Where were your shoes made?(political)

Hello,
  Just wondering where the shoes you own were made, and what you consider the implication of the fact they were made where they were.
  I like reeboks.  They are made in communist China.  I like reebok for many reasons, mostly durability.  I used to be a Nike guy, but too many pairs just fell apart on me.
  I realize that by purchasing these shoes I am indirectly supporting communism.  However, I also realize that China allows some business operate in a very free-market way.

  I think it's weird that it's cheaper that I can buy shoes which are made across the world for less than can be bought here.  Why is it cheaper to ship shoes into America than to just make them here?

In fact, just about all of my clothing is made somewhere in Asia.
I guess I'm helping feed families all over the world.

What about you?

Who really cares?  We are all helping the global economy and people know it is far easier to offload cheap labour to China and India.  Simple, like you said politics. Learn it.

This is why I support multigovernment. I strongly recommend reading that page I linked to on the subject. The idea is better even than true democracy; true democracy is the majority imposing their preference on the minority, whereas multigovernment is each individual choosing her own preference without imposing it on anybody else. An international system of multigovernment with no political boundaries is the only way to truly live in freedom. Of course, there are other things that need to be done for true freedom to exist, but it cannot be done without abolishing government as we know it and establishing a system of multigovernment.

My shoes are made from China as well.

Its not the fact that I'm feeding communism, I'm actually not begrudged at all towards communism, even though I disagree with it....I feel bad because I'm feeding a tyrannical dictatorship....

Same.

But I think without the influx of foreign money, the poor would be even more destitute.

When I'm at sea I have up to 30 room-mates with nowhere to hide (does that count?)

When on land I live alone, glad to have it all to myself 

Gonna read that article on multi-government now.

This is why I support multigovernment. I strongly recommend reading that page I linked to on the subject. The idea is better even than true democracy; true democracy is the majority imposing their preference on the minority, whereas multigovernment is each individual choosing her own preference without imposing it on anybody else. An international system of multigovernment with no political boundaries is the only way to truly live in freedom. Of course, there are other things that need to be done for true freedom to exist, but it cannot be done without abolishing government as we know it and establishing a system of multigovernment.

I tried reading that link, I did.  But I couldn't get through the first few paragraphs because it was too half-baked.  It didn't really seem to be leading anywhere.
If you think the idea of picking and choosing your government is a good idea, how is that to be enforced?

Two people can't live under the pretense of law if they are governed by two seperate set of laws, can they?

Like I said, I'm just really unclear on the idea, so if you could give the quick and dirty, that would be helpful.

I think the only solution to this government problem is to get rid of it's perceived 'authority.'
Like I've been saying:  If you don't have the right to kill, what gives you the right to give the right to kill?
This is the logic behind government as it is today.  I think the role of government should be minimized to the bare necessity:  Fighting off organized invasion.

This is why I support multigovernment. I strongly recommend reading that page I linked to on the subject. The idea is better even than true democracy; true democracy is the majority imposing their preference on the minority, whereas multigovernment is each individual choosing her own preference without imposing it on anybody else. An international system of multigovernment with no political boundaries is the only way to truly live in freedom. Of course, there are other things that need to be done for true freedom to exist, but it cannot be done without abolishing government as we know it and establishing a system of multigovernment.

I would read it, but I already know on practical terms it would fail.

When I'm at sea I have up to 30 room-mates with nowhere to hide (does that count?)

When on land I live alone, glad to have it all to myself 

Gonna read that article on multi-government now.

The point I was trying to make is that it's not a typical decision.  Knowing you're a salty dog, I'd expect this reaction from you ;-)
I was trying to say that most people have a sense of entitlement that's not founded in reality.

A poor polish/mexican person knows what it's like to have ZERO money.  Just as a starving man knows the value of food.  I'm happy these people get to come to my country and earn an honest living.  I can only imagine their plight.
A middle class person hasn't seen the rock bottom.  He has expectations based on place of origin.

Here's a fun experiment (this place loves experiments, right?).
Armed with nothing but your ID, and the clothes on your back, go out into the world and try to live for 2 weeks.  Don't bring any money or belongings.  Take a bus or something to some place you've never been (preferably where they speak another language that you don't), get off, and try to make it.
Try finding meaningful employment with no way to communicate the limited skills you might actually have.  Hell, for arguments sake, don't communicate the skills you have.  Just walk in and say something like 'Hungy, need job.'
Walk a mile in those shoes.  Then complain about the polish stealing your jobs.  People the US in a similar fashion every single day.  These people aren't trying to get rich, or steal jobs.  They are trying to work and be honest individuals so they can provide food and necessities for their families back home.

