3 ms·

I think the ways we are using the phrase 'economically efficient' are different, and that's where much of the disagreement lies. In fact I'd reject the notion o

by wfo 11y ago

I think the ways we are using the phrase 'economically efficient' are different, and that's where much of the disagreement lies. In fact I'd reject the notion of the existence of a universal objective welfare function. If you include the welfare of slaves in your calculation certainly I'd agree that the system is inefficient; but since when has any slave owner done that? It's actually an extremely uncommon (nonexistent) left wing view that welfare is maximized with some people enslaved. Literally nobody believes that and I certainly hope for your sake that you don't believe anyone believes that and are just trying to be incendiary. It is a very common view among most people (since it's the truth) that the welfare of /certain people/ is maximized with /certain other people/ enslaved. And then we can conclude if the first group has economic power and is subject to no regulation and act according to maximizing their economic welfare, they will implement it. The contention is that your position, that businesses should refuse to operate in countries which regulate rights into existence since these rights have costs which hurt the bottom line of the business, if adopted leads directly and immediately to slavery. Slavery is unquestionably disgusting and reprehensible, so therefore your position, which leads to an unacceptable result, cannot be accepted. So I'm suggesting that the /subjective/ welfare of people in a position to own slaves (wealthy business owners) is maximized under slavery. And from that I conclude the maximization of the welfare of wealthy business owners -- the natural result of unfettered capitalism -- is something to be categorically rejected. So we need fetters.

yummyfajitas 11y ago
It's actually an extremely uncommon (nonexistent) left wing view that welfare is maximized with some people enslaved. Literally nobody believes that... Simply not true. Several elected officials believe or previously believed that, and some proposed legislation for that purpose: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_National_Service_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_National_Service_Act http://thehill.com/policy/defense/236365-rangel-renews-call-for-war-tax-national-draft http://thehill.com/policy/defense/236365-rangel-renews-call-... https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr5741/text https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr5741/text http://www.infowars.com/obama-camp-scrubs-website-to-remove-references-to-mandatory-community-service/ http://www.infowars.com/obama-camp-scrubs-website-to-remove-... And then we can conclude if the first group has economic power and is subject to no regulation and act according to maximizing their economic welfare, they will implement it. Yet strangely, that doesn't seem to happen. Multinationals with huge economic power and subject to minimal regulation tend to treat employees better than smaller and weaker local companies (at least in India, the US, and other places I'm familiar with). I don't dispute much of what you wrote about why we shouldn't do business with those who practice slavery. I'd draw a very clear bright line: do workers agree to their terms of work? In India or the US, the vast majority of IT workers do. I guess you want to go further and tell my employer/me what work conditions are acceptable?
- wfo 11y ago
  Okay, if you define a required short limited period of service for public good as slavery then sure most civilized and uncivilized countries implement it and many people support it. I'll concede this point, though I don't think there's very many people in this universe who would use the word 'slavery' to describe this so you may be a unique snowflake in this regard. I think the reason multinationals treat employees better is because that since they are multinational, they are a single company subject to the laws of every nation: it is more efficient for them to treat EVERYONE by the same rights as the most stringent (Europe) whereas companies local to India or the US can abuse the lack of rights these countries give workers since they only deal with local workers. And I would agree with you about consent being the big bright line. Except I think consent is very complicated. If you allowed people to sign themselves into slavery, people would consent to slavery. No matter how awful something is, if it's allowed, people will "consent" to it -- the most desperate in society are forced by circumstances to consent to it. I think the word consent only has meaning when there are other meaningful options available. Which I think is the fundamental difference: the definition of consent. We all agree if someone puts a gun to your head and demands consent it's not consent: but what if a faceless nameless system forces you to die or consent to whatever some collection of business owners demand and you agree: is this consent or not? I say not really.

by wfo 11y ago

yummyfajitas 11y ago

It's actually an extremely uncommon (nonexistent) left wing view that welfare is maximized with some people enslaved. Literally nobody believes that... Simply not true. Several elected officials believe or previously believed that, and some proposed legislation for that purpose: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_National_Service_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_National_Service_Act http://thehill.com/policy/defense/236365-rangel-renews-call-for-war-tax-national-draft http://thehill.com/policy/defense/236365-rangel-renews-call-... https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr5741/text https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr5741/text http://www.infowars.com/obama-camp-scrubs-website-to-remove-references-to-mandatory-community-service/ http://www.infowars.com/obama-camp-scrubs-website-to-remove-... And then we can conclude if the first group has economic power and is subject to no regulation and act according to maximizing their economic welfare, they will implement it. Yet strangely, that doesn't seem to happen. Multinationals with huge economic power and subject to minimal regulation tend to treat employees better than smaller and weaker local companies (at least in India, the US, and other places I'm familiar with). I don't dispute much of what you wrote about why we shouldn't do business with those who practice slavery. I'd draw a very clear bright line: do workers agree to their terms of work? In India or the US, the vast majority of IT workers do. I guess you want to go further and tell my employer/me what work conditions are acceptable?

wfo 11y ago
Okay, if you define a required short limited period of service for public good as slavery then sure most civilized and uncivilized countries implement it and many people support it. I'll concede this point, though I don't think there's very many people in this universe who would use the word 'slavery' to describe this so you may be a unique snowflake in this regard. I think the reason multinationals treat employees better is because that since they are multinational, they are a single company subject to the laws of every nation: it is more efficient for them to treat EVERYONE by the same rights as the most stringent (Europe) whereas companies local to India or the US can abuse the lack of rights these countries give workers since they only deal with local workers. And I would agree with you about consent being the big bright line. Except I think consent is very complicated. If you allowed people to sign themselves into slavery, people would consent to slavery. No matter how awful something is, if it's allowed, people will "consent" to it -- the most desperate in society are forced by circumstances to consent to it. I think the word consent only has meaning when there are other meaningful options available. Which I think is the fundamental difference: the definition of consent. We all agree if someone puts a gun to your head and demands consent it's not consent: but what if a faceless nameless system forces you to die or consent to whatever some collection of business owners demand and you agree: is this consent or not? I say not really.