Ron Paul...

[MindYourHead]

Spoken like a typical 20 year old that's been fed and brainwashed all the BS they've heard in college and other adults who have lead a fairly privileged life. A typical family with actual bills to pay and people to support needs to spend over $1100 a month for the bare necessities in miserable living conditions. A minimum wage employee earns $1160 a month for full-time work. You can either visit one of the "Projects" in New York or a trailer park in Florida to see what conditions are really like for these people.

In short, you have no clue how these people are trying to live and what they've living like. The ONLY reason their poverty levels aren't down to the third world standards you mention are because we DO have these safety nets.

The problem with Capitalism is that you'll always get what you pay for. You ever been to a free clinic? Ever eaten government-issued food? You know how much a Welfare check is? Know how much a retirement home costs? Without those things or support for those things, anyone making less than $XX.00 an hour will just simply die. Makes it hard to get reelected when all the gullible fools that voted a Libertarian into office are buied in pauper's graves around the country after losing their jobs.

For a 20 year old, @bickelz seems less brainwashed by the education system than many his age. He clearly is breaking ranks and thinking for himself.
I sit back and see a trend were younger people are embracing Socialism as some kind of Godsend that will fix all the injustices. It's really quite troubling that they are willing to give up so much of their power and decision making to the State.

Ok, onto the safety net.
Allow me to bore you with the details of my experience with the so called safety net from a 50 year old that needed some help once when I was in my 20's.
In 1986, both myself and my Wife at the time found ourselves out of work due to no fault of our own.
We needed a way to pay for the rent on our 1 bedroom apartment located in a not so nice neighborhood of South Mpls. Along with food assistance. We didn't want to approach our parents for money.
Ok, let's go get rental assistance for a month or two, because this is only a temporary set back.
We spend an entire day down at the crowded Social Security office filling out forms and waiting in lines.
Once we finally got to sit down with someone, they looked at us with a suspicious eye because we didn't have kids. We also each owned a car. Beaters, not new cars. Those are assets no matter how rusty they are and count against you.
I tried to explain that we just want assistance for a month or two while we search for jobs. That's what it's here for right?
Sorry, you have to get an eviction notice from your landlord first in order to qualify for rental assistance.
Are you fucking kidding me? An eviction notice? By then it's too late!

Walked out of there thoroughly pissed off and drove back to the apartment. All the while passing professional Welfare Queens sitting on the porches of their section 8 houses, with their 8 kids from 8 Fathers, who probably also had a drug dealing boyfriend living with them and leeching off the system second hand. All the while driving the Cadillac parked out front. Having no intention of ever becoming self supporting, and fully planning to milk the system for the rest of their lives. Have another baby and get a raise.

Meanwhile we can't get a lick of help. Some safety net. We ended up borrowing money from our folks in the end, and just as planned we each were gainfully employed again inside of 6 weeks.

Look, we will never change each others minds on the subject of Capitalism and Socialism. Where is common ground on the subject?
Good night all.

 

[subwayrider]

Apparently, nuclear power isn't even as potentially dangerous as some people make it out to be, if the proper precautions are taken. The incidents at Three-Mile Island, Chernobyl, etc. only happened because of carelessness.

On the Fukushima Nuclear Meltdown

[video=youtube;BdbitRlbLDc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdbitRlbLDc&feature=related[/video]

 

[894tt3h9]

Child labour and poverty in third world countries doesn't upset me. If companies are looking to have their product manufactured and they can get it cheaper overseas then that's fine with me. If the companies overseas employ children and it's legal in their country for those children to work, that's fine with me too. I've never lived in a third world country. I've never seen a sweat shop. I've never witnessed conditions that look anything like they do over in the third world. I'm not so arrogant as to believe that I know what's best for children in the third world and I don't know enough about the economy or how those countries are run to suppose that what they're doing is wrong.

I could make myself upset over it if I wanted and suggest that these corporations do their manufacturing within their own country and eliminate thousands of jobs in these third world countries altogether so the children don't have to work but I don't imagine that's a great solution either.

