It's just that where they live, there aren't always examples of each of these various organizational models that are looking for new employees. Sometimes not even "sweatshops".

Given that we can assume a significant knowledge deficit on the part of third world inhabitants...

But you can't reasonably assume such a thing. At least, you can't unless you are a Chomskybot.

Well, you're a third world inhabitant, so maybe you're not familiar with western enlightenment ideals.

More undergrad elitism. Sigh. It does get tedious. I know more about the enlightenment era philosophy than you ever will, Skippy.

We hold ourselves to OUR OWN standard, which is a high standard. We don't reject subjugation because of who YOU are (or what you think), we reject it because of WHO WE ARE and how we think.

Yeah, who you are: Chomskybots and Zinnias.



Phred

[truth_seeker]

To no one's surprise, either through dishonesty or stupidity (which would you prefer the readers to conclude?) you conflate a onetime emergency situation (fire doors locked when a fire broke out) with the day to day existence of the workers. Just as was the case with dozens (probably hundreds) of "sweatshops" essentially identical to the Triangle factory, workers could quit at any time. Many did.

You've obviously never studied the history of NYC garment workers, or the socioeconomic, immigration, and psychological factors they faced.

Phred: Is that the definition you are going to go with? Because it says nothing about people being rounded up against their will and imprisoned in company dorms, nor does it say that employees may not quit.

Right, they're prevented from leaving, guards roam the factory floor and dormitories. Thus, they now have only two choices, work or slip away from the guards and kill themselves.

Do you think treating people like subhuman pieces of shit is immoral...

How is my offering a dreadlocked guy employment operating my laminating press treating him like a subhuman piece of shit? How were the employees of the "sweatshops" in the New York garment district a century ago treated like "subhuman pieces of shit"?[/quote]

I have no idea where your dreadlocked guy story is coming from, but yes, garment workers in NYC at the turn of the century, were treated like shit.

Phred: How? Yesterday there were five choices on how to make a living: pushcart vendor, barmaid, prostitute, coconut husker, street beggar. Today there are six: pushcart vendor, barmaid, prostitute, coconut husker, street beggar, "sweatshop" employee.

For the sweat shop worker, today he has two choices (work in the sweat shop or commit suicide when the guard isn't watching), yesterday he may have had five (or more) choices.

The point is that you keep using the hackneyed old false analogy of "sweatshop" owners "putting a gun to the head" of workers: "Work for me or starve!" as if the same cannot be said for every other form of employment, including a cushy job as an Apple programmer. The fact that in order to survive we must work, completely negates the hysterically exaggerated catch phrase you see as your trump card: do this or starve. Do that or starve. Whoop de doo. Mother Nature has decided long before any "sweatshop" owner arrived on the scene that you had to work or starve. So your whole Leftie catch phrase is defused. "Do this or starve" or "Do that or starve" are revealed as the meaningless mantra they are. It's like saying "Breathe or die". Well, duh! You gonna blame the necessity to breathe on "sweatshop" owners, too? If not, why not?

You're reasoning can just as easily be used to justify slavery. Other than that ... it's too ridiculous to merit a response.

Exactly. Now you are finally beginning to grasp the folly of your "argument". You could do one of those things on your list, or - if there were a "sweatshop" nearby (you still haven't defined what you mean when you use the word, by the way) you could work in a "sweatshop". All the "sweatshop" owner has done is offer an alternative to those unable or unwilling to work for a slave master, feudal lord, sweat shop owner, a good company that treats its employees well, a unionized firm, a worker cooperative, a nonprofit, a government agency, a partnership, themselves, freelance, or whatever.

It's like saying it's okay for the Mafia to do business, as long as there's enough other businesses around, so people have adequate choices. The logic is absurd.

At the end of the day, these sweat shops violate basic human rights, I might add, rights afforded to workers in every western country. We've decided long ago, as a society, that it is immoral and unacceptable to treat workers in this way. Since we believe this treatment is morally wrong, it logically follows that our complicity in this affair, is also immoral.

What matters isn't what *I* think is a sweet deal, it's what the people who accept employment in "sweatshops" think. I understand that. You... not so much.

Not completely. What if a crazed religious sect asked us to slaughter them (because they absolutely believed if they were slaughtered on the right day and time, they would go to their nirvana). Would we be inclined to acquiesce to their bizarre moral worldview, or would you default to your own morality (and run like hell)? These are third world peoples, who have already lived their lives under subjugation, many are illiterate, and so no, they are not in a position to dictate what OUR morality should be. Once again, culpability in this case is with the western company funding this operation, thus the westerner is doing something that is illegal in his home country, and has been considered barbaric by our society for nearly a century.

