Disclosing Tariff Impacts: A Hostile and Political Act

That's like buying Nike shoes and deluding yourself into thinking you have no responsibility for their child slave labor sweatshops. If all you care about is getting the cheapest goods no matter what, I bet you would have been pro slavery in the 1800s, they give us cheap food and benefit the white man....

You think you are taking the pro liberty position when all it takes is a few million slaves living under a brutal, exploitive communist dictatorship to get you the cheap goods you love. You are either willfully ignorant or worse if you think that system is perfectly fine.
I understand your perspective on buying Nike shoes. So boycott them. And use your words to try to convince others to agree with you and join you in that cause. And if they don't voluntarily go along with you, just accept it. If you believe you have an obligation not to buy Nike shoes, that doesn't extend to having the right to use violence against other people to make them participate in your boycott.
 
I understand your perspective on buying Nike shoes. So boycott them. And use your words to try to convince others to agree with you and join you in that cause. And if they don't voluntarily go along with you, just accept it. If you believe you have an obligation not to buy Nike shoes, that doesn't extend to having the right to use violence against other people to make them participate in your boycott.
No, you are just running away from your argument. You don't want people to boycott because you are all about promoting the benefits of cheap slave labor made goods. That's a nice utopia in your head that doesn't exist in the real world. People respond to incentives and I bet you would even be against forcing a company to disclose on a product label their exploitive labor practices.
 
No, you are just running away from your argument. You don't want people to boycott because you are all about promoting the benefits of cheap slave labor made goods. That's a nice utopia in your head that doesn't exist in the real world. People respond to incentives and I bet you would even be against forcing a company to disclose on a product label their exploitive labor practices.
I never said I don't want people to boycott.

My point is not whether they should or shouldn't boycott. But whether they should or not, their duty stops there. It has to be voluntary.

And yes, of course I would oppose forcing a company to disclose exploitive business practices on a product label, as would anyone who agrees with the mission of this website. I would oppose forcing them to disclose anything at all on a product label. If their customers want them to do that, then this will translate to a financial incentive for them to disclose it. There is no need for some third party to force them to.
 
Last edited:
No, you are just running away from your argument. You don't want people to boycott because you are all about promoting the benefits of cheap slave labor made goods. That's a nice utopia in your head that doesn't exist in the real world. People respond to incentives and I bet you would even be against forcing a company to disclose on a product label their exploitive labor practices.
Furthermore, what's all this Marxist nonsense about "exploitive business practices"? Since when are employers not supposed to exploit employers? That's what employees are for. People actively seek out the opportunity to exchange their labor for money, which is, by definition, being exploited. More power to them.

For us in the west who take for granted a certain standard of living that was won through centuries of not being burdened by the kinds of policies you are advocating, we may look at the lives people in third world countries are living and feel sorry for them about what they have to do to survive. But taking away those opportunities wouldn't make them better off. The reason they seek out the opportunity to be exploited the way they are is because that is better than the alternative for them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PAF
Furthermore, what's all this Marxist nonsense about "exploitive business practices"? Since when are employers not supposed to exploit employers? That's what employees are for. People actively seek out the opportunity to exchange their labor for money, which is, by definition, being exploited. More power to them.

For us in the west who take for granted a certain standard of living that was won through centuries of not being burdened by the kinds of policies you are advocating, we may look at the lives people in third world countries are living and feel sorry for them about what they have to do to survive. But taking away those opportunities wouldn't make them better off. The reason they seek out the opportunity to be exploited the way they are is because that is better than the alternative for them.

Being against slavery isn't Marxist.

That's just Marxist disinformation tactic.

“Accuse your enemy of what you are doing, as you are doing it to create confusion.”

- Karl Marx

You can't convince people to not steal people's labor. You have to use force.

That's why stealing is a crime that we enforce.

If you could just convince everyone not to steal you wouldn't need to make it a crime.
 
Being against slavery isn't Marxist.

That's just Marxist disinformation tactic.

“Accuse your enemy of what you are doing, as you are doing it to create confusion.”

- Karl Marx

You can't convince people to not steal people's labor. You have to use force.

That's why stealing is a crime that we enforce.

If you could just convince everyone not to steal you wouldn't need to make it a crime.
OK, go around the world like some kind of global cop and use force against the people actually doing it. Or take up a collection to pay people to do that for you. And once again, take on this responsibility yourself. If you have neighbors that don't want to help you, too bad. They don't have to, an it's not your right to make them.

Also, nobody "makes" theft a crime. Theft is a crime, objectively. Human beings have no power to make this so, or to make it not so. This includes tariffs, by the way.
 
