ACORN

[ShadowHM]

The first is assuming that there is even a non-Asian source for many items. In quite a few cases, that happens not to be true. Items of apparel come to mind, for example. So the choice may not be between American made and imported but rather between buying or not buying. Until the global warming (and repeal of public obscenity laws) makes nudity practical, I'll continue to buy.

*may not* now conflated to I will continue to buy Asian sourced items, eh? No local artisans? No European sources?

The second thing wrong is that even if the end product is made in America, how can we know where the components come from? At what point would you hold me blameless? I have a KitchenAid mixer. Among its components is a motor with copper wire windings. Now, it could be that that wire is made in whole or part from recycled copper. So, lets say that a set of cymbals was thrown into the pot. That set of cymbals was made in the orient from copper scavenged from a derelict ship by child labor. Is it your contention that the ethical thing to do is to not purchase that appliance? If so, is there *anything* that it is safe to purchase?

The short answer is that there is no point at which any of us are blameless. The long answer is that there should be some effort made to ensure that your purchase decisions minimize harm. You (and kandrathe) seem to be advocating the view that you should have no such obligation at all and that you do get the mantle of moral rectitude just by living where you do.

Whoops, edit to add a third thing. In the '50s there were sweat shops in the garment district in New York City that used child labor under unhealthy conditions. I don't know that that has changed. All the items made there were 'Made in the USA'.

Nice red herring. Sixty years ago the U.S. of A. had issues. Somehow, that means you don't need to bestir yourself today to find out about current conditions?

What we can claim is that there is no absolution required because we committed no sin in the first place. And we refuse to let you put that guilt on us.

You can refuse to accept any of my opinions, :) But you cannot claim that you have no part in the exploitation of those who produce your goods and services. You may not wish to accept that, but you do have choices as to how to make your purchase decisions and how to minimize those harmful effects.

[Jester]

Hi,
Thank you. It has been many years (~40) since I read von Neumann and Morgenstern, and I've only skimmed a few GT books since. Your remarks caused me to check out the Wiki entries. Apparently GT has mutated a fair bit from the primitive form I knew. Have to add some refresher reading to my list. Any suggestions?

Aside from that, I think we agree on the salient points.

--Pete

I'm afraid my knowledge of Game Theory is strictly an undergraduate affair. I'd go back to the class readings, but they're sadly on another continent, and some of us were not gifted with a flawless memory. ;)

-Jester

[Jester]

Socialism is a child of the Marxian, Communist, and thus Utopian, world view, which was based on class warfare as an assumption. The "they" who are evil were depicted as entrepeneurs and capitalists, or anyone not a true believer in the struggle.

Socialism predates Marx by a couple decades. There is even an entire section in the Communist Manifesto devoted to critiquing other, prexisting (and inferior, in M&E's view) forms of Socialism.

Or can people now have their intellectual children backwards in time? Can I finally be my own grandpa?

-Jester

[kandrathe]

The short answer is that there is no point at which any of us are blameless. The long answer is that there should be some effort made to ensure that your purchase decisions minimize harm.

Having grown up in farming country, you can assume that every product you purchase has some deleterious effect on the environment. On the most benign side there is erosion, and depletion. On the extreme, air pollution, waste and chemical run off into streams, rivers, and lakes, and worse. It is actually very hard, less productive and takes extra time to farm in an ecologically neutral manner, which is why very few farmers bother.

P.S. I get moral rectitude (btw, that sounds painful) by voting for people who are trying to do something about the problem, and trying to be as informed as I can be about the products I purchase. For example, I will think twice about buying any product from China for fear of it being laced with lead, or improper ingredients. It's not fair to all those Chinese companies that are trying to do it correctly, but this is how "bad news" can shape local policies that force industries to police themselves. As I said to Zenda below, you can pretty much assume that some human misery or environmental damage was involved in every product you purchase. If you get to the US southwest someday, try to cross over to northern Mexico and take a tour of the maquiladora or tiajuana area industries. Many components for the items in your US products are made there where labor is cheaper and environmental laws are lax. Combine that with the traditional massive corruption in the Federal and local governments and law enforcement in that area and you have the classic third world exploitation problem on the US doorstep.