I tried reading that link, I did.  But I couldn't get through the first few paragraphs because it was too half-baked.  It didn't really seem to be leading anywhere.
If you think the idea of picking and choosing your government is a good idea, how is that to be enforced?

Two people can't live under the pretense of law if they are governed by two seperate set of laws, can they?

Like I said, I'm just really unclear on the idea, so if you could give the quick and dirty, that would be helpful.

The idea is that localities - towns and parts of cities - have fundamental services like law enforcement, fire department and local roads governed by a small, local democracy. This local government's power is kept to the minimum required to maintain order, and because it is democratically governed by a small community there is no oppression involved. The purpose of this is to ensure that there is some consistent basis for law enforcement. There would need to be a small local tax to fund this.

Anything beyond this, like welfare, public education, medical services and such are entirely optional and run by governments with no geographical presence. The idea is that if you are a socialist, you can join a government with a high tax rate that gives you subsidised education, medical, the works. If you are a fascist, you can join a government which dictates to you what your rights are. If you are a conservative, you can join a government which provides the bare minimum in the way of public funding, just enough to give everyone the opportunities they need to get by. And if you are an anarchist, you can choose to belong to no government at all (except, of course, your local democracy, which is necessary for the idea to be consistent). Everyone can be governed in the way they choose, without imposing that decision on anyone else, regardless of where in the world they live. Simple, elegant, and free.

@Parsifal
Thanks, that cleared it up for me.

Well, this is kinda how the US was originally designed, minus picking and choosing your state level government without physically relocating.
Most of the infrignments on individual liberty come from the state level here in the US, not the federal government.  The federal government doesn't write speeding tickets, steal your land (eminent domain), tell you where you can and can't build your home (mostly), what business you may or may not be engaged in, etc.  In Virginia (where I live), the state level is the sovereign, and the counties and cities are inferior.  Counties and cities carry out the will of the state legislature, and the state legislature determines what powers the counties and cities can have in addition.  It's pretty convoluted really.
I do appreciate this system more than the left-wing Centralized federal government.

Your system would obviously be ideal (minus the police), but why call them governments?  That just automatically puts a bad taste in my mouth.

@Parsifal
Thanks, that cleared it up for me.

Well, this is kinda how the US was originally designed, minus picking and choosing your state level government without physically relocating.
Most of the infrignments on individual liberty come from the state level here in the US, not the federal government.  The federal government doesn't write speeding tickets, steal your land (eminent domain), tell you where you can and can't build your home (mostly), what business you may or may not be engaged in, etc.  In Virginia (where I live), the state level is the sovereign, and the counties and cities are inferior.  Counties and cities carry out the will of the state legislature, and the state legislature determines what powers the counties and cities can have in addition.  It's pretty convoluted really.
I do appreciate this system more than the left-wing Centralized federal government.

Your system would obviously be ideal (minus the police), but why call them governments?  That just automatically puts a bad taste in my mouth.

I don't see what's wrong with a local police force, especially one set up by a true local democracy. I am also an advocate of only putting those laws in place which keep the peace, nothing further. For instance, while I see the use of speed limits on local streets, I support abolishing them on highways in favour of better driver education.

Also, it's not my idea, it's just something I came across that I like. They don't need to be called governments, but they perform at least part of the function of today's governments, albeit - at least in theory - more effectively. The system, as with any new idea, requires testing before implementation.

Quote from: Mizzle on March 30, 2010, 01:20:49 AM

@Parsifal
Thanks, that cleared it up for me.

Well, this is kinda how the US was originally designed, minus picking and choosing your state level government without physically relocating.
Most of the infrignments on individual liberty come from the state level here in the US, not the federal government.  The federal government doesn't write speeding tickets, steal your land (eminent domain), tell you where you can and can't build your home (mostly), what business you may or may not be engaged in, etc.  In Virginia (where I live), the state level is the sovereign, and the counties and cities are inferior.  Counties and cities carry out the will of the state legislature, and the state legislature determines what powers the counties and cities can have in addition.  It's pretty convoluted really.
I do appreciate this system more than the left-wing Centralized federal government.