OK, go around the world like some kind of global cop and use force against the people actually doing it. Or take up a collection to pay people to do that for you. And once again, take on this responsibility yourself. If you have neighbors that don't want to help you, too bad. They don't have to, an it's not your right to make them.
No you have to use force against the people profiting from it so they can't.

That's why taxing slave labor is a valid strategy.

This is the established strategy other than an actual slave revolt.
 
No, I don't.
Well if you don't then they keep profiting off of slavery.

You don't have to be anti slavery to be an American citizen.

You don't have to worship Libertas 🗽. We have freedom of religion.

Perhaps you can make a 1st amendment argument because of citizens united and not have to pay any taxes at all.
 
No you have to use force against the people profiting from it so they can't.

That's why taxing slave labor is a valid strategy.

This is the established strategy other than an actual slave revolt.
Again, go right ahead. If you believe that you have this obligation, then put your money where your mouth is. And if your neighbors don't want to help you, then leave them alone and do this along with others who voluntarily join you.
 
Well if you don't then they keep profiting off of slavery.

You can't find a better solution to the American prison complex work-release slave labor program than shooting all the cops?

The smarter you computers get, the more stupid y'all get.
 
Again, go right ahead. If you believe that you have this obligation, then put your money where your mouth is. And if your neighbors don't want to help you, then leave them alone and do this along with others who voluntarily join you.
I do put my money where my mouth is. This is the government I fund with my money.
 
Furthermore, what's all this Marxist nonsense about "exploitive business practices"? Since when are employers not supposed to exploit employers? That's what employees are for. People actively seek out the opportunity to exchange their labor for money, which is, by definition, being exploited. More power to them.

For us in the west who take for granted a certain standard of living that was won through centuries of not being burdened by the kinds of policies you are advocating, we may look at the lives people in third world countries are living and feel sorry for them about what they have to do to survive. But taking away those opportunities wouldn't make them better off. The reason they seek out the opportunity to be exploited the way they are is because that is better than the alternative for them.

What about the welfare class

It is growing by leaps and bounds. In many households, it's in its 3rd and 4th generation

Legal exploitation is the parent of communism, that same Marxism you deplore, it is birthed by unfettered capitalism.
Just like the fake left and fake right are twins. I assure you, Marx did not invent the practical need for ethical business practices.
 
I do put my money where my mouth is. This is the government I fund with my money.
The problem is, that's not voluntary. That government makes other people put their money where your mouth is too, whether they want to or not.

The whole point of this discussion is that you are wrongly in favor of that.
 
The problem is, that's not voluntary. That government makes other people put their money where your mouth is too, whether they want to or not.

The whole point of this discussion is that you are wrongly in favor of that.
It is voluntary. You can renounce your citizenship.
 
What about the welfare class

It is growing by leaps and bounds. In many households, it's in its 3rd and 4th generation

Legal exploitation is the parent of communism, that same Marxism you deplore, it is birthed by capitalism. They are twins.
Just like the fake left and fake right are twins. I assure you, Marx did not invent the practical need for ethical business practices.
What you are calling "ethical business practices" didn't come about because of some newly arisen need for them. They came about because of the newly arisen possibility of them. Until very recently in history, it was taken for granted by the entire human race that every moment of human existence was a struggle for survival for almost everybody on the planet. The possibility to live to see the next year required exposing oneself to constant danger in back breaking endless labor, and getting one's children to help do it. Capitalism didn't bring about those conditions that we in America today think we deserve to be free of just by existing. Capitalism made it possible for large numbers of people to escape them for the first time in history. Yes, Marxism arose in response to that, but not as a correction to some harm done by capitalism, but out of envy due to the fact that some people enjoyed more improvements than others.
 
What you are calling "ethical business practices" didn't come about because of some newly arisen need for them. They came about because of the newly arisen possibility of them. Until very recently in history, it was taken for granted by the entire human race that every moment of human existence was a struggle for survival for almost everybody on the planet. The possibility to live to see the next year required exposing oneself to constant danger in back breaking endless labor, and getting one's children to help do it. Capitalism didn't bring about those conditions that we in America today think we deserve to be free of just by existing. Capitalism made it possible for large numbers of people to escape them for the first time in history. Yes, Marxism arose in response to that, but not as a correction to some harm done by capitalism, but out of envy due to the fact that some people enjoyed more improvements than others.
Karl Marx created Marxism because he wanted to destroy capitalism.

The modern standard of living we have come to enjoy is from democracy.

Democracy is what ended slavery not capitalism. Capitalism is just the growth engine of our economy.
 
Back
Top