My attitude is not one of dismissing the problem, but with full understanding of the reality of it, surrendering to the enormity of it. Just think about the massive mess, and how utterly powerless we are to stop it. How many nations, politics, and governments one needs to cajole into doing what you and I think is the right thing. And, then, they may only be nodding their head to your face, while continuing to get payoffs behind your back. I have only the power of a single consumer, and as a voter. And, until there are legions of like minded throughout all the nations the world, nothing will stop the exploitation of people or the planet. How will you get China to comply with environmental and humane labor laws?

[Zenda]

Pete "I never said that it wasn't selfishness or stupidity. Indeed, I very much think it is. I said it wasn't *organized* selfishness."

Yep, that's what I said. Group behaviour doesn't need to be organized to have effect.

Pete "In addition to the Doctors Without Borders, try doing a search on medical assistance 'third world'. You'll find everything from Red Cross to UNICEF to religious organizations."

These organisations have to buy the medicine (and everything else) using money donated by their supporters (80% is from individuals, 20% from governments and corporations). So, part of their funds ends up as profit for pharmaceutical companies. It's not the industrialized world who 'gives', but caring people. Like I said, our behaviour can make a difference, even if un-organized. Btw, I happen to donate to all the organisations you mentioned. Do you?

Oh, and maybe there is no real cure for Aids, but there is a treatment.

"Although treatments for AIDS and HIV can slow the course of the disease, there is currently no vaccine or cure. Antiretroviral treatment reduces both the mortality and the morbidity of HIV infection, but these drugs are expensive and routine access to antiretroviral medication is not available in all countries."

Pete "I underestimated your ignorance... you're a jackass."

Trying to get this thread closed? Looks as if I have to step out of this discussion to allow others to continue it.

Kandrathe "The US does take action against this practice, such as the Child Labor Deterrence Act of 1993."

This act doesn't seem very effective to me (and the last paragraph of your article agrees with that), considering that a large portion of all chocolate consumed in the US is at least suspicious.

Quality labeling on products, as done by Fair Trade seems to work much better, but is often opposed by big corporations (yeah, it's that socialism again, I suppose). Here is a example from my own country:

"The Dutch province of Groningen was sued in 2007 by coffee supplier Douwe Egberts for explicitly requiring its coffee suppliers to meet fair trade criteria, most notably the payment of a minimum price and a development premium to producer cooperatives. Douwe Egberts, which sells a number of coffee brands under self-developed ethical criteria, believed the requirements were discriminatory. After several months of discussions and legal challenges, the province of Groningen prevailed in a well-publicized judgement."

[kandrathe]

Kandrathe "The US does take action against this practice, such as the Child Labor Deterrence Act of 1993."

This act doesn't seem very effective to me (and the last paragraph of your article agrees with that), considering that a large portion of all chocolate consumed in the US is at least suspicious.

Quality labeling on products, as done by Fair Trade seems to work much better, but is often opposed by big corporations (yeah, it's that socialism again, I suppose).

Here is the Fortune article reference in the Wiki, Chocolate's bittersweet economy. So, even though big chocolate companies may or may not own their own farms, and decidedly do not employ child labor, they still might buy additional beans from middlemen who may exploit child labor. The socialist aspect here is that you are asking companies, and people to intentionally not buy an equal quality product that is offered at a lower price. Price rules the market, and if you can undercut your competition you win. Here lies the temptation to be unethical, and it is only law and enforcement that will insure companies and people remain ethical.

Also from that article, "This type of child labor isn't supposed to exist in Ivory Coast. Not only is it explicitly barred by law - the official working age in the country is 18 - but since the issue first became public seven years ago, there has been an international campaign by the chocolate industry, governments and human rights organizations to eradicate the problem."