Your system would obviously be ideal (minus the police), but why call them governments?  That just automatically puts a bad taste in my mouth.

I don't see what's wrong with a local police force, especially one set up by a true local democracy. I am also an advocate of only putting those laws in place which keep the peace, nothing further. For instance, while I see the use of speed limits on local streets, I support abolishing them on highways in favour of better driver education.

Also, it's not my idea, it's just something I came across that I like. They don't need to be called governments, but they perform at least part of the function of today's governments, albeit - at least in theory - more effectively. The system, as with any new idea, requires testing before implementation.

I cannot think of a single instance where police would be insolated from enforcing rules as they see fit.  Additionally, if you don't have the power to tell you neighbor to cut his hair to specific length, then how can you bestow that power?  How may you give what you do not have?

I know you didn't come up with this multigovernment idea, but you support it.  I didn't mean to convey it was yours as in you created it.  I meant that, it's your idea, in the since that you're using it.

Quote from: Mizzle on March 30, 2010, 01:20:49 AM

@Parsifal
Thanks, that cleared it up for me.

Well, this is kinda how the US was originally designed, minus picking and choosing your state level government without physically relocating.
Most of the infrignments on individual liberty come from the state level here in the US, not the federal government.  The federal government doesn't write speeding tickets, steal your land (eminent domain), tell you where you can and can't build your home (mostly), what business you may or may not be engaged in, etc.  In Virginia (where I live), the state level is the sovereign, and the counties and cities are inferior.  Counties and cities carry out the will of the state legislature, and the state legislature determines what powers the counties and cities can have in addition.  It's pretty convoluted really.
I do appreciate this system more than the left-wing Centralized federal government.

Your system would obviously be ideal (minus the police), but why call them governments?  That just automatically puts a bad taste in my mouth.

I don't see what's wrong with a local police force, especially one set up by a true local democracy. I am also an advocate of only putting those laws in place which keep the peace, nothing further. For instance, while I see the use of speed limits on local streets, I support abolishing them on highways in favour of better driver education.

Also, it's not my idea, it's just something I came across that I like. They don't need to be called governments, but they perform at least part of the function of today's governments, albeit - at least in theory - more effectively. The system, as with any new idea, requires testing before implementation.

How would you protect the rights of minorities in such a local democracy? I have a feeling that this would lead to white/black/latino/gay/christian communities pretty quickly, accompanied by the displacement of many people.

That aside, the system sounds interesting, though it would be very hard to implement.

I cannot think of a single instance where police would be insolated from enforcing rules as they see fit.  Additionally, if you don't have the power to tell you neighbor to cut his hair to specific length, then how can you bestow that power?  How may you give what you do not have?

I think this is an elaborate way of saying "who watches the watchmen?" I do agree with you that law enforcement beyond what is required to keep the peace is unjustified, but I don't think that abolishing law enforcement altogether is the proper solution. I'm not going to pretend I know what the proper solution would be, but I think it definitely warrants further consideration and discussion.

How would you protect the rights of minorities in such a local democracy? I have a feeling that this would lead to white/black/latino/gay/christian communities pretty quickly, accompanied by the displacement of many people.

I don't know. That's a very good point, actually. The idea is only a few decades old, and while I support it I also recognise that it needs a lot of development and testing before it becomes workable. Whatever solution there is, it needs to allow for any person to live in any place he desires, unless that place is unsuitable for human occupation, or occupying it would be detrimental to local ecology.

That aside, the system sounds interesting, though it would be very hard to implement.

The most difficult part would be convincing existing governments to give up their power. I think this is the necessary next step for mankind to take, but it will require a lot of determination on the part of a lot of people. The most important thing to do right now is to spread the idea of multigovernment to as many people as possible, and explain to them why it is the best system for everybody.

The most difficult part would be convincing existing governments to give up their power. I think this is the necessary next step for mankind to take, but it will require a lot of determination on the part of a lot of people. The most important thing to do right now is to spread the idea of multigovernment to as many people as possible, and explain to them why it is the best system for everybody.

You mean convincing the corporations that control the government that the government should give up its power, right?  Lol.
There's only one way to do this:  Economic freedom, zero government restrictions on business whatsoever.  Only then is it possible for the real issues to surface.

There's only one way to do this:  Economic freedom, zero government restrictions on business whatsoever.  Only then is it possible for the real issues to surface.