Anyway. I don't feel like it's any of my business to dictate how other countries are run. I also don't think it's any of my business to insult other people over their subjective opinions because I disagree.

When I was growing up I lived in a trailer park and my parents were broke as fuck. I had a paper route as a child. I gave money to my family in order to help pay for things and I ended up paying for my own clothing and food in some cases so that I could help them out. I don't really see the difference between that and children working in third world countries. I think the idea is that they are helping out their families so that they can eat, clothe themselves and have shelter. The goverment can only provide for you for so much, just as they only helped my parents so much despite having two children. I recognize that delivering papers is different than working in a factory however those are the opportunities that are available there and a paper route was the opportunity that I had living here. The result is the same- children working to help the family.

 

[Lerxst]

For a 20 year old, @bickelz seems less brainwashed by the education system than many his age. He clearly is breaking ranks and thinking for himself.
I sit back and see a trend were younger people are embracing Socialism as some kind of Godsend that will fix all the injustices. It's really quite troubling that they are willing to give up so much of their power and decision making to the State.

Ok, onto the safety net.
Allow me to bore you with the details of my experience with the so called safety net from a 50 year old that needed some help once when I was in my 20's.
In 1986, both myself and my Wife at the time found ourselves out of work due to no fault of our own.
We needed a way to pay for the rent on our 1 bedroom apartment located in a not so nice neighborhood of South Mpls. Along with food assistance. We didn't want to approach our parents for money.
Ok, let's go get rental assistance for a month or two, because this is only a temporary set back.
We spend an entire day down at the crowded Social Security office filling out forms and waiting in lines.
Once we finally got to sit down with someone, they looked at us with a suspicious eye because we didn't have kids. We also each owned a car. Beaters, not new cars. Those are assets no matter how rusty they are and count against you.
I tried to explain that we just want assistance for a month or two while we search for jobs. That's what it's here for right?
Sorry, you have to get an eviction notice from your landlord first in order to qualify for rental assistance.
Are you fucking kidding me? An eviction notice? By then it's too late!

Walked out of there thoroughly pissed off and drove back to the apartment. All the while passing professional Welfare Queens sitting on the porches of their section 8 houses, with their 8 kids from 8 Fathers, who probably also had a drug dealing boyfriend living with them and leeching off the system second hand. All the while driving the Cadillac parked out front. Having no intention of ever becoming self supporting, and fully planning to milk the system for the rest of their lives. Have another baby and get a raise.

Meanwhile we can't get a lick of help. Some safety net. We ended up borrowing money from our folks in the end, and just as planned we each were gainfully employed again inside of 6 weeks.

Look, we will never change each others minds on the subject of Capitalism and Socialism. Where is common ground on the subject?
Good night all.

And if you've read any of my posts from the last year, you'd see I'm unemployed and on the verge of losing pretty much everything. I even had to fight tooth and nail to get the pennies worth of unemployment my last employer wanted to withhold for a random no-fault firing. We're "too rich" to receive any state or federal aid, we technically had an income thanks to those few dollars of unemployment so most of the "safety net" that's out there doesn't apply, we can barely afford our bills and have almost no luxuries other than Internet.

I'm looking for any job I can get, working any job available, don't have any kids, haven't ever gone into debt, paid off all my loans except 50% of a mortgage and saved all the money I've made over the years just for times like this - I'm the exact picture of a Conservative/Libertarian American but I oppose everything they stand for.

I'd still gladly give whatever tax money I have to support those programs that do exist because for as bad as it is now, it could always get worse, and then what? I'm not keen on living in a cardboard box under a bridge.

 

[subwayrider]

Ron Paul is a girly man!

*runs away*

 

[Quiet]

I dont follow American politics well enough to be able to make an informed comment on Ron Paul so I wont.

In regards to the rest of the discussion:

The entirety of western civillisation has been built on slave labour. Capitalism was preceded by sytems of feudalism, which in essence was a restrictive heirarchal system with limited social mobility and was defined by opressor/opressed classes. Capitalism and socialism are two systems that developed as humans evolved to replace the opression of feudalism but both these systems have failed because they were/are not being implemented correctly and are not subject to sufficient regulation and transperancy.