So there you go. The government is unable to enforce it's own laws. And, even with the problem being addressed at all levels, without law enforcement, this problem will never go away whether you are in South Central Los Angeles, or West Africa. As consumers, we are left to question. Is this coffee made by slaves? Is this shirt made by prison convicts? Are these shoes made by child laborers? Is this chocolate repression free? Was this circuit board made with adequate protection for the workers and the environment?

My hypothesis therefore is that all products are made by exploiting either people or the environment. All farming, mining, and manufacturing must stop immediately. Humans are suffering and destroying the earth.

[Zenda]

Kandrathe "...how utterly powerless we are to stop it."

Can you really not understand, or do you refuse to? You are *not* powerless.

Kandrathe "And, until there are legions of like minded throughout all the nations the world, nothing will stop the exploitation of people or the planet."

There you have it. If you accept your responsibility, that legion will have grown. You can't decide for others, but you can decide for yourself.

Kandrathe "My hypothesis therefore is that all products are made by exploiting either people or the environment. All farming, mining, and manufacturing must stop immediately. Humans are suffering and destroying the earth."

You just tumbled down the slippery slope.


PS. Kandrathe, did you read your own link? The subtitle is

"Seven years after the industry agreed to abolish child labor, little progress has been made."

About halfway, I find this:

"...introduced legislation mandating a labeling system for chocolate. The industry fought back..."

And it ends with this:

"We have given the industry plenty of time," Engel says. "I am not prepared to give another extension."

This article explains the situation pretty good, imo, and I advise everyone to read it fully. Glad it wasn't me who came up with it :whistling:

[vor_lord]

Zenda,

I would like to second (or third?) the request that you reply to the post you are replying to and use the quote feature. This thread has branched off into some pretty unrelated subthreads. Mangling the subthreads by posting in the wrong location is not helping.

[Zenda]

Zenda,

I would like to second (or third?) the request that you reply to the post you are replying to and use the quote feature. This thread has branched off into some pretty unrelated subthreads. Mangling the subthreads by posting in the wrong location is not helping.

Like this? Doesn't this put it in a side branche when you use threaded view? That's not very convenient if I'm replying to several people at once. The usual chronological view works much better for me. There is a reason why most (all?) other forums use it.

Also, I don't really get this concern about quotes. In a discussion, you should not be replying to a person, but to a statement.

Anyway, I have little more to say about the subject, after Kandrathe's link for the chocolate case, so I guess I will be 'complying' with your request:)

[vor_lord]

Like this?

Indeed, just like this. Thank you:)

Doesn't this put it in a side branche when you use threaded view? That's not very convenient if I'm replying to several people at once. The usual chronological view works much better for me. There is a reason why most (all?) other forums use it.

And that reason is... that other forums suck? That the lowest common denominator is the easy approach? I think the chronological approach has serious deficiencies in my opinion. Responding in the requested fashion here doesn't hurt you other than you may have to make multiple replies when one would do (this is a point you have made). You can still use a chronological view if you wish and be none the wiser. People who use the threaded view have instant context when you do so.

There are many people at the lounge who like the threaded style. What other forums may or may not do is not directly relevant in my opinion. I read several forums regularly and I wish more of them had a threaded option which is by far my preferred way. It makes triage much easier.

As far as quoting, I would think that the need to quote in a standard and visually recognizable manner would be much more important in a chronological only forum view. If you reply to the post you are addressing, then quoting quibbles become less important since context can be provided by the view. Quoting is still good etiquette since others may be using a different view.

Anyway, I made a request, not a demand. It's either followed or not. It's part of what I have always assumed as common courtesy on the lounge, but my opinion is just one of many, and it may be shared by fewer than I keep telling myself :P

[Zenda]

And that reason is... that other forums suck?

