Political Theory

Re: Buying goods from slave labor

Marko — Sun, 22 Jul 2012 12:18:35 GMT

You are making it cryptic for me, Torsten.

Re: Buying goods from slave labor

Torsten — Sun, 22 Jul 2012 12:17:00 GMT

You are making it easy for yourself, Marko.

Re: Buying goods from slave labor

Marko — Sun, 22 Jul 2012 11:48:48 GMT

is it immoral to buy sex from a pimp who has sex slaves?

yes

Is it possible to buy sex with a slave from a slave owner? No.

No act of buying something may be immoral. If it is truly buying then it is not immoral. If it seems wrong then it is not buying, it is something else.

In your case giving your money to the slave owner in order to get his permission to rape the slave is immoral.
Giving your money to the slave owner in order to get his exclusive permission to rape the slave and then not raping it is not immoral, however, but may even be commendable since it ensures the slave will not be raped by anyone that night.

Re: Buying goods from slave labor

Marko — Sun, 22 Jul 2012 11:23:22 GMT

Finally, it is crucial to note that this is a wholly fabricated concern. The closest thing to an actual slave-country on the planet today is North Korea. The economic consequences of running a national slave-colony are utterly predictable and, of course, empirically demonstrated in NK.

What makes you say that? North Korea is the most like a slave-country because of what?

Re: Buying goods from slave labor

Marko — Sun, 22 Jul 2012 11:18:04 GMT

You can only buy from an owner, not from a thief. Buying something from a slave owner that has been produced by his slaves is the equivalent of 'buying' stolen goods from a thief. So the first question is not if it is moral, but if it is even possible. The answer is no, it is not possible. You may give the slave owner your money, but this will not actually transfer the ownership of the slaves' goods to you. They may at any time demand them back and then you must at once return them.

You can no more buy the property of a slave from a slave owner, than you can buy a slave.

The act of giving the slave owner your money is not immoral. Also taking the slaves' property in a sort of trust, temporary use is not immoral either. However, holding on to the slaves' property after they have asked you to return it to them is immoral.

You must realize this is indeed so, because this means that keeping slaves is immoral, but that buying out slaves into freedom from slave owners is not immoral.

So there is not one answer to your question, for it depends on whether the buyer respects the slaves' property rights. A buyer intending to only hold onto the 'bought' goods temporarily until they can be returned to the now-slaves is doing nothing wrong, but is actually doing something commendable (as he sacrifices his monies to makes sure the slaves' property neither stays with the slave owner nor reaches less scrupulous buyers). Whereas a buyer who refuses to return the goods to the now-freed slaves demanding them back is no better than a thief himself (in market terms he as much as paid the slave owner to plunder the slaves for him).

Re: Buying goods from slave labor

Consumariat — Sun, 22 Jul 2012 10:41:27 GMT

"With respect to this question, for me, there isn't any meaningful difference between forcing a man to work and then robbing him of his product, and allowing a man to work and then robbing him of his product."

The difference is that the former action is an NAP violation of two types: firstly, there is the removal of the slave's choice to choose the nature of the labour embarked upon in producing wealth, and secondly there is the confiscation of the wealth itself. In the case of a taxation-based system, you at least have the freedom to choose your employment.

Re: Buying goods from slave labor

impala76 — Sun, 22 Jul 2012 05:16:27 GMT

Finally, it is crucial to note that this is a wholly fabricated concern. The closest thing to an actual slave-country on the planet today is North Korea. The economic consequences of running a national slave-colony are utterly predictable and, of course, empirically demonstrated in NK. In other words, rampant abuse leads to economic stagnation which leads to market marginalization, not market dominance.

Actually, there is a significant amount of slavery that goes into consumer products. A lot of child labor is unpaid, as is debt peonage in Latin America and other places.

Also, Illuminati, etc.

Re: Buying goods from slave labor

Torsten — Sat, 21 Jul 2012 01:09:19 GMT

The price tag is not the only thing people will look at when buying an item. I know many including myself that will pay a higher price for organic food, or a particular good that supports my views (ex, grass fed vs corn fed food, sugar vs high fructose corn syrup soda).

Sure, they'll look at quality as well. Still I don't really think most people will seriously care under what working conditions, mode of production items were manufactured.

Re: Buying goods from slave labor

Kelvin Silva — Sun, 15 Jul 2012 09:13:15 GMT

Morally wrong. We know that slavery is wrong, so why support the industry?

The price tag is not the only thing people will look at when buying an item. I know many including myself that will pay a higher price for organic food, or a particular good that supports my views (ex, grass fed vs corn fed food, sugar vs high fructose corn syrup soda).

Re: Buying goods from slave labor

cab21 — Sun, 15 Jul 2012 06:56:39 GMT

that would make any business a social fiction as well. people have papers to show they are citizens, they have papers to show they are owners of a business.

my definition includes that some citizens can be delegated powers other citizens don't have. business as well will have people with more powers than others in the business.

who the net payer and net beneficary is not static, a person can be in both catagories at different points in their lifetime. just like insurance, a person can be either at different points in their lifetime.

the difference could just be a population more attached to the state than people at this site or a population that does not vote letting those that do vote get more power. i don't think there is anything theoreticly wrong with the 4th grade american government teaching, people not using the power they have does not mean they don't have the power.

it seems it goes to say that the internet would be a product of slave labor if the state is a slaveholder. it was state money as well as private money that went into funding and spreading the internet. i think that's a different level from buying cotten from a slaveholder who had slaves pick cotten.