Capitalism in itself is not a bad ideology, and has allowed many societies to flourish and created a lot of social mobility, albeit at the expense of the Earth and people. The problem is that capitalism today has come to resemble feudal society and has devolved society back into heirachal opressor/opressed relationships.

There needs to be regulation, transperancy, appropriate education for every indvidual, an informed democracy, and accountability for either socialism or capitalism to work correctly. Otherwise both these sytems are liable to be abused and frought with power plays.

And for anyone that doesnt want to buy slave labour/sweat shop crap but still wants to support development in third world countries- buy Fair Trade. Please buy it. Fair trade creates better working conditions for people, more local sustainability and also improves the local communities through investment into local infastracture and services. Fair trade products cost relatively the same price for the consumer. Just more of the cream is going to the people that have acually done the work, rather than the someone that thinks they have the right to get rich at someone else's expense, another's blood, sweat and tears.

 

[MindYourHead]

And if you've read any of my posts from the last year, you'd see I'm unemployed and on the verge of losing pretty much everything. I even had to fight tooth and nail to get the pennies worth of unemployment my last employer wanted to withhold for a random no-fault firing. We're "too rich" to receive any state or federal aid, we technically had an income thanks to those few dollars of unemployment so most of the "safety net" that's out there doesn't apply, we can barely afford our bills and have almost no luxuries other than Internet.

I'm looking for any job I can get, working any job available, don't have any kids, haven't ever gone into debt, paid off all my loans except 50% of a mortgage and saved all the money I've made over the years just for times like this - I'm the exact picture of a Conservative/Libertarian American but I oppose everything they stand for.

I'd still gladly give whatever tax money I have to support those programs that do exist because for as bad as it is now, it could always get worse, and then what? I'm not keen on living in a cardboard box under a bridge.

You know first hand what I was talking about. I think we have more in common than comes across at face value.
I'm not the best at taking my thoughts and transfering them into written words, I don't see the world as black & white. My arguments may come across that way, but often I tend to play Devil's advocate.
I think there needs to be a balance. That's why I asked the question where is common ground?
There should be help for those that deserve it. But, too often it seems the system is there to support those that could support themselves if only they were willing to put in the effort, casting aside others such as yourself.
I find it hard to support the 2 major parties, neither has our best interests in mind. But I do believe in personal responsibility and the freedom to make my own decisions be they good decisions or bad.
That's why I find myself leaning Libertarian. Not lock, stock & barrell, but I think there are some good ideas there.

 

[Nixie]

I think it is narrow-minded and idiotic to trot out the "welfare momma" crap. It is pure propoganda. It's like saying only gay men get and spread AIDS. It just isn't true. The problem is that there will always be people who bilk the system. There are religious polygomist in Utah who work the system to get welfare assistance for the 2nd and 3rd wives who each have 6 kids with their shared hubby. As a nation, we have to get over this idea that people have to "deserve" to get help. We either recognize that people deserve a basic standard of life or we quit pretending that we do. As a Native, I don't care why you need help, only that you do. I have seen those 3rd world living conditions right here in the United States. By and far, the people receiving aid aren't sitting around driving a fancy car. That is a myth that people like to use to justify why they don't want to uphold their end of the social contract. We live together. Life is circle, we are all interconnected.

 

[bickelz]

Spoken like a typical 20 year old that's been fed and brainwashed all the BS they've heard in college and other adults who have lead a fairly privileged life. A typical family with actual bills to pay and people to support needs to spend over $1100 a month for the bare necessities in miserable living conditions. A minimum wage employee earns $1160 a month for full-time work. You can either visit one of the "Projects" in New York or a trailer park in Florida to see what conditions are really like for these people.

The problems that have to do with our poorest places in the united states have a lot to do with how our education system is failing them.

Also, I'm not brainwashed. I go to a school full of hippies and we were ranked 17th on the EPA's most recent list on the "Greenest Schools". There are very few people on my campus who share my views...maybe 1%. And yes, that was tongue-in-cheek humor.

