How does libertarianism solve slave labor in Asia and Africa.

[ne375]

Where can I learn about how libertarianism can solve the slave labor crisis in Asia and Africa, where employers oppress their workers and there are no opportunities to go anywhere. I watched steffans video on intro to libertarianism but i can't wrap my head around this problem. thanks 

[Alan C.]

...there are no opportunities to go anywhere.

 

Why aren't there opportunities to go anywhere?

[alexqr1]

where employers oppress their workers

How?

[Nerburg]

He's probably referring to sweatshops, child labor, extreme poverty and low wages in countries like China, India, Vietnam, or various African states. With that as context, would anyone like to take a stab at the question for OP?

/hijack

[dsayers]

Well the original thread was goofy on two counts. For one, it spoke of an entire continent as if everything was the same within, and didn't identify what it was that was being addressed specifically. Secondly, it was asking what the non-violent solution is to something. Unless the problem is not enough theft, assault, rape, or murder, the answer is pretty obvious.

 

The thread hijack isn't much clearer. Wages isn't an issue because a wage is what two people are willing to pay/work for. If a 3rd party thinks it's low, they can offer to pay more. Sweatshops and child labor aren't problems. There was a time when the US was poorer and they utilized "sweatshops" to amass wealth and capital. Children work in these places because it's a way to help their family. If they didn't have a sweatshop to work in, they might turn to prostitution which is no good.

 

So what is the non-violent way to help this? First of all, don't foist subsidies on them, which ruins local economies. Second, and I love pointing this one out, shop at places like WalMart. They make use of this labor which brings you lower prices and helps them (the children/sweatshop workers) to amass wealth and capital. Everybody wins. Which addresses the poverty issue.

[LovePrevails]

there are lots of barriers to entry in those countries

 

so many entrepreneurs should be able to set up shop there for cheap labour that they bit up the price of workers

[Daniel Unplugged]

By slave labor do you mean people who are paid low wages when compared to the equivalent job in a rich country?

[Misesian]

If you are referring to sweatshops, the reason why those people are paid so little is because they are not productive enough because they don't have enough skills, that's why it isn't 'slave labour', if they were more productive they would still be profitable at a higher wage level so their wages would be bid up. Also multinational companies that employ sweatshop labour often pay more than their domestic counterparts that's why these people aren't quitting their jobs, the multinationals are providing the people with the best opportunity to raise their standard of living so we should be happy that they are there. The best thing we can do for these people is to liberalise trade even further so there is more competition for labour, any attempt to raise their wages above the market level with force will lead to the costs being passed onto consumers, workers being laid off or the companies leaving altogether further diminishing the opportunity for the poor people in these countries to raise their standard of living. Redistributing wealth is also a bad idea because you are taking resources from the productive and giving them to the less productive which is inefficient, efficiency is important because efficiency means how well we make things, the better we are at making things the more stuff we can make and the more stuff that the poor people can afford to buy because as supply rises prices fall.

 

One of the problems with the Chinese is that they devalue their currency to encourage exports which reduces the value of the savings of the people working in the sweatshops which hurts their ability to accumulate capital.

[fridolutin]

I feel human slavery is not fully understood when I see the wage question adressed as the symptom of the sickness.

 

I think it is more a question of free choice, the lack of alternatives in those countries we should look at, not if they are paid or not. In a man made desert there is no other choice than what is available and when it is controled by some corporation you are not free to choose you become a slave who has to give them what they want in exchange. Those indigenous populations lived in a symbiotic relation with nature, had what they needed for a living before the colonizators came in with their false religious pretensions hiding economic goals.

 

The situation is that occidental colonization transformed those countries, giving to a puppet regime the control over the resources. 

[ne375]

When I said slave labor crisis I was referring to how people in Africa are kept in poverty because they spend all their time working just to get the food they need for themselves and their family. This stops them from participating in any other activities that would increase their value to anyone else keeping them poor. Therefore the little money they work for takes up all their time which means they can't spend other time trying to generate other skills that would increase their value.

[tasmlab]

This is politically incorrect/racist enough to be a felony, and perhaps a digression, but illustrates that we're not the first ones to question poverty in Africa:

 

"Since the dawn of history the Black Man has owned the continent of Africa – rich beyond the dream of poet's fancy, crunching acres of diamonds beneath his bare black feet and yet he never picked one up from the dust until a white man showed to him its glittering light.

 

His land swarmed with powerful and docile animals, yet he never dreamed a harness, cart, or sled. A hunter by necessity, he never made an axe, spear, or arrowhead worth preserving beyond the moment of its use. He lived as an ox, content to graze for an hour. In a land of stone and timber he never sawed a foot of lumber, carved a block, or built a house save of broken sticks and mud.