Would this also mean that there is no government oversight? Noone to control if we are being poisoned, so someone can make a quick buck and hightail it?

The most difficult part would be convincing existing governments to give up their power. I think this is the necessary next step for mankind to take, but it will require a lot of determination on the part of a lot of people. The most important thing to do right now is to spread the idea of multigovernment to as many people as possible, and explain to them why it is the best system for everybody.

I have the feeling that nothing short of a massive catastrophe (manmade or otherwise) will get people thinking. Those who take the time to even contemplate changes for the benefit of humanity are a mindnumbingly small minority.

You mean convincing the corporations that control the government that the government should give up its power, right?  Lol.
There's only one way to do this:  Economic freedom, zero government restrictions on business whatsoever.  Only then is it possible for the real issues to surface.

Well, if we define government as the people in control, then those corporations are the government. I'm not sure I agree completely with your assertion that there should be zero government restrictions on business; history has shown that businesses will resort to unethical means to increase profits if they can get away with it (see: Microsoft). I feel that, at the very least, this sort of thing should be punishable by law; businesses creating monopolies and placing fascist restrictions on the public is significantly worse than a government placing slight restrictions on businesses to prevent this.

I have the feeling that nothing short of a massive catastrophe (manmade or otherwise) will get people thinking. Those who take the time to even contemplate changes for the benefit of humanity are a mindnumbingly small minority.

I know, it's very frustrating to try and get people to pay attention to new ideas, but looking at the state of today's world I think those of us who are aware of such ideas need to try. If we don't, nothing will be changed; if we do, maybe nothing will be changed either, but at least it's possible that they will.

Quote from: Mizzle on March 30, 2010, 02:40:30 AM

There's only one way to do this:  Economic freedom, zero government restrictions on business whatsoever.  Only then is it possible for the real issues to surface.

Would this also mean that there is no government oversight? Noone to control if we are being poisoned, so someone can make a quick buck and hightail it?

Quote from: Parsifal on March 30, 2010, 02:37:42 AM

The most difficult part would be convincing existing governments to give up their power. I think this is the necessary next step for mankind to take, but it will require a lot of determination on the part of a lot of people. The most important thing to do right now is to spread the idea of multigovernment to as many people as possible, and explain to them why it is the best system for everybody.

I have the feeling that nothing short of a massive catastrophe (manmade or otherwise) will get people thinking. Those who take the time to even contemplate changes for the benefit of humanity are a mindnumbingly small minority.

The first is a valid argument, but a pessimistic one.  How do you know that fed ex is going to deliver your package when you give it to them?  Because they know they're not going to be in business long if they just take your money and run.
There will always be, and always have been, defrauders and scam artists.  The overwhelming majority of business transactions (outside of the banking industry, which is permitted to operate illegally by the government) are completely honest.
It doesn't seem like an extreme to you, but imagine being around 200 years ago before the Americans were domisticated.  Your view of the world would be different.

The first is a valid argument, but a pessimistic one.  How do you know that fed ex is going to deliver your package when you give it to them?  Because they know they're not going to be in business long if they just take your money and run.
There will always be, and always have been, defrauders and scam artists.  The overwhelming majority of business transactions (outside of the banking industry, which is permitted to operate illegally by the government) are completely honest.
It doesn't seem like an extreme to you, but imagine being around 200 years ago before the Americans were domisticated.  Your view of the world would be different.

I thought about that while writing my question and that's why I added the bit about someone "making a quick buck and hightailing it". It is true that doing business with dead customers does not work, but government oversight at least stops greedy individuals in their tracks (not always, but often enough), before the damage is done.

I appreciate the fact that I can go into any restaurant and know that a health inspector has been in not too long ago. They might not poison you and you will never know, but the thought how some of those kitchens might look without control, sickens me.

Quote from: Mizzle on March 30, 2010, 04:17:02 AM

The first is a valid argument, but a pessimistic one.  How do you know that fed ex is going to deliver your package when you give it to them?  Because they know they're not going to be in business long if they just take your money and run.
There will always be, and always have been, defrauders and scam artists.  The overwhelming majority of business transactions (outside of the banking industry, which is permitted to operate illegally by the government) are completely honest.
It doesn't seem like an extreme to you, but imagine being around 200 years ago before the Americans were domisticated.  Your view of the world would be different.

I thought about that while writing my question and that's why I added the bit about someone "making a quick buck and hightailing it". It is true that doing business with dead customers does not work, but government oversight at least stops greedy individuals in their tracks (not always, but often enough), before the damage is done.