Why do you assume they aren't aware of these various models that are not to be found anywhere near them? I live among these people. For over two dozen years now. I assure you they understand quite well the various dream jobs available here and there far from where they live. They're not stupid. They are not uninformed. They all have radios and almost all have televisions. It's just that where they live, there aren't always examples of each of these various organizational models that are looking for new employees.

You're not talking about what's happening in Asia .... maybe some parts of Latin America have it marginally better (and I'm not familiar with the goings on of sweat shops in Latin America).

But you can't reasonably assume such a thing. At least, you can't unless you are a Chomskybot.

I study biology, a little anthropology, ummm, so yes, I can reasonably assume such a thing (because it's true).

More undergrad elitism. Sigh. It does get tedious. I know more about the enlightenment era philosophy than you ever will, Skippy.

Actually, I'm an attorney (undergrad in finance & premed), in grad school for molecular biology. I'm also a student of philosophy, history, and other things. So not undergrad elitism .... just plain old no frills elitism

Yeah, who you are: Chomskybots and Zinnias.

I like Chomsky, sort of, others I like include Pierre Proudhon, Peter Kropotkin, Murray Bookchin, David Hume, John S. Mill, Nietzsche (of course), Thomas Jefferson (America's first anarchist philosopher).

[Eran]

I would like to make the following contribution to the debate.

I have recently visited Dharavi, Mumbai's largest slum. The tour focused on local industry. A huge number of tiny workshops exist in Dharavi, almost exclusively owned by business owners who live in the slum, often working alongside other slum residents.

The conditions of the workers are horrible by Western standards, though clearly superior to the subsistence farming which most have left behind them.

The point is to show that workers in the third world are poor, and poor people have to work under difficult conditions. That unavoidable fact has nothing to do with foreign ownership or "sweatshop" conditions (how do you define "sweatshop", by the way?)

[Phred]

You've obviously never studied the history of NYC garment workers, or the socioeconomic, immigration, and psychological factors they faced.

Did they or did they not have the right to refuse to accept employment with any of the "sweatshops" in the garment district? Why yes... yes, they had that right. Once employed by one of the "sweatshops", did they or did they not have the right to quit at any time? Why yes... yes, they had that right. And many exercised that right.

Right, they're prevented from leaving, guards roam the factory floor and dormitories.

So now you are saying an essential characteristic of a "sweatshop" is that the employees, once hired, are forcibly prevented from quitting. That is not the accepted definition of "sweatshop". It is not my definition of "sweatshop". It is not Wikipedia's definition of "sweatshop". It is, however, an accurate definition of "slave pen". Once again, I condemn slave pens unequivocally. Happy now?

I have no idea where your dreadlocked guy story is coming from, but yes, garment workers in NYC at the turn of the century, were treated like shit.

No they weren't.

For the sweat shop worker, today he has two choices (work in the sweat shop or commit suicide when the guard isn't watching), yesterday he may have had five (or more) choices.

LOL! Explain to the audience how opening a Tommy Hilfiger factory jammed with sewing machines operated by perspiring peasants causes all the pushcart vendors, barmaids, prostitutes, coconut huskers, and street beggars to vanish.

You're reasoning can just as easily be used to justify slavery.

No, it can't.

Other than that ... it's too ridiculous to merit a response.

In my four-plus decades of debating political and philosophical issues one thing has proven invariably true, without exception. When someone says a substantive point of debate is "too ridiculous to merit a response" it means they cannot respond without fatally undermining their own argument. It is a code phrase for "you win".

It's like saying it's okay for the Mafia to do business, as long as there's enough other businesses around, so people have adequate choices.

No, it isn't, since the Mafia's business necessarily involves violating the rights of others, while offering employment to people violates no one's rights.

The logic is absurd.

The logic is unassailable.

At the end of the day, these sweat shops violate basic human rights...

No they don't. Please list for the audience the "rights" you believe are being violated by offering someone employment.

We've decided long ago, as a society, that it is immoral and unacceptable to treat workers in this way.

In which way?

Since we believe this treatment is morally wrong...

What treatment? Be specific.

Not completely. What if a crazed religious sect asked us to slaughter them (because they absolutely believed if they were slaughtered on the right day and time, they would go to their nirvana).

Slaughtering people violates their rights. Offering them employment does not. Why are you having such a difficult time grasping this obvious difference?

These are third world peoples, who have already lived their lives under subjugation, many are illiterate, and so no, they are not in a position to dictate what OUR morality should be.

What are you babbling on about now? The judgment of the prospective employee is completely irrelevant to the key question being discussed here - is it immoral to offer someone employment?