Re: Buying goods from slave labor

Malachi — Sun, 15 Jul 2012 04:19:53 GMT

there is no difference between the "state" and the "citizens". the state is created by the citizens, owned by the citizens, and run by the citizens.

this is simply false. The state is a social fiction, it represents everyone but is specifically embodied by no one. However, your usage of the term "citizens" overlooks the fact that some citizens have powers that others do not, because they have state sanction. This is why we have net beneficiaries and net payers.

a state official is a citizen hired by citizens to do work delegated by citizens for citizens. citizens can remove the existance of the state job, we have people run for office with a platform of removing the existance of the job they are running for as well as other government jobs. all it takes for a job to be removed is for citizens to decide they don't want to hire people to do the job and for there to be a vote according to the law.

thats what they teach in 4th grade american government. Thats not what actually happens.

if taxed labor is slave labor, then would a state that only taxes consumption have slave consumers? would that make it wrong to sell products to the slave consumers?

no, but its wrong to collect any more tax than you absolutely must (in order to remain secure in your own person).

Re: Buying goods from slave labor

cab21 — Sun, 15 Jul 2012 03:56:10 GMT

i'm thinking usa here for state, rather than some of the other types of states out there, constitutional republic.

there is no difference between the "state" and the "citizens". the state is created by the citizens, owned by the citizens, and run by the citizens. the citizens have complete control over what happens in the state, at least with certain states. citizens can change the state or disband the state at any time. the government only has powers citizens delegate to it. citizens have to right to leave

a state official is a citizen hired by citizens to do work delegated by citizens for citizens. citizens can remove the existance of the state job, we have people run for office with a platform of removing the existance of the job they are running for as well as other government jobs. all it takes for a job to be removed is for citizens to decide they don't want to hire people to do the job and for there to be a vote according to the law.

perhaps it could be partial owner and partial slave. there aren't many private companies with multiple 100% owners that all get their way all the time, not sure if a person is a slave everytime something happens that they don't like, especily if there is the option to leave.

the state can be a vehical people use to overpower others, but so is parenthood or being the owner of property or a business.

if taxed labor is slave labor, then would a state that only taxes consumption have slave consumers? would that make it wrong to sell products to the slave consumers?

Re: Buying goods from slave labor

Malachi — Sun, 15 Jul 2012 03:05:37 GMT

But my example of incarceration specifically precluded that, remember? Go back and re-read what I wrote. Don't be in a hurry to respond too quickly. I want you to understand what I wrote first.

no, it doesnt. Drop the condescending tone and explain yourself better instead of blaming your audience.

They are forced via taxation to enable it. That was and is my point. Is this moral?

no, it not moral. They should cease enabling wrongs by ending the taxation that they are subject to. Allowing your 16-year-old son to repeatedly "borrow" your firearms to knock over liquor stores is wrong, and you are liable.

Re: Buying goods from slave labor

gotlucky — Sun, 15 Jul 2012 02:53:16 GMT

Mmmark:

This is sloppy language. Incarceration in its current form might involve or include that, but that is not what incarceration, per se, is. Incarceration or imprisonment is the involuntary physical control of a human.

With all due respect, you are the one with sloppy language. See the definitions for prisoner and incarceration. Physically controlling a person does not necessary equal imprisonment. It is a necessary but not sufficient condition of imrisonment. Example: A puts B in a choke hold. This does not constitute making B a prisoner.

If you note the definitions, you will see that B could be talked about being a prisoner in a figurative manner. Note the importance of the word "figurative".

Mmmark:

I can think of at least one way: The defendant refuses to work. No work, no product. No product, nothing to be "forced to pay the plaintiff" with. Now what? If "the defendant is forced to pay the plaintiff," he must be first forced to produce, hence, he by definition is enslaved, and slavery is a subset of incarceration or imprisonment.

I'm normally hesitant to call someone a troll, but I think Malachi might be on to something with you. You have delibrately ignored the sentence that preceded what you quoted. This changes the context entirely.

Have you actually heard of lawsuits? For example, in America, if you bring a suit against someone and win, the defendant is supposed to pay you. But guess what? We don't imprison the defendant and force him into slave labor in order to pay the plaintiff. Maybe it is moral to do so, and maybe it isn't. The point is that forcing a defendant to pay a plaintiff does not necessarily equal incarceration. Incarceration is a specific concept, imprisonment.

Try to read more carefully.

Re: Buying goods from slave labor

MMMark — Sun, 15 Jul 2012 02:42:10 GMT

Sat. 12/07/14 21:43 EDT
.post #228

Malachi:
it most certainly is not, it is comparable to asserting that forcing victims to pay criminals is immoral.

But my example of incarceration specifically precluded that, remember? Go back and re-read what I wrote. Don't be in a hurry to respond too quickly. I want you to understand what I wrote first.

Malachi:
they are not innocent of enabling incarceration ...

They are forced via taxation to enable it. That was and is my point. Is this moral?

I'm going to bed soon. Please go back and carefully re-read what has been written, both by me and others. I think my logic has been sound, but I could be wrong. I'll check back tomorrow.