 

With league on league of ocean strand and miles of inland seas, for four thousand years he watched their surface ripple under the wind, heard the thunder of the surf on his beach, the howl of the storm over his head, gazed on the dim blue horizon calling him to worlds that lie beyond, and yet he never dreamed a sail.”

 

— Charles Darwin

 

 

I'm not suggesting that this is conclusive, but it may not just be capital theory, knowledge, political caste, freedom, etc., that alone drives some cultures to retain their impoverished status. It's an ugly line of thinking to be sure.

[Daniel Unplugged]

I dont like the term 'slave labor'. Slaves are owned, may not leave and do not get paid. These people are not owned, can leave, and do get paid, but I know this is not the point you are making.

 

The way to solve this problem is to allow free markets to flourish in the regions concerned. Take china as an example of this effect. China liberalised its economy in the eighties. Nike was one of the first to move in and open 'sweatshops'. This was a great benefit to the locals. How do I know that? Tens of thousands applied for jobs in nike's factories. They did that because nike offered them a higher wage than they were getting, otherwise they would not have applied. Nike improved their lives. Other companies moved in, improving the lives of millions more, and all the while, forcing up the market price of labor in china. Wages in china have grown really, really fast, bringing hundreds of millions out of poverty. The same has happened in many countries.

 

Economics principle 1.

People act in their on best interest

Nike increased their profits, and the people increased their wage, free actors in a free market. When people are free to make their lives better, they do just that. The poorest people are the greatest beneficiaries of free trade because it allows them to sell their labor onto the world market, which forces the price of their labor upto the world market price.

 

Viva la capitalism.

[dsayers]

The question is kind of loaded. Not only is the state not solving such issues but actually provides the foundation for and in some cases even protects the issues.

[Phuein]

It is fair to wonder, how could another culture be "capitalistic" or even "free", yet seem unattractive and oppressive. The answer is manifold, and in its' source is the culture itself.

 

People have developed different unique cultures, all over the world, for millennia. Even if they do embrace certain aspects of other cultures, such as some technology, trade & business methods from the West, they still will only integrate those into their own existing culture.

 

Capitalism in a culture where slaves are accepted, will include slaves. It has nothing to do with Capitalism, itself. The same is true about culturally accepted working hours, working days / vacations, expected wages / quality of life, and the social status achieved through occupation.

 

P.S.

 

It's ironic that Darwin will criticize the Africans, without seeing that the other adventuring (imperialistic) nations find their origins in the African nations, themselves.

[dsayers]

Capitalism in a culture where slaves are accepted, will include slaves.

 

Just wanted to point out that this is a contradiction in terms. Capitalism comes from self-ownership. You enter this world with your body, mind, time, and effort as your capital. Any society that willfully and consistently violates property rights cannot be accurately described as capitalist.

[aeonicentity]

Just wanted to point out that this is a contradiction in terms. Capitalism comes from self-ownership. You enter this world with your body, mind, time, and effort as your capital. Any society that willfully and consistently violates property rights cannot be accurately described as capitalist.

I don't know how true that is. Capitalism the economic concept is the idea that consumers drive market forces which intern creates economic pressures, which in turn drives production (overly simplified), however this doesn't inherently make any moral or philosophical statements.

[cab21]

free market capitalism, is a specific form of capitalism, which does have rules that capitalism does not have. libertarian free market capitalism is not a form that allows for slaves.

a system itself does not do all the police work, but people following the system would not have slaves.

[dsayers]

I don't know how true that is. Capitalism the economic concept is the idea that consumers drive market forces which intern creates economic pressures, which in turn drives production (overly simplified), however this doesn't inherently make any moral or philosophical statements.

 

I would argue that it does. The term "market" denotes voluntary human interaction.

[aeonicentity]

I would argue that it does. The term "market" denotes voluntary human interaction.

That is a very narrow number of markets. In fact if you define markets as that, no markets existed, even in times of general economic freedom, in which case capitalist theories should NEVER work until such a free market exists. Which is obviously NOT true.

 

I look at capitalism like its a principal, I.E. gravity. The existence of it is always true, but the degree to which you understand and embrace it is the degree to which you understand the nature of the universe.but merely acknowledging the existence of capitalism. But capitalism is entirely sans morality. Good capitalists can cheat on their wives, and beat their kids, but still understand free market principals. Being a good capitalist doesn't make you a good person.

[dsayers]

How does violating a contract with one's wife or violating the property of their children equate with "good capitalist" and "understand free market principles"? For that matter, where was "good person" ever even talked about? Just as in your drug thread, you're confusing objective definitions and subjective descriptions.