Topic: Solution to poverty - Socialism or Capitalism? - page 23. (Read 30791 times)

So you deny that exploitation exist because you have an example where end justifies the mean 

I wouldn't call it exploitation as they receive capital and jobs that could have been given to a person in the 1st world. But if that's what you call exploitation then sure, that's how the world works, you need a job to obtain wealth. Look at the Japanese, Koreans, and currently the Chinese, they once were "sweatshops" but the foreign capital that was spent on wages and infrastructure has risen salary and living standards for them. So exploitation? No, that would be like calling going to school "exploitation", going to school even if you hate it makes your chances of obtaining more income later in life higher.

But on regards to the original post, I really believe that the unholy hybrid of both Capitalism and Socialism in the form of Cooperatives will solve poverty issues.

My question was simple...is it ethical to exploit desperate people.  Even if these people voluntrarly amd free willungly accets the sweathop jobs.  Yes or no?

That's a good point.  But it doesn't seem like it has to be that way.  As populations have increased, so has the number of employed people, even with technology replacing some jobs.  But I'm not sure what the answer is.  There needs to be more demand to support more jobs, but you need more jobs to support more demand.  Having a healthy economy is one of the most helpful ways, but can you ever get to the point where there's enough demand to support everyone having a job if they so choose?

They are not as desperate as you think. These people can try to get better work or collectively bargen for better wages or work environment.

Do you believe its ethical to exploit desperate people? Free will is just a red herring

Birth rate control will have catastrophic consequences in long term (due to skewing of the young and old people ratio)! Even Chinese govt understand this and cancelled "One child family" laws.

Also low birth rate won't change average IQ of these children born, therefore technological unemployment will increase even if population drop by factor 10.

how is a sweatshop exploiting anyone if they agree to work there out of their own free will, without the sweatshop they would be worse off.

I disagree. I think people today are more informed as to what their rights are because some government regulations have been written well and have forced companies to disclose what workers' rights are in conspicuous places throughout the workplace. I work for a fortune 500 company when even the lowest paid workers make well over minimum wage and every hourly employee needs to take an online class about how workers must input the time into their time-cards accurately even if they worked unauthorized overtime. This company does not have any unions (that I am aware of), though they do pay very well and respects their workers and their rights.  

The more u think about it, the more it seams that none of the options are good for solving the poverty.
In a world where technology is increasingly replacing human power, there are more and more manpower that is not needed.

It seams that there are simply too many of us, and that a good way to decrease poverty would be to implement rule of regulating birth rate, similar what china has.
Dont know how would that be sustainable when were talking about pension funds tho.

I hope the world is never run by technology.  Who would create all that software?  Wouldn't they be tempted to write it unfairly?  Computers can certainly cheat, steal, etc. if they are so programmed.  They also usually don't have compassion...but then again, a lot of politicians don't seem to either, so I guess that one's a wash.

I believe in technocracy... social system will have to be hybrid of best from both socialsim and capitalism. But it will be more socialistic because there will have to be center of power, which will be run by software, computers dont cheat, nor steal, so no goverment will be doing evil deeds, more like scientist checking machines if everything is goin right way.

Majority of people wil be jobless, there will be no need for work by people other than science and technology research. And those people are not doing it for money, but from personal passion.

people will get money for buyng stuff from government and everything will be very cheap, thanks to effectivnes, technology brings so many options, that were never available. Fire, wheel, electricity...those are things that shape society...

there is no general solution for the problem poverty. this topic has been discussed general and sophisticated in the 18th 19th century. the solution is that  everyone can fight everyday against it by being productive or not

socialists an capitalist are always supporting what is good for them. see europe politics in the 80es, 90es etc. you can vote how to distribute the money. you xan imagine by yourself what party will deside for what. whats new since the 90es and missing here is the enviromentist, whos saying its better for us spending money preventing enviroment destruction.politics is all about geting power to get your ideals supported.

The pendulum swings back and forth.  Corporations were too greedy and tried to exploit people.  Labor unions were formed to combat that, and it worked pretty well.  But then the labor unions got greedy and tried to take too much from the corporations.  Labor unions have been disappearing, and corporations are getting greedy again.  Education has little to do with it.  You can't stand up to corporations when you have no better options.  For example, look at how corporations have slashed benefits over the last couple decades.  You can't stand up to a corporation and demand a pension when no other corporations are offering them.  And just look at how companies treat their employees now--they're just expendable labor.  There's no loyalty anymore.

Labor unions were necessary a long time ago but are useless today, as they are only good for enriching themselves and the politicians they support. There are enough employment laws today that will protect workers from these kinds of abuses. Additionally workers are educated enough to be able to stand up to these kinds of abuses.

Even if we went back to bartering or whatnot, chances are you would still have inequality - money is just another way of doing the same thing, but it's senseless to blame it for poverty.

Some interesting thoughts here.  I find it all interesting as poverty only exists because currency exists... fiat or crypto the medium matter not.

Don't get me wrong, I don't deny the good of labor unions. They did lot of good and they are not against libertarian principles.
This is entirely normal that labor can collaborate together to put some pressure on industrialist. Industrialist does the same under cover.
What I deny is when the state subsides either them or when it enforces policies for the sake of one or the other.

But before labor unions, the person that worked in a sweatshop, decided it on his own free will that it was better for him than any alternative.

He valued money more than his labor. And the workshop valued his labor less than money.
Both worked together without coercion. And among all alternative, the worker chose with his free will the conditions.
The worker could go back in country side if it was so hard in the city.
The worker could learn to use his mind instead of his body, he could change city, but he did not.

Industrialist offered jobs that workers could not find in countries.
Also with the concentration of labor came urbanization and the abundance of economical activities (and thus goods), not found in country.
New villages and cities could be founded thanks to the need of labor of factories.

You can't say that both, the worker and industrialist destructed wealth by collaborating together. They both gained.

This is normal that both wanted to get more for their own work/money. But they were trading freely, and both of them needed the other.

Libertarians are not against people from collaborating together into a social structure so all members inside can personally benefit from the association.
As long as the members of this association have the right to disassociate freely, don't get subsidy of government, and don't use its coercion power for their own goal, this is beneficial. (These conditions are sadly not respected in France anymore)

One quote from Atlas Shrugged, from Francisco D'Antonia :

Not all trade is equal.  Most of the time there is a power relationship where the strong exploits the weak.

An example is sweatshops.  People who need jobs are willing to allow themselves to be exploited because they need money.  This was common in 19th/ early 20th century before existence of labor unions

Speaking as a persong whose country has gone from socialism to capitalism;
People(midle class,working families etc..) were more wealthy and happier in socialism than we are now in capitalism.

The only ones who benefites from the transition were the top cca 5% bussiness owners, and banks.
The people thought capitalism will bring more options and more wealth, and they were wrong, but the funny thing is that, without a civil war or some other sort of uprise, there is no going back.

You only know what u have when you loose it..