Why you can't ****ing trust the government to do anything right...

So, in 2007, Mattel went cheap and tried to poison our children with plastic, lead coated toys from China.

Our government, responds, with over-action that has caused several smaller manufacturers to give up, due to the expensive costs associated with testing and safety precautions in their factories and production facilities.

So, now, we get word that our wonderful leaders have EXEMPTED MATTEL FROM THE REQUIRED TESTING...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090827/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_product_testing_mattel

Mattel pushed hard for the firewalled labs provision when Congress was considering the legislation. The company spent more than $1 million in 2008 on lobbying, according to federal records.

Click to expand...

Seriously, do you trust these people?

More proof special interest groups are running the show. Not that we needed more proof.

This happens all the time. Companies get regulations passed that make it hard or impossible for their competitors to compete, and end up with a near monopoly over an industry.

[quote name='thrustbucket']More proof special interest groups are running the show. Not that we needed more proof.[/QUOTE]

Maybe it's just my unhealthy distrust of the world, but I expect businesses and special interest groups to do everything they can to increase their business, profits and interests. I mean, it's what they do.

Likewise, I expect our government to put its collective foot down and say "No." Obviously, they don't. They just take the giant briefcases full of money and bend over...

[quote name='UncleBob']Maybe it's just my unhealthy distrust of the world, but I expect businesses and special interest groups to do everything they can to increase their business, profits and interests. I mean, it's what they do.
[/QUOTE]

Well and that right there is really the lynch pin for me when it comes to the healthcare debate.

You can bet your bottom dollar that when it comes to the most expensive and expansive change in America, there are several companies and industries that will stop at nothing to get their hooks in and seeds planted into the legislation. Just like the Federal Reserve act of 1913 was the central bank home run that's still paying off in spades for them, there are those that will make absolutely sure they are at the 'pretty end' of the health care reform.

[quote name='UncleBob']Maybe it's just my unhealthy distrust of the world, but I expect businesses and special interest groups to do everything they can to increase their business, profits and interests. I mean, it's what they do.[/QUOTE]

Not exactly correct.

The only people the heads of companies are trying to enrich are themselves. Business, profits, and business interests all take a distant second.

Therefore even if reform will mean short-term loss but long-term gains, it will negatively affect the "compensation" the guy at the top can take in, so the companies aren't interested. Needless to say, reforms that protect shareholders, employees, consumers or consumer-rights are just seen as government interference.

Saw this on Consumerist. ing disgusting, especially since Mattel was specifically responsible for several of the recalls. I'm glad I don't have children to worry about.

I'd say just don't buy Mattel products then, but that's not going to happen. As for the Government seems like they can do whatever they want even right in front of our eyes. Look at the Cell phone industry...

[quote name='VipFREAK']I'd say just don't buy Mattel products then, but that's not going to happen. As for the Government seems like they can do whatever they want even right in front of our eyes. Look at the Cell phone industry...[/QUOTE]

I don't know - the three things that seem to rally Americans are food safety, access to TV, and the safety of their precious little bundles of joy.

Just like tainted peanut butter or the analog-to-digital tv conversion, with a few highly-publicized incidents or lawsuits I could see a story like this getting some legs.

[quote name='fullmetalfan720']This happens all the time. Companies get regulations passed that make it hard or impossible for their competitors to compete, and end up with a near monopoly over an industry.[/QUOTE]

Strangely, this system of corruption and favor-currying is often characterized as "free markets" in the media, and then demonized. It's not a truly free market when the government is giving bullshit advantages to companies that influence it. Once again the two-party system and attendant corruption is to blame for this.

[quote name='elprincipe']Strangely, this system of corruption and favor-currying is often characterized as "free markets" in the media, and then demonized. It's not a truly free market when the government is giving bullshit advantages to companies that influence it. Once again the two-party system and attendant corruption is to blame for this.[/QUOTE]

LOL

The immorality and unmitigated greed of the executive class in combination with an easily duped public is to blame. Our corrupt government is merely a by-product.

I like that this argument is framed as "Mattel is cheap and poisoned a bunch of kids with its cheap and irresponsible and unethical labor...so you know this means you can't trust government!"

[quote name='elprincipe']Strangely, this system of corruption and favor-currying is often characterized as "free markets" in the media, and then demonized. It's not a truly free market when the government is giving bullshit advantages to companies that influence it. Once again the two-party system and attendant corruption is to blame for this.[/QUOTE]

As opposed to the free market where there could be no regulations on the corporations that poison and harm consumers?

(spare me the philosophical 'people would stop buying mattel' response, because you can't possibly believe that people have the energy, knowledge, or willpower to collectively defeat a corporation. this libertarian naivete is a pipe dream no different than the ISO college kids who think that Communism hasn't really "been done right yet.")

It's a shame that government and corporations collude like this. Its further proof to me, at any rate, that the next great American growth period will come with the death of this kind of manufacturing and a growth of green, local, American manufacturing.

[quote name='mykevermin']As opposed to the free market where there could be no regulations on the corporations that poison and harm consumers?
[/QUOTE]

Why couldn't harmed consumers sue corporations that have caused them damages?