Once again, culpability in this case is with the western company funding this operation...

Two questions: what specifically is the "western company" culpable of, and why do you think that the output of "sweatshops" is purchased only by western companies?

...thus the westerner is doing something that is illegal in his home country...

Since when did it become illegal to offer someone employment?

...and has been considered barbaric by our society for nearly a century.

Who apart from sophomore undergrad disciples of Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky consider offering employment to someone a barbaric practice?

You're not talking about what's happening in Asia ....

It is true I am not talking about the slave pens of Asia. I am speaking only of the "sweat shops" in Asia.

I study biology, a little anthropology, ummm, so yes, I can reasonably assume such a thing (because it's true).

It is untrue, so assuming so is nowhere close to being reasonable.

Actually, I'm an attorney...

How much did you pay for your law education? Whatever the amount, you were shortchanged.

(how do you define "sweatshop", by the way?)

An excellent question, Eran. I wish I had thought to ask it.


Phred

[truth_seeker]

How much did you pay for your law education? Whatever the amount, you were shortchanged.

For most of us (who aren't steeped in the pathological narcissism of people like Ayn Rand), sweat shops violate basic human rights. It doesn't even need to be forced conditions, the question of choices isn't necessarily relevant. Simply requiring that people work long hours (without overtime pay), in substandard conditions, with poor safety standards, lack of fire exits, poor treatment of workers, etc., is itself a violation of human rights.

In most cases, regardless of "theoretical" choice, working in a sweat shop is a choice made under desperate circumstances. Even saying that without sweat shops, some in the third world will be without jobs, is not compelling. If a business will only be willing to invest in production facilities provided they're allowed to exploit human beings (or will only purchase from vendors who do the same), they should not exist.

[Eran]

The bottom line is that any non-coercive option can only enrich people. If that option is considered superior by them, it enriches those who choose it. And being non-coercive, it cannot make the state of those who do not consider it superior any worse - they are welcome to simply ignore it.

Phred and I both object to slave-pens, or other establishments which use fraud or force to exploit people. Most sweatshops, however, do not. Regardless of how you might dislike their conditions, the employees who chose to work in them over any pre-existing and co-existing alternative believe they are better off for having a sweatshop employment opportunity available to them.

You and the likes of you, by calling to boycott sweatshop-produced products do their employees no favour. You are merely taking away one of the options available to them, leaving them with a worse set of options. Shame on you!

[truth_seeker]

The bottom line is that any non-coercive option can only enrich people. If that option is considered superior by them, it enriches those who choose it. And being non-coercive, it cannot make the state of those who do not consider it superior any worse - they are welcome to simply ignore it.

Phred and I both object to slave-pens, or other establishments which use fraud or force to exploit people. Most sweatshops, however, do not. Regardless of how you might dislike their conditions, the employees who chose to work in them over any pre-existing and co-existing alternative believe they are better off for having a sweatshop employment opportunity available to them.

You and the likes of you, by calling to boycott sweatshop-produced products do their employees no favour. You are merely taking away one of the options available to them, leaving them with a worse set of options. Shame on you!

No, shame on you, and others who grant business this exception to basic human rights. It's a psychopathic ideology.

[Eran]

We grant no such exception. If workers don't like what the business has to offer (and assuming, as above, that the business doesn't use force, either directly, or through its local government contacts), they don't have to work there.

That some choose to work for it is proof positive that what the business offers is considered superior (by the workers themselves) over whatever option would be available to them if the business never opened the sweatshop.

You are condemning workers to that inferior option by pressuring businesses not to open sweatshops.

As Phred suggested, if the well-being of the workers is really what you care about - giving them some of your money. Buy the cheaper sweatshop products, and donate the difference between your (lower) purchase price and the price of the (more expensive) alternative.

THAT would be an effective way to help people.

[truth_seeker]

We grant no such exception. If workers don't like what the business has to offer (and assuming, as above, that the business doesn't use force, either directly, or through its local government contacts), they don't have to work there.

That some choose to work for it is proof positive that what the business offers is considered superior (by the workers themselves) over whatever option would be available to them if the business never opened the sweatshop.

You are condemning workers to that inferior option by pressuring businesses not to open sweatshops.

As Phred suggested, if the well-being of the workers is really what you care about - giving them some of your money. Buy the cheaper sweatshop products, and donate the difference between your (lower) purchase price and the price of the (more expensive) alternative.

THAT would be an effective way to help people.

Or we could just vanquish all libertarians and conservatives into nonexistence over the course of the next generation or so (I like this option better)

We will indoctrinate your children with our occupy propaganda