In short, you have no clue how these people are trying to live and what they've living like. The ONLY reason their poverty levels aren't down to the third world standards you mention are because we DO have these safety nets.

That's wholly true, they're better off than people in the third world because there is modern medicine here. There are also many charities that do just as good of a job as government safety nets.

The problem with Capitalism is that you'll always get what you pay for. You ever been to a free clinic? Ever eaten government-issued food? You know how much a Welfare check is? Know how much a retirement home costs? Without those things or support for those things, anyone making less than $XX.00 an hour will just simply die. Makes it hard to get reelected when all the gullible fools that voted a Libertarian into office are buied in pauper's graves around the country after losing their jobs.

Why is that wrong? Isn't that the incentive for everyone to work harder?

Also, back to the minimum wage thing. The people who work for minimum wage are mostly younger, middle class people. Heads of household who are the only people working make up a very small percentage of people who benefit from the minimum wage. So these conditions you're talking about where people are barely staying alive off minimum wage aren't the entire truth. It's happening to some people but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that these workers are newer to the country and don't have any sort of specialized skills.

And I'm sorry you lost your job and had to claw away for unemployment. The downturn hurt a lot of people and my family was definitely one of them as both my parents are real estate agents. Don't just assume things about people and attack me instead of what I have to say.

 

[bamf]

You said this...

When you mention "having your country ravaged by corporations, what you really mean is that there is foreign investment into cheap labor. Although, you were able to put an eloquent spin on it that blows the rhetoric of this whole conversation way out of where it should be. You view foreign investment as this exploitative thing much like a lot of people on this thread and you view that as prohibiting upward mobility. The thing is, it just isn't given the conditions that I have laid out. It is simply work and work gets you paid, which raises your standard of living. This is all a part of economic development. These are growing pains and they will go away. Just give it time. They have an advantage because all the technology the need to get out of poverty already exist because we frickin' invented it already in the industrial revolution.

If we really truly invested hard into the third world and just let these places develop economically without all the environmental and "ethical" rhetoric, I think they can be where we were in the early 1900s - 1950s within 50 years. It's not implausible.

This is literally the answer to their problems and thus far I haven't heard anything from anyone else. Sure, shoot me down and shoot down an entire branch of economic thinking. But have a solution of your own. Don't get in my way or anyone else's way when you don't have a legitimate answer of your own. The guilt trips and superiority complexes are rediculous and ever sunce I've declared my self as libertarian, I've gotten nothing but shit. It's amazing that I had ever aligned myself with liberal thinking because I just get condescended to by people everywhere on the internet. I've been called the stupidest person in the world twice in the past two weeks because I had an argument that was actually logical.

I said "Having your country ravaged by outside multinational companies so that no jobs can realistically survive except extreme wage-slavery to produce cheap products with your country's resources that you will never use will never help you "rise above" the current situation."
You said "Really? So working for money doesn't make you richer?"

Do you see what you did? It's called a Straw Man. I never suggested that having money makes you poorer (that's dumb as fuck to say), but that in such a situation you cannot realistically go anywhere but where you are. There is a giant difference. There's no reason to be insulted because people disagree with you. Your simple "solution" is where the problem is, and you seem adamant on taking anything said against it personally. This isn't the industrial revolution. These people don't get to use their products. These people don't have a chance to own the land they are living on. These people don't get to use the natural resources in their countries. These people work in horribly dangerous conditions (sometimes, not all the time). These people often times are forced to buy their consumables from the very companies they work from but don't have a choice because the local economy and infrastructure is so devastated by lack of access to resources and labor. When there is no competition, you can charge what ever you want. These people have money, and the shit they need to survive is only sold by their companies at what ever price they want. You cannot draw parallels to the Industrial Revolution because they simply are not there. Getting paid does not simply raise your standard of living. Sorry. Plain and simple.