Hmm, not sure what I dislike most. This Quote tag editing, or the usual Url tag editing in Notepad :blink:

Some forums just like to adapt to the masses more, but many have a more valid reason. If a thread is supposed to not go off-topic, why accomodate side tracks? At this point, I'm feeling more then a little guilty, though, looking at the subject :blush:

All I can say in my defense is that Eppie asked me to elaborate :whistling:

Oops, did it again :o

[kandrathe]

Kandrathe "...how utterly powerless we are to stop it." Can you really not understand, or do you refuse to? You are *not* powerless.

I think you are deluded if you think I have any power.

Kandrathe "And, until there are legions of like minded throughout all the nations the world, nothing will stop the exploitation of people or the planet."

There you have it. If you accept your responsibility, that legion will have grown. You can't decide for others, but you can decide for yourself.

You, I, and many of the people here are at the upper end of the IQ scale. We can think outside the box. Ask the average person to try to understand about cocoa. You would find about 1 in 10 people even care.

Kandrathe "My hypothesis therefore is that all products are made by exploiting either people or the environment. All farming, mining, and manufacturing must stop immediately. Humans are suffering and destroying the earth."

You just tumbled down the slippery slope.

It's your sled and your slope. I'm suing! :lol: This is how I feel when people complain about "evil" technology/products in the world, and their only solution is to ban/divest/boycott them. As Pete said, the natural conclusion is the few humans that remain after the global die off will live in primitive huts as we did a few thousand years ago. Point to me a product and I will reveal to you the evils in making and bringing it to market.

P.S. Kandrathe, did you read your own link? The subtitle is "Seven years after the industry agreed to abolish child labor, little progress has been made."

Why has little progress been made? That is my point. The US government, the industry, and Ivory Coast are all involved to stop exploitation, but still little progress is being made.

About halfway, I find this: "...introduced legislation mandating a labeling system for chocolate. The industry fought back..."

Right, the full quote is "The controversy came to a head in 2001, when U.S. Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) introduced legislation mandating a labeling system for chocolate. The industry fought back, and a compromise was reached establishing a voluntary protocol by which chocolate companies would wean themselves from child labor, then certify that they had done so. The certification process would not involve labeling of products, but it would call for public reporting by African governments, third-party verification and poverty remediation by 2005." So, "fought back" as in working with Congress to let them try to make a gradual change rather than destroy the cocoa industry with sudden legislation.

And it ends with this: "We have given the industry plenty of time," Engel says. "I am not prepared to give another extension."

Engel also suffers from trying to westernize the people of West Africa.

Angeline Kili, head of the government body tasked with financing and regulating the cocoa sector, blames farmers from Burkino Faso and Mali for whatever child labor violations may be occurring. "They need labor, so they have kids working, sometimes with the bad consequences," she says. "Sometimes they traffic children. Child labor wasn't a big problem, but it became a big problem recently. You have to remember, all cocoa farmers worked as kids. Our president worked on a farm with his parents for no money."

Or, in other words, the people in Africa don't understand why this is a big problem to westerners.

This article explains the situation pretty good, imo, and I advise everyone to read it fully. Glad it wasn't me who came up with it :whistling:

I don't have any problem with having an honest discussion of an issue.

[ShadowHM]

The socialist aspect here is that you are asking companies, and people to intentionally not buy an equal quality product that is offered at a lower price. Price rules the market, and if you can undercut your competition you win. Here lies the temptation to be unethical, and it is only law and enforcement that will insure companies and people remain ethical.

So, if I understand that correctly, you don't see at all how any person could or even should take anything other than price and quality into consideration on purchase decisions? :unsure:

I quite agree on the topic of laws, regulation and enforcement. If there is a way to cheat and win, it will be used - that is part of the human condition. But it is equally true that you, as an individual, need not support those who do. You can become informed and you can make your own choices. The spectrum of human behaviour includes altruism too. You don't have to resign yourself to the lowest common denominator (or the lowest bidder).