I appreciate the fact that I can go into any restaurant and know that a health inspector has been in not too long ago. They might not poison you and you will never know, but the thought how some of those kitchens might look without control, sickens me.

Have you ever been to a Subway Resturant?  They make the food right in front of you.  If the place is disgustingly dirty, you'd just walk right out.
What's stopping you from inspecting a kitchen?  You could easily police the situation yourself by just taking a look.  I don't see anything wrong with this.  If I had a resturant, this is what I would do, health inspections or not.

Have you ever been to a Subway Resturant?  They make the food right in front of you.  If the place is disgustingly dirty, you'd just walk right out.
What's stopping you from inspecting a kitchen?  You could easily police the situation yourself by just taking a look.  I don't see anything wrong with this.  If I had a resturant, this is what I would do, health inspections or not.

It seems to me like you're advocating abolishing interdependence in society, and adopting an "every man for himself" approach, which simply won't work. For example, take food which is purchased in a supermarket. Are you really going to take the time to go around to every manufacturer and personally inspect their factory to make sure that they're making the food properly? If someone gives you chocolate as a gift, are you going to ask them where they got it so you can drive out to its place of manufacture and make sure that there's nothing wrong with the manufacturing process?

Quote from: Mizzle on March 30, 2010, 04:08:27 PM

Have you ever been to a Subway Resturant?  They make the food right in front of you.  If the place is disgustingly dirty, you'd just walk right out.
What's stopping you from inspecting a kitchen?  You could easily police the situation yourself by just taking a look.  I don't see anything wrong with this.  If I had a resturant, this is what I would do, health inspections or not.

It seems to me like you're advocating abolishing interdependence in society, and adopting an "every man for himself" approach, which simply won't work. For example, take food which is purchased in a supermarket. Are you really going to take the time to go around to every manufacturer and personally inspect their factory to make sure that they're making the food properly? If someone gives you chocolate as a gift, are you going to ask them where they got it so you can drive out to its place of manufacture and make sure that there's nothing wrong with the manufacturing process?

People can make educated decisions based on whatever they like.  I'm not saying there shouldn't be some kind of reviewing body, just not one that demands I give them money, or else.
If quality is important to you, you can choose to purchase the 'certified' whatever product, or you can roll the dice on a non certified product.
Just look at the preservatives in food.  If your country uses mandatory food labels, you might notice a bunch of scientific sounding names for these preservatives.  Most people have absolutely no idea what they are putting into their bodies, they just no the government hasn't stopped them yet.
I highly encourage you to watch the movie, Food Inc.  It's a documentary of the American food system.
Specifically, there's a section in that movie about cattle.  The cattle in this movie are so packed together at the processing yard, that by the time they get to the slaughter house, they are litterly covered in shit.  They have to be power washed before they are slaughtered.
But, since the government decides how much poop is okay to eat, you'll never hear about it.  I personally want ZERO shit in my food.
Additionally, why do you have to purchase food at a super market?  You make that choice.
That's where brand name recognition comes into play.  Like Kosher products.  How do you know those things are really Kosher?  Did you meet the rabbi that blessed that food?

Same idea applies to the shoes you are wearing.  What kind of oversight do you think Vietnam has for their clothing industry.  Perhaps they use many harsh chemicals in the process.  This thought never crosses into most peoples minds.

Mizzle, does your woman happen to have a tacky hairdo?

Mizzle, does your woman happen to have a tacky hairdo?

My woman?  Lol, I guess you infer from other discussions that I'm some kind of elitist or something :-/
As subjective as that question is, I'd say her hair isn't tacky.  Pretty normal, looks nice.
Is there something specific you're getting at here?

Same idea applies to the shoes you are wearing.  What kind of oversight do you think Vietnam has for their clothing industry.  Perhaps they use many harsh chemicals in the process.  This thought never crosses into most peoples minds.

Oversight is not only the process of controlling the production, but also the finished product. We have several institutions for this: "Stiftung Warentest" and the "Verbraucherzentrale" are two of them. I don't know the American system well enough to verify if there is something comparable.

You seem to come around though and agree that there has to be some kind of oversight, as long as they don't demand money from you.

Quote from: Mizzle on March 30, 2010, 04:37:21 PM

Same idea applies to the shoes you are wearing.  What kind of oversight do you think Vietnam has for their clothing industry.  Perhaps they use many harsh chemicals in the process.  This thought never crosses into most peoples minds.