Funny that you call yourself a libertarian, because I am one as well (because apparently political affiliations matter now). I recognize that the only way we can ever truly be free is when there is social justice for everybody. When you start at the bottom of the ladder you're a lot more likely to be fucked than the guy at the top. True capitalism is what is happening in these countries where children are working in wage-slavery. There is no check, and when you are completely bared from resources you have no where to go. You want to know a viable solution? Get these companies out of the countries. Get our "investors" out of these countries. Get our government out of these countries. Give them back access to their resources, and let them figure their own shit out. Give them the autonomy to work without oppression from our end. Shit will be fucked up for a while, but how couldn't it be when an entire continent was colonized and divided along arbitrary lines, and devastated by slavery and mistreatment from the Europeans. That's a solution and that's libertarian, but then again, you're probably going to ignore it.

 

[subwayrider]

You want to know a viable solution? Get these companies out of the countries. Get our "investors" out of these countries. Get our government out of these countries. Give them back access to their resources, and let them figure their own shit out. Give them the autonomy to work without oppression from our end. Shit will be fucked up for a while, but how couldn't it be when an entire continent was colonized and divided along arbitrary lines, and devastated by slavery and mistreatment from the Europeans. That's a solution and that's libertarian, but then again, you're probably going to ignore it.

I think it's safe to say that those companies will do everything in their power to hang onto their sources of cheap labor etc. I think it's also safe to say that those same companies have a certain degree of control over government. I heard about what happened to Iraq, so yes the government is in on it, too. How exactly do we get them out of there?

 

[Billy]

I just don't get you. Hasn't history, especially in this country, already proven that people just can't be trusted? How ignorant is it, with these past facts staring at us, to think that a movement towards more traditional American values will ever take hold, even if a Libertarian is in the White House?

We'll still have money, we'll still have classes and we won't have any government control over any of it. We'll have the industries like the Meat Packing Industry Upton Sinclair exposed at the turn of the 20th century, running rampant all over again.

We need a Socialist Revolution in the US, and I mean a true revolution. Some extreme measure that will get us back in line with the direction the rest of the civilized world has been going before we spread our cancerous influence on them. We don't need a bunch of Hippies smoking pot in a grassy field or a bunch of people trying to turn back the hands of time by 100 years.

We need to advance and so far everything I've seen and heard from Ron Paul preaches the exact opposite.

lol

 

[Billy]

If you want human politics, welcome to Sweden! We have big government, you shouldn't trust it, but it has made things better for the people who live here. It's possible to organize a society together, through taxes.

And a homogenous culture/people

 

[muir]

Child labour and poverty in third world countries doesn't upset me. If companies are looking to have their product manufactured and they can get it cheaper overseas then that's fine with me. If the companies overseas employ children and it's legal in their country for those children to work, that's fine with me too. I've never lived in a third world country. I've never seen a sweat shop. I've never witnessed conditions that look anything like they do over in the third world. I'm not so arrogant as to believe that I know what's best for children in the third world and I don't know enough about the economy or how those countries are run to suppose that what they're doing is wrong.

I could make myself upset over it if I wanted and suggest that these corporations do their manufacturing within their own country and eliminate thousands of jobs in these third world countries altogether so the children don't have to work but I don't imagine that's a great solution either.

Anyway. I don't feel like it's any of my business to dictate how other countries are run. I also don't think it's any of my business to insult other people over their subjective opinions because I disagree.

When I was growing up I lived in a trailer park and my parents were broke as fuck. I had a paper route as a child. I gave money to my family in order to help pay for things and I ended up paying for my own clothing and food in some cases so that I could help them out. I don't really see the difference between that and children working in third world countries. I think the idea is that they are helping out their families so that they can eat, clothe themselves and have shelter. The goverment can only provide for you for so much, just as they only helped my parents so much despite having two children. I recognize that delivering papers is different than working in a factory however those are the opportunities that are available there and a paper route was the opportunity that I had living here. The result is the same- children working to help the family.

The problem with the sweat shops is that there are no unions ensuring that the workers have decent pay or work conditions so they don't. They are paid just enough to buy food and given just enough time off work to sleep.