If you feel powerless and surrender to 'the enormity of the problem', then you damn well are powerless. But you are choosing that; don't try to claim that it is inevitable.

[eppie]

So, if I understand that correctly, you don't see at all how any person could or even should take anything other than price and quality into consideration on purchase decisions? :unsure:

I quite agree on the topic of laws, regulation and enforcement. If there is a way to cheat and win, it will be used - that is part of the human condition. But it is equally true that you, as an individual, need not support those who do. You can become informed and you can make your own choices. The spectrum of human behaviour includes altruism too. You don't have to resign yourself to the lowest common denominator (or the lowest bidder).

If you feel powerless and surrender to 'the enormity of the problem', then you damn well are powerless. But you are choosing that; don't try to claim that it is inevitable.

There is here also the whole thing of mass psychology (or whatever it is called) which is the reason that free market economy without any regulations is not possible (if you want to create a sustainable system).
If you ask people iwhat they think about bio-industry 90 % says it is bad, if you ask them if they want to pay 20 % extra for their meat and milk if it comes from a non-bioindustry source still 60 % says yes. The percentage that actually does do this (pay a bit more for an 'honest product') will be more in the order of 25 %.
(no I don't have a link for these data, they are educated guesses). In our society where you can buy stuff without having to see where it came from, how it is produced etc. it is very easy just to close your eyes, and prducers of things will not tell you the negative impact their product has....even when you ask them. And because people have enough to worry about (making a living, taking care of your children, going on hoiday etc.) these things just slip through. Only problem is, if nobody ever cares things go wrong.
We have been talking about child labour or poisonous trash being send to development countries, but other things are of course greenhouse effect, overfishing the oceans, registering as a voter under a false name in multiple places. These things need to be regulated, if you want to call this socialism, fine, but it is necesarry.

Why do you want to put a criminal in jail? He did something wrong, the effect (robbery, abuse, murder) was directly visible, so we decide he is going to be put in jail (to protect the rest of use, to scare off other criminals, revenge or for whatever reason). The mass psychology thing in these big issues is based on the fact hat effect are not directly visible (if you drive an SUV you don't see the temperature in yur house rise directly, if you eat tuna you don't see that the tuna population is a fraction of what it used to be and most of the tuna are much smaller than they used to be). Still it is criminal, or at least wrong to continue, so people or government need to regulate.

[Delc]

So, if I understand that correctly, you don't see at all how any person could or even should take anything other than price and quality into consideration on purchase decisions? :unsure:

A person might, people don't though. Too many people just don't have the time/money to care.

[eppie]

And because from this thread it still wasn't comletely clear what the exact problem was (although I had an opinion) I post a link (yessss) http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/15...ters/index.html
Which in my opinion says what I thought already. There is a huge problem with voter registration in general which makes it apparently very easy to commit fraud. In Ohio they want to investigate this and try to create a better system. Many people however think (as somebody in this thread remarked as well) that it is also a plan from the republicans to try and cancel as many registrations as possible because they expect many of the new voters will vote democrat.
So two things: 1 apparantly it is still a big step for poor people to go and vote (if this is their own fault, or if it is indeed really difficult I don't know) and if an organisation as ACORN steps in, that is fine with me (as long as they only use eligible voters of course) and 2. There is registration system not suitable for a modern country. If frauding is as easy as just registering in two or more district I can imagine (and still I don't approve) that many people will do this. And a government has to appreciate the problem and understand that many people will fraud (if there is one thing that we always agree on here is that people are inherently selfish etc).

[eppie]

A person might, people don't though. Too many people just don't have the time/money to care.

Hmm you actually said in one sentence what I described in 15. :)

I have to start coming to the point quicker.