Oversight is not only the process of controlling the production, but also the finished product. We have several institutions for this: "Stiftung Warentest" and the "Verbraucherzentrale" are two of them. I don't know the American system well enough to verify if there is something comparable.

You seem to come around though and agree that there has to be some kind of oversight, as long as they don't demand money from you.

Right.  I'm not strictly opposed to some form of oversight.  Clearly there is a demand for such a thing in the free market.
Take colleges and universities, for example.  Here in the USA, it's all about your school being regionally accredited.  The government doesn't stamp your post-secondary education, why does it have to stamp your food?
Additionally, I don't mind indirectly paying for this type of oversight.  I understand that if a product has been reviewed and tested by an agency, that product might be able to license the agency's name, etc, and use it on their product as 'Agency certified' or what have you.  Businesses would pay this company to review their products.  Alternatively, the agency could publish some kind of product almanac and provide reviews of different products and business that consumers could review.  Kind of like Consumer Reports or something of that nature.
I hate the fact that if I don't agree with the government's review of something, I still have to pay them to review it.

There are millions and millions of problems in this world.  Why does the government have to solve them?  Why can't the individual decide what the correct solution is?
I just don't want to be forced to pay for other peoples initiatives.

Quote from: Friedrich on March 30, 2010, 09:15:37 PM

Quote from: Mizzle on March 30, 2010, 04:37:21 PM

Same idea applies to the shoes you are wearing.  What kind of oversight do you think Vietnam has for their clothing industry.  Perhaps they use many harsh chemicals in the process.  This thought never crosses into most peoples minds.

Oversight is not only the process of controlling the production, but also the finished product. We have several institutions for this: "Stiftung Warentest" and the "Verbraucherzentrale" are two of them. I don't know the American system well enough to verify if there is something comparable.

You seem to come around though and agree that there has to be some kind of oversight, as long as they don't demand money from you.

There are millions and millions of problems in this world.  Why does the government have to solve them?  Why can't the individual decide what the correct solution is?
I just don't want to be forced to pay for other peoples initiatives.

As you said, there are millions and millions of problems in this worlds and most individuals are not capable to find a way to solve them on their own. They accept to loose some personal freedom of choice, to have most of these problems solved by the government.

Quote from: Mizzle on March 30, 2010, 09:28:49 PM

Quote from: Friedrich on March 30, 2010, 09:15:37 PM

Quote from: Mizzle on March 30, 2010, 04:37:21 PM

Same idea applies to the shoes you are wearing.  What kind of oversight do you think Vietnam has for their clothing industry.  Perhaps they use many harsh chemicals in the process.  This thought never crosses into most peoples minds.

Oversight is not only the process of controlling the production, but also the finished product. We have several institutions for this: "Stiftung Warentest" and the "Verbraucherzentrale" are two of them. I don't know the American system well enough to verify if there is something comparable.

You seem to come around though and agree that there has to be some kind of oversight, as long as they don't demand money from you.

There are millions and millions of problems in this world.  Why does the government have to solve them?  Why can't the individual decide what the correct solution is?
I just don't want to be forced to pay for other peoples initiatives.

As you said, there are millions and millions of problems in this worlds and most individuals are not capable to find a way to solve them on their own. They accept to loose some personal freedom of choice, to have most of these problems solved by the government.

Well, great for them if they accept loss of personal freedom.  I don't, yet I'm forced into the same single file line as those that do.
It's like joining a street gang or something.  Once you're in, you can't leave.  In my case however, I didn't join.

Quote from: Friedrich on March 30, 2010, 09:34:00 PM

Quote from: Mizzle on March 30, 2010, 09:28:49 PM

Quote from: Friedrich on March 30, 2010, 09:15:37 PM

Quote from: Mizzle on March 30, 2010, 04:37:21 PM

Same idea applies to the shoes you are wearing.  What kind of oversight do you think Vietnam has for their clothing industry.  Perhaps they use many harsh chemicals in the process.  This thought never crosses into most peoples minds.

Oversight is not only the process of controlling the production, but also the finished product. We have several institutions for this: "Stiftung Warentest" and the "Verbraucherzentrale" are two of them. I don't know the American system well enough to verify if there is something comparable.

You seem to come around though and agree that there has to be some kind of oversight, as long as they don't demand money from you.