Here's a good John Pilger documentary, called 'The New Rulers of the World' about how corporations are exploiting people in the third world: http://johnpilger.com/videos/the-new-rulers-of-the-world

 

[muir]

Apparently, nuclear power isn't even as potentially dangerous as some people make it out to be, if the proper precautions are taken. The incidents at Three-Mile Island, Chernobyl, etc. only happened because of carelessness.

Nuclear power is dangerous. The leak of radiation into the biosphere from chernobyl and from fukishima will manifest in ways that might be hard to quantify

Also the pro-nuclear lobby never seem to factor in the costs of fixing disasters like fukishima or the cost of maintaining and finally decommissioning stations when they talk about start up costs.

Chernobyl was a lesson, fukishima was another one, now its time to learn from the lessons. Nuclear power is neither safe nor clean

 

[muir]

For a 20 year old, @bickelz seems less brainwashed by the education system than many his age. He clearly is breaking ranks and thinking for himself.
I sit back and see a trend were younger people are embracing Socialism as some kind of Godsend that will fix all the injustices. It's really quite troubling that they are willing to give up so much of their power and decision making to the State..

Students that are learning economics through the education system don't realise that the economics they are being taught are the economics of the people who have created and maintained the economic system we have....the broken system we have

The economic system we have has failed. Students are being taught junk economics and parroting it like its gospel.

The 'socialism' you are talking about here is state socialism where everything is centrally controlled by the state. It is not true socialism.

Perhaps it would be more correct to call the system we have at the moment 'state capitalism' rather than socialism.

Socialism is when the workers own in common the means of production and decide matters for themselves through consensus democracy. We certainly do not have that in the west!

We have STATE CAPITALISM or referred to elsewhere as 'crony capitalism', 'corporatism'. 'kleptocracy', 'corporate fascism' etc

You have said in one of your posts that you are a libertarian. I also want to make the point that libertarians are not just on the right of the political spectrum and that there are left wing libertarians as well.

The mainstream media has done a very good job of convincing people that the centre right are 'socialists' (some right wing parties in Europe even call themselves 'socialist!') or 'liberal' whilst the right are 'conservative' or 'libertarian'. This is an Orwellian abuse of language designed to cloud peoples minds.

The USSR was not 'communist' it was state socialist (centrally controlled...it didn't achieve a state of communism where the workers would be empowered, it was controlled by the state not the workers and was therefore state socialism!!!!)

The US is not drifting towards 'socialism' it IS state capitalist and will remain so until the people overthrow it.

In my mind both state socialism and state capitalism have failed. Ron Paul is advocating what some people would call 'anarcho-capitalism' but although as a left wing libertarian i like some of what he says because i also believe in personal freedoms, i know that along with personal freedoms must come a system where people will not be ground into the dirt. 'Anarcho-capitalism' would i believe see the powerful concentrations of wealth form new monopolies that would usurp government leading to a state of fascism.

This leaves anarcho-communism as a viable option because it allows both personal freedoms whilst maintaining a sense of community rather than a capitalist dog eat dog situation.

The mainstream corporate owned media will never discuss this option however because it doesn't want people to even know that it exists!

 

[Stu]

Walked out of there thoroughly pissed off and drove back to the apartment. All the while passing professional Welfare Queens sitting on the porches of their section 8 houses, with their 8 kids from 8 Fathers, who probably also had a drug dealing boyfriend living with them and leeching off the system second hand. All the while driving the Cadillac parked out front. Having no intention of ever becoming self supporting, and fully planning to milk the system for the rest of their lives. Have another baby and get a raise.


ll.

Yeah damit! I have been working since I was 13

where is my caddy!

 

[bickelz]

I said "Having your country ravaged by outside multinational companies so that no jobs can realistically survive except extreme wage-slavery to produce cheap products with your country's resources that you will never use will never help you "rise above" the current situation."
You said "Really? So working for money doesn't make you richer?"

Do you see what you did? It's called a Straw Man.

The reason my argument is not a straw-man is because of the way you veiled foreign investment as a bad thing. It was implicit by what you said, not explicit.