[quote name='mykevermin']I like that this argument is framed as "Mattel is cheap and poisoned a bunch of kids with its cheap and irresponsible and unethical labor...so you know this means you can't trust government!"[/QUOTE]

Nice skirting around the rest of the facts. Try adding 'The government did nothing to Mattel after Mattel slipped some politicians millions of dollars while harming the free market with regulation meant for Mattel' and see how the argument sounds.

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Why couldn't harmed consumers sue corporations that have caused them damages?[/QUOTE]

I don't think you and I are picturing the same "free market." The libertarian ideal wouldn't allow for lawsuits - that's government interference. You get discriminated against because you're a woman or a minority? Your kid dies because he or she was gumming on a lead-paint covered "Dora the Explorer"? Well, now you better vote with your wallet - after all, the company's best interest is to not kill you; but that doesn't mean they should be held criminally or civilly liable if they do.

[quote name='AdultLink']Nice skirting around the rest of the facts. Try adding 'The government did nothing to Mattel after Mattel slipped some politicians millions of dollars while harming the free market with regulation meant for Mattel' and see how the argument sounds.[/QUOTE]

Nonsense. I see and grasp both sides of the argument. But I don't see collusion between corporations and government a satisfactory reason to try to push some kind of libertarian laissez-faire ideal that would even further assist corporate power nationally and globally. There's no logic in that, and it's simply a post-hoc justification of one's ideal that people refuse to really, truly criticize.

[quote name='mykevermin']I don't think you and I are picturing the same "free market." The libertarian ideal wouldn't allow for lawsuits - that's government interference. You get discriminated against because you're a woman or a minority? Your kid dies because he or she was gumming on a lead-paint covered "Dora the Explorer"? Well, now you better vote with your wallet - after all, the company's best interest is to not kill you; but that doesn't mean they should be held criminally or civilly liable if they do.[/QUOTE]

I think you're a little confused.

I'm not sure I've ever met someone who considers themselves a libertarian who would be against a lawsuit between an individual harmed by a company that was doing bad things.

Most libertarians believe the government should perform three very basic functions. Projects to promote the general welfare (Roads, libraries, schools, etc.), Protection (Federal government proving protection at the borders via military, state and local governments proving protection at the local levels) and settling disputes between parties that cannot settle the disputes themselves.

Disputes like employees filing civil suits against employers for discrimination, underpayment, poor working conditions, and things of that nature? Like consumers suing McDonald's for serving coffee at 192F?

I remain wholly skeptical that any Libertarian fancies those kinds of suits. They pay lip service to justice, but they're by and large seduced by the naive optimism that thinks deregulation in the globalized marketplace will help consumers in the long run.

That's kind of the Libertarian irony of this anecdote. It's shameful that the government looked the other way here (and I recall last year reading about the lack of staffing increases in the depts that test toys for danger in manufacture and materials etc. despite the increasing need to test for these things because - well, you know why; we're not making toys in the United States anymore). But the idea that government is the problem here, and that corporations would behave properly in the face of deregulation is stunningly asinine when using a tale of a company who violated and continues (presumably) to violate safety standards.

The naive thought that it is government that forces Mattel to use lead based paints, and deregulation will give us safer products. When, given this story, you're upset that government isn't giving Mattel some serious whatfor in fines and fees. I would agree with you on that. But blaming solely government is a rather silly consequence.

I'm pissed at the government in this situation for coming up with crazy laws so that everyone thinks their children are safe again when, in fact, the regulations screw over the smaller companies and do nothing against the main offender. Everyone's going to go back to thinking they're safe because the government did "something".

While I disagree with the idea of suing private employers for discrimination (you have no right to work for me and the Constitution says I have a right to associate with people of *my* choosing), I do not have a problem with suing an employer over underpayment (assuming you mean that the agreement was for the employer to pay $X and the employer paid less than the agreed upon amount) or poor working conditions (say, the employer fails to provide reasonable fire escape access, proper protection equipment, etc. - UNLESS the risks are *very* clearly laid out in the pre-hire agreement.).

In regards to the Libeck case... duh, coffee is hot. Don't spill it on yourself. "192F" is too hot? The National Coffee Association of the USA would tend to disagree with you...

Your brewer should maintain a water temperature between 195 - 205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction.

Click to expand...

Pour it into a warmed mug or coffee cup so that it will maintain its temperature as long as possible. Brewed coffee begins to lose its optimal taste moments after brewing so only brew as much coffee as will be consumed immediately.

Click to expand...

Perhaps she should have sued them too?
(Where'd you get that "192F" figure anyway?)

You'll also note, the reward in this case wasn't because the coffee was too hot, but because it was felt that McDonald's didn't do enough to warn the customer that the coffee was too hot. Why? Probably because they didn't realize Libeck (who had been purchasing coffee every morning from that same McDonald's for quite some time) was mentally retarded and didn't realize that - duh, coffee is hot.