There are millions and millions of problems in this world.  Why does the government have to solve them?  Why can't the individual decide what the correct solution is?
I just don't want to be forced to pay for other peoples initiatives.

As you said, there are millions and millions of problems in this worlds and most individuals are not capable to find a way to solve them on their own. They accept to loose some personal freedom of choice, to have most of these problems solved by the government.

Well, great for them if they accept loss of personal freedom.  I don't, yet I'm forced into the same single file line as those that do.
It's like joining a street gang or something.  Once you're in, you can't leave.  In my case however, I didn't join.

I did not say this is a good thing and personally I can see where you are coming from.

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"

This is how most societies work and it's hard to see any reason why they shouldn't.

Quote from: Mizzle on March 30, 2010, 09:39:20 PM

Quote from: Friedrich on March 30, 2010, 09:34:00 PM

Quote from: Mizzle on March 30, 2010, 09:28:49 PM

Quote from: Friedrich on March 30, 2010, 09:15:37 PM

Quote from: Mizzle on March 30, 2010, 04:37:21 PM

Same idea applies to the shoes you are wearing.  What kind of oversight do you think Vietnam has for their clothing industry.  Perhaps they use many harsh chemicals in the process.  This thought never crosses into most peoples minds.

Oversight is not only the process of controlling the production, but also the finished product. We have several institutions for this: "Stiftung Warentest" and the "Verbraucherzentrale" are two of them. I don't know the American system well enough to verify if there is something comparable.

You seem to come around though and agree that there has to be some kind of oversight, as long as they don't demand money from you.

There are millions and millions of problems in this world.  Why does the government have to solve them?  Why can't the individual decide what the correct solution is?
I just don't want to be forced to pay for other peoples initiatives.

As you said, there are millions and millions of problems in this worlds and most individuals are not capable to find a way to solve them on their own. They accept to loose some personal freedom of choice, to have most of these problems solved by the government.

Well, great for them if they accept loss of personal freedom.  I don't, yet I'm forced into the same single file line as those that do.
It's like joining a street gang or something.  Once you're in, you can't leave.  In my case however, I didn't join.

I did not say this is a good thing and personally I can see where you are coming from.

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"

This is how most societies work and it's hard to see any reason why they shouldn't.

It's this exact mentality that leads to the exploitation of the poor and less fortuanate.  Additionally, it's usually not applied to 'needs' as it is applied to wants. 

Quote from: Friedrich on March 30, 2010, 09:46:27 PM

Quote from: Mizzle on March 30, 2010, 09:39:20 PM

Quote from: Friedrich on March 30, 2010, 09:34:00 PM

Quote from: Mizzle on March 30, 2010, 09:28:49 PM

Quote from: Friedrich on March 30, 2010, 09:15:37 PM

Quote from: Mizzle on March 30, 2010, 04:37:21 PM

Same idea applies to the shoes you are wearing.  What kind of oversight do you think Vietnam has for their clothing industry.  Perhaps they use many harsh chemicals in the process.  This thought never crosses into most peoples minds.

Oversight is not only the process of controlling the production, but also the finished product. We have several institutions for this: "Stiftung Warentest" and the "Verbraucherzentrale" are two of them. I don't know the American system well enough to verify if there is something comparable.

You seem to come around though and agree that there has to be some kind of oversight, as long as they don't demand money from you.

There are millions and millions of problems in this world.  Why does the government have to solve them?  Why can't the individual decide what the correct solution is?
I just don't want to be forced to pay for other peoples initiatives.

As you said, there are millions and millions of problems in this worlds and most individuals are not capable to find a way to solve them on their own. They accept to loose some personal freedom of choice, to have most of these problems solved by the government.

Well, great for them if they accept loss of personal freedom.  I don't, yet I'm forced into the same single file line as those that do.
It's like joining a street gang or something.  Once you're in, you can't leave.  In my case however, I didn't join.

I did not say this is a good thing and personally I can see where you are coming from.

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"

This is how most societies work and it's hard to see any reason why they shouldn't.

It's this exact mentality that leads to the exploitation of the poor and less fortuanate.  Additionally, it's usually not applied to 'needs' as it is applied to wants. 

The mentality that the needs of the many (usually the poor) outweigh the needs of the few (usually the rich), leads to exploitation of the poor? I can see that a corrupted version might, but I don't see how this mentality in it's pure form would.