libertarian labour

Aw, go easy on him. He's new, unlike his confreres he actually puts some thought into his posts, and his new BFF Tuttle issued his usual contentless ad hominem and then abandoned him.

There's a huge straw man if I've ever seen it?

My original objection is to your OP. You tried to misrepresent what Libertarians want. You clearly don't understand Libertarian concepts, so it annoys me when you try to tell me and other Libertarians what they believe and then expect an actual intelegent conversation to develope.

Those people aren't libertarians; they're just plain, old-fashioned, conservatives. Modern movement "conservatives" may have trashed the label, but fleeing to the "libertarian" label makes about as much sense as a catholic priest trying to dissociate himself from the church's sexual scandals by joining NAMBLA.

Do I really have to explain to your moronic brain why slavery is wrong? Why don't you advocate slavery? I don't because I believe forced labor is immoral.

I'm trying to understand why YOUR brain thinks its wrong.
You seem to be holding contradictory stances, and I want to understand how you can reconcile them.

That tells me absolutely nothing.
Why is it immoral?

The OP is right on target, at least as far as Internetarians are concerned. You lot are always rhapsodizing about a time that never was, whether it’s prior to 1912 or the “glory days” of the 1950s. That photo is a more accurate representation of the reality.

Let’s look at this from a different perspective. What kind of work did your great-grandfathers do? How much schooling did they complete? How old were they when they started work?

You're clearly the one who's rhapsodizing about a time that never was.

Not really, no. It's actually a reasonable extension. The whole point of the picture is that through laisez faire inspired relaxations on trade, we've sacrificed domestic manufacturing in favour of sourcing from countries with what we'd agree are unethical labour practices.

Son, you aren't a libertarian jsut because you read Atlas Shrugged. Besides, around here it's like having native blood and living in North America-everyone's positions have got a little libertarian in them. Hell, look at my stances on police powers, freedom of speech/press, firearms acquisition (I'm only really concerned over public carrying), and the right of communities to limit what affects them.

So the question stands. Do you support tariffs which would counter mega retailers and the outflow of manufacturing everything from Apple computers to Wetjet mops, or is it an unreasonable impediment to the "free" market to impose duties from countries where labour standards and wages are significantly lower?

I don't support tariffs, I support free trade zones.

Only if you don’t know what “rhaposidizing” means, and I know you’re smarter than that. Feel free to clarify.

I hoped you were smarter than this. Not the case, so gonna bother anymore.

When have you ever "bothered"? Classic Prufrock "You're not worthy of my time!" post and run.

So either you don't know the meaning of the word (dubious), or you believe child labor was, like Muad's views on slavery, "not as bad as it's been portrayed" (questionable), or you've got your tenses mixed up, or you're just playing "Tag garamet so the other kids will like me!"

Since you're taken the snob's way out, I'll draw my own conclusions.

thank you.
by default, this means you support outsourcing what was formerly made here to countries that allow, among other things, child labour. because this is exactly what has resulted over the last two decades.

How about environmental regulations that have made it more appealing to manufacture elsewhere? Are you okay with dumping anywhere? or is it the role of government (by and for the people, that is) to define what is and isn't safe to dump into a river, let alone enforce real penalties for it?

So short of a global consumer boycott (impossible as long as Sam Walton's spawn endure), what's the solution?

no.
but not doing trade with those countries and returning the jobs here would be a good way to incentivize them. no one gives a shit so long as Wal*Mart will sell a $30 iPad on black friday and that it's under $500 any other time.

It doesn't mean any of that. You can't speak for me or any other Libertarians because you don't understand what Libertarianism represents. Also, you are assuming that free trade zones directly result in manufacturing jobs going over seas. This may have contributed to it, but it not the only reason those jobs were lost. Your premise is false and lacks any critical thinking skills. What you are attempting to do here is move the conversation away from the OP in which believe that Libertarians want children to work in factories. You didn't win that argument, so you want to change the subject.

might go miles to reducing it here though.

let's go the step beyond just the child labour though, as I had another cartoon showing a pair of feudal serfs being told their lord in the castle was a job creator that I could have used.

which brings the question how has free trade affected north american's standard of living? I'd say that it's widened the gap between well off and poverty immensely, mostly at the expense of the population share of an economic middle class. In a nutshell 1000 people with $100 will spend more of it than 10 people with $10000-and that's honestly the disparitiy we're dealing with now.

WTF are you talking about child?
My arguments are sound... simply saying "you're wrong and don't knw what a libertaian is" doesn't refute that.

Frankly, it appears you don't really know, other than it's what the cool right wing kids here claim to be.

And neither you nor Tuttle nor Zombie nor any of the other "Nots" around here can be bothered stating "what Libertarianism represents." All you can do is reiterate what it's not, and there's a good reason for that. Each of you has his own little special definition of what it means, and you don't dare define it other than in terms of what you "believe in," because then the other Libertarians will pounce on you ("Is too!" "Is not!") instead of railing at us.

Two separate but interrelated issues. The American workforce has to be retrained away from traditional jobs into careers more appropriate to the 21st century and beyond, but first we have to figure out how to stop falling so far behind the rest of the industrialized world in math and science (and we can start that by throwing creationism out on its ear).

As for poverty in the developing world, inroads are slow, but they are being made. Basics like clean water, better roads, electricity, disease-elimination programs such as for starters, as well as the proliferation of microloans to small businesses a la Grameen Bank.

It's your claim that Libertarians want an economic system that allows children to work in factories like in 1912. That is not what Libertarians want. Libertarians don't agree on abortion and a whole host of other things. They do generally agree on low taxes and limited government and maximum liberty. Because you this thread with what you think Libertarians want and it's been shown that this is not what Libertarians want, you are the one who does not understand what Libertarianism is.

And it's up to the US government to intervene right?

Muhammad Yunus is not an American.

And, again: Neither you nor Tuttle nor Zombie nor any of the other "Nots" around here can be bothered stating "what Libertarianism represents." All you can do is reiterate what it's not, and there's a good reason for that. Each of you has his own little special definition of what it means, and you don't dare define it other than in terms of what you "believe in," because then the other Libertarians will pounce on you ("Is too!" "Is not!") instead of railing at us.

No, it's a terrible idea.

a) No one wants to be the janitor.
b) The answer to the last 150 years of institutionalized poverty that came as a result of slavery should not involve putting young African Americans to work cleaning up after the shit of white people.

actually, I identify as a libertarian.
just more between the prudhon school of thought based around mutualism up to the complete abolition of government.

maybe you oughta crack a book instead of hanging onto the bait that the picture was already explained as being? this isn't limited to child labour, but the decline of attainable prosperity as it relates to an increased lack of regualtions and restrictions over business.

Except I did define it up thread, low taxes, limited government, maximum liberty. These are concepts all Libertarians can agree on. Furthermore, I've been arguing on here for quite a while, defining my personal beliefs and holding my own, I haven't seen any other Libertarians or conservatives for that matter, come in and berate me and tell me I'm wrong.

it speaks to his outlook on life that he sees "slinging crack for the neighbourhood gangster." as being the primary choice for inner city black kids rather than working at McDonalds or an otherwise regualr p/t job.