Your simple "solution" is where the problem is, and you seem adamant on taking anything said against it personally. This isn't the industrial revolution.

It's their industrial evolution. I only take criticisms personally when their aimed at e instead of the argument, which is what has happened a few times, not by you.

These people don't get to use their products. These people don't have a chance to own the land they are living on. These people don't get to use the natural resources in their countries. These people work in horribly dangerous conditions (sometimes, not all the time). These people often times are forced to buy their consumables from the very companies they work from but don't have a choice because the local economy and infrastructure is so devastated by lack of access to resources and labor. When there is no competition, you can charge what ever you want. These people have money, and the shit they need to survive is only sold by their companies at what ever price they want. You cannot draw parallels to the Industrial Revolution because they simply are not there. Getting paid does not simply raise your standard of living. Sorry. Plain and simple.

What is it about what you said does not parallel the industrial revolution. And just because you have a monopoly, doesn't mean you get to charge whatever you want. Getting paid above inflation raises your standard, plain and simple. Being productive and providing goods and services that people value make you better off.

Funny that you call yourself a libertarian, because I am one as well (because apparently political affiliations matter now). I recognize that the only way we can ever truly be free is when there is social justice for everybody. When you start at the bottom of the ladder you're a lot more likely to be fucked than the guy at the top. True capitalism is what is happening in these countries where children are working in wage-slavery. There is no check, and when you are completely bared from resources you have no where to go. You want to know a viable solution? Get these companies out of the countries. Get our "investors" out of these countries. Get our government out of these countries. Give them back access to their resources, and let them figure their own shit out. Give them the autonomy to work without oppression from our end. Shit will be fucked up for a while, but how couldn't it be when an entire continent was colonized and divided along arbitrary lines, and devastated by slavery and mistreatment from the Europeans. That's a solution and that's libertarian, but then again, you're probably going to ignore it.

I call myself a libertarian but my arguments are based in economic theory, not libertarian theory. If you want to pull all foreign investment out, you're making them re-create the wheel when we can give them the blueprints. The only guarantee that capitalism will take off in the third world is if we invest it.

Again, there is evidence of how people are made better off because of child labor. If it weren't for child labor, some of those children couldn't get an education as education isn't provided by government in some areas. If you force out investment, people can't go anywhere; generations will fall behind and millions ill starve if you pull investment out. That's a fact that I would be willing to put my life down for and I don't even say that about my country.

 

[894tt3h9]

The problem with the sweat shops is that there are no unions ensuring that the workers have decent pay or work conditions so they don't. They are paid just enough to buy food and given just enough time off work to sleep.

Here's a good John Pilger documentary, called 'The New Rulers of the World' about how corporations are exploiting people in the third world: http://johnpilger.com/videos/the-new-rulers-of-the-world

I understand that the conditions in these sweat shops (or rather these countries even) are less than stellar and what we would consider sub standard. I think that if there's an issue it's up to that country to look at the labour conditions and do something about it though I'm really not sure that they will. It's unfortunate but I think that's the reality we're dealing with.

Personally I'd rather see children be children instead of having to work but I also recognize that that is just not their reality. Even if corporations are "exploiting" these people I am not sure that there is a lot that can be done about it. These people are agreeing to work under those conditions. I suppose they could strike or fight back somehow and maybe their country will implement labour laws that will upgrade their pay and conditions but I'm not sure that will be happening.

 

[subwayrider]

I understand that the conditions in these sweat shops (or rather these countries even) are less than stellar and what we would consider sub standard. I think that if there's an issue it's up to that country to look at the labour conditions and do something about it though I'm really not sure that they will. It's unfortunate but I think that's the reality we're dealing with.

Personally I'd rather see children be children instead of having to work but I also recognize that that is just not their reality. Even if corporations are "exploiting" these people I am not sure that there is a lot that can be done about it. These people are agreeing to work under those conditions. I suppose they could strike or fight back somehow and maybe their country will implement labour laws that will upgrade their pay and conditions but I'm not sure that will be happening.

The question is: whose responsibility is it?