[kandrathe]

So, if I understand that correctly, you don't see at all how any person could or even should take anything other than price and quality into consideration on purchase decisions? :unsure:

I quite agree on the topic of laws, regulation and enforcement. If there is a way to cheat and win, it will be used - that is part of the human condition. But it is equally true that you, as an individual, need not support those who do. You can become informed and you can make your own choices. The spectrum of human behaviour includes altruism too. You don't have to resign yourself to the lowest common denominator (or the lowest bidder).

If you feel powerless and surrender to 'the enormity of the problem', then you damn well are powerless. But you are choosing that; don't try to claim that it is inevitable.

An informed person can be discriminating in their purchase decision, although the population will not, by and large, be informed. We suffer already from information overload, and in that so many lies are told that no one believes what they hear anymore as well. Even if you went on a massive campaign to inform people on the exploitation of children to pick cocoa or coffee beans, I would bet that over half the population would not believe it.

What I'm saying is that "I" am powerless. But, "WE" are not powerless. Then "WE" get to the question of which problem should "WE" focus upon now, exploitation of workers in the 3rd world, global warming, failing economy, exporting pollution to the 3rd world, corporate greed? It seems to me "WE" are doing a poor job at containing any one of them. Frankly my number one concern is the conversion of the economy off of a petroleum energy source. Without a continued source of cheap abundant energy, millions to billions of people will die.

Altruism should not be expected when it jeopardizes a persons natural rights. I also only believe in voluntary altruism, rather than institutionalized altruism.

[Jester]

An informed person can be discriminating in their purchase decision, although the population will not, by and large, be informed. We suffer already from information overload, and in that so many lies are told that no one believes what they hear anymore as well. Even if you went on a massive campaign to inform people on the exploitation of children to pick cocoa or coffee beans, I would bet that over half the population would not believe it.

What I'm saying is that "I" am powerless. But, "WE" are not powerless. Then "WE" get to the question of which problem should "WE" focus upon now, exploitation of workers in the 3rd world, global warming, failing economy, exporting pollution to the 3rd world, corporate greed? It seems to me "WE" are doing a poor job at containing any one of them. Frankly my number one concern is the conversion of the economy off of a petroleum energy source. Without a continued source of cheap abundant energy, millions to billions of people will die.

Altruism should not be expected when it jeopardizes a persons natural rights. I also only believe in voluntary altruism, rather than institutionalized altruism.

So, if I have this straight...

An individual is powerless, and people are too ignorant to act individually with enough cumulative weight to change things, so you probably shouldn't even try, *but*, you're also opposed to any institutionalized altruism which might enable people to overcome their individual powerlessness?

(Whether, in a democracy, institutionalized altruism is involuntary depends on your concept of citizenship, of course. But that's another topic.)

-Jester

[Taem]

And because from this thread it still wasn't comletely clear what the exact problem was (although I had an opinion) I post a link (yessss) http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/15...ters/index.html
Which in my opinion says what I thought already. There is a huge problem with voter registration in general which makes it apparently very easy to commit fraud. In Ohio they want to investigate this and try to create a better system. Many people however think (as somebody in this thread remarked as well) that it is also a plan from the republicans to try and cancel as many registrations as possible because they expect many of the new voters will vote democrat.
So two things: 1 apparantly it is still a big step for poor people to go and vote (if this is their own fault, or if it is indeed really difficult I don't know) and if an organisation as ACORN steps in, that is fine with me (as long as they only use eligible voters of course) and 2. There is registration system not suitable for a modern country. If frauding is as easy as just registering in two or more district I can imagine (and still I don't approve) that many people will do this. And a government has to appreciate the problem and understand that many people will fraud (if there is one thing that we always agree on here is that people are inherently selfish etc).

That's what I've been saying from the get-go, but this thread took on a life of it's own after the first couple of posts, however I'm used to that on the LL:lol:.

My main question, even before this last debate between McCain and Obama, was how Obama was supposidly tied in with ACORN, and I still don't know... I know ACORN is corrupt, I know Obama had something to do with ACORN, but I I'm not sure how that effects his now, if at all.