"No bro but we have the internet, it makes us so socially aware. We wouldn't buy stuff from bad companies." Says this with iPhone made by Chinese workers who's lives are so shitty they are jumping off buildings and clothes who are made by Indian kids in factories that burn down.
But remember man, those little children working in sweat shops for pennies per hour to build iPhones CHOSE to work in those conditions. If they don't like it, they are free to start another job at any time amirite?
I'm gonna guess, at least in part, that it has something to do with the evil US government passing anti-freedom laws that prevent the exploitation of cheap child labor?
that's a silly answer.. but if that's what you believe, then that's cool. what's an anti freedom law?
why was my question silly? seems like a valid question to me. you could have just said "I don't know" if you didn't know the answer..
Obviously Libertarians don't want crime to be rampant. I also don't think people who disagree with Libertarians believe Libertarians are for corporations destroying the world. Thing is, the more you diminish government, the higher the chance of precisely that happening. It seems when people encounter corrupt or fallible government, they seem to forget that fact and simply want to get rid of the feds altogether. Like I said before, there is absolutely nothing about the diminishing of government that would make corporations diminish. They would simply readjust, restrategize, and continue Business As Usual, but now without having to worry about government intervention. The issue is that in a world where corporate power is ever increasing, limiting the only other entity that can possibly do something about them seems just asking for trouble. I am not necessarily pro big government, but I do want to see something preventing absolute corporate rule. So far every anti-government stance, like Libertarianism (with which I mostly agree), seems to completely ignore or underestimate corporate power in absence of government.
That's not at all the point. The point isn't that we should stop using products if they are associated with sketchy things cause that would be near impossible. I was merely pointing out that sketchy business practices do not stop Americans from buying certain products. I've seen the argument that we don't need regulation because smart consumers won't buy products from American companies that use child labor and shit like that, but that seems like a very weak argument based on the fact that we already buy sketchy products without thinking twice about it.
It seems that you are trying to imply that the reason we don't build iPhones in the states is because it would be so much more expensive, which is the obvious reason why. I think the problem with going down this train of thought is that you might say well why don't we try to compete with other countries like China. The problem with that kind of strategy is well never be able to create a product as cheaply as the Chinese, so cutting benefits to try and compete with them is only going to make Americans lives harder not easier, because those jobs are not coming back to America, even if we cut all taxes and regulations.
yeah for sure.. some countries are just better at things than others. We can't compete in every market regardless of labor laws, taxes, regulations etc.. the US used to be good at making cars.. not sure why that isn't the case anymore.
by the way.. i'm not anti government and anti regulation.. i'm for an efficient government with regulations that actually make sense.. which is something we haven't had in a long time. something has to be done about the inefficiency and free for all spending.. adding more bureaucracy and throwing more money around that we don't have isn't the answer.
Not well at all. That's why I said "It seems when people encounter corrupt or fallible government, they seem to forget that fact and simply want to get rid of the feds altogether." I'm all for talking about how to fix governmental issues, for there are many. What I am not for is people seeing the fallacies and looking to get rid of it altogether while completely disregarding the power corporations would gain when the only entity that can check them is abolished.
you might be confusing libertarianism with anarchism.. libertarians do not want to get rid of the federal government... i mean they have their own political party and everything. trimming the fat isn't the same as abolishing it completely. when someone calls me in to consult a failing business, the first thing i look at is waste and how to get rid of waste. Spending money they don't have wouldn't be wise.. same goes for the federal government imo.. they need to trim the fat, not abolish it all together.
If you read my original post I finished with "we are assuming there isn't complete anarchy" . I think the conversation steered a bit towards encompassing both, a diminished government as well as an abolished one. Considering the legal power large corporations hold with armies of lawyers at disposal, a diminished government may as well be an abolished one when attempting to confront them.
i smoke too much pot for that yeah the whole thing is a mess.. i'm not pretending that i have answers. It's easy for any of us to say "cut this or that" without knowing the repercussions. but as long as the government remains as bloated as it is, then nothing will change.. there's just too many billions to lose. Slashing the "defense" budget would be the obvious place to start... but then what to do with all of the folks out of jobs, and all the money haliburton and others have to lose? foreign aid and defense cuts would solve a shit load of domestic issues.. we'd be able to afford all sorts of fancy social programs if that were to happen.