Furthermore, I wouldn't be so upset at the government if it was due to incompetence or such that they cobbled together this stupid set of regulations and let Mattel slip through because of a mistake. No, it's the fact that they basically took giant briefcases of money from Mattel in exchange for screwing over Mattel's competition.

You don't like Mattel? Fine - don't buy their crap. I sure as hell don't. No one forces any of us to. Buy your kid a god damned book to read or something.

But - you don't like the government? Tough shit. Pay up in taxes, bitches. I mean, Mattel only gives them so much money. They need more.

192 was the number I came up with because I couldn't be arsed to look up the wiki on the lawsuit. Are you really going to take me to task for being over or under 5 degrees of the coffee's temperature?

Geez.

You sorely understate the circumstances of the Liebeck case by insulting her ("mentally retarded") and making the false conclusion that the suit was over the failure to warn over the temperature of the coffee (it was an attempt to get McDonald's to pay for the surgery she required due to the coffee's temperature).

"Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin as she sat in the puddle of hot liquid for over 90 seconds, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin.[8] Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent.[9] She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. Two years of treatment followed."

Much of your other circumstances suggest that things are clearly laid out in terms of hiring agreements: wages, increases, evaluations, bonuses, etc. When it comes to manual labor, those things aren't spelled out such that would allow reasonable suits to consistently be made. Moreover, setting such a high standard for burden of proof would simply reward companies that are covert in how they manipulate and harm their employees. Plausible deniability seems to be more than enough to satisfy many who post in the vs forums that racial/gender discrimination did not occur - so why would it be any different in terms of a fair wage?

In an attempt to wring this back to the point in your OP, you point the finger of blame at the government here, and while I don't disagree with that, it's a myopic conclusion that doesn't take to task the corporation that knowingly harms consumers and uses cheap labor and cheaper materials. The government can't win in the eyes of a Libertarian: if this bill successfully included Mattel, you would decry "red tape" and "too much regulation" with a side of "waste of taxpayer money." They did not do this, instead applying a half-assed special interest-supporting version.

Let me put it this way: the government deserves to be taken to task for special treatment of some corporations compared to others. But to be fully realistic, we have to consider that no matter what the government could have done here, it would never have done anything but raise your ire and further reinforce that government is evil and cannot be trusted. That, quite simply, is why I have such disdain for your opinion on this issue: no matter what happens in the world, it can be psychologically satisfied and remain unchanged somehow.

(Like when Republican politicians royally up everything around them and then run for re-election on the promise to reduce "big government ______." - If they do a great job in office, it's a good idea to re-elect them; when they everything up, OTOH, it's a reminder that we can't trust government and thus have to elect Republicans to avoid further problems.)

Tautologies can suck it, in short.

For the record, I didn't vote for a single incumbent Republican in the previous election and haven't for several, several years.

[quote name='Myke']Much of your other circumstances suggest that things are clearly laid out in terms of hiring agreements: wages, increases, evaluations, bonuses, etc.[/quote]

Perhaps if people didn't depend on the government to be there to make everything "all better" (which the government rarely does) when things go wrong, they'd be more inclined to pay more attention to what they, themselves are doing. How many top-executives do you think *don't* get such things laid out before taking a job? Do you think it's chance that they know to do this before hand?

[quote name='Myke']You sorely understate the circumstances of the Liebeck case by insulting her ("mentally retarded") and making the false conclusion that the suit was over the failure to warn over the temperature of the coffee[/quote]

Since we're quoting Wikipedia as a reliable source now...

Though there was a warning on the coffee cup, the jury decided that the warning was neither large enough nor sufficient.

Click to expand...

As for insulting her, anyone who thinks it's a good idea to place a scalding hot (I refuse to believe that she didn't know it was hot, since she went there on a regular basis for coffee), cheap cup of coffee, with a flimsy plastic lid, between one's legs, the proceed to take the lid off... well, let's just say most people of normal intelligence would know that's not a good idea.

[quote name='mykevermin']The naive thought that it is government that forces Mattel to use lead based paints, and deregulation will give us safer products. When, given this story, you're upset that government isn't giving Mattel some serious whatfor in fines and fees. I would agree with you on that. But blaming solely government is a rather silly consequence.[/QUOTE]

The problem isn't the government, because the government is run by people. The problem is the people currently in charge, and when you have people who will do anything you ask if you give them money, you have a corrupt government.

[quote name='UncleBob']You don't like Mattel? Fine - don't buy their crap. I sure as hell don't. No one forces any of us to. Buy your kid a god damned book to read or something.

But - you don't like the government? Tough shit. Pay up in taxes, bitches. I mean, Mattel only gives them so much money. They need more.[/QUOTE]

So you expect everyone to read the latest edition of "Toy Safety Monthly" before going out to TRU with the kids? You really think that a monolithic company like Mattel is going suffer at the hands of consumer choice without a highly publicized incident where kids get hurt?

Due to the massive amount of information you expect the average American to research and process, I find your arguements ridiculous. To retort I might as well say you do have a choice in government, you can leave the US - that's how little I think of your arguement.

Myke is right here - shame on the govt, but reserve your true ire for the evil jerks running Mattel.

[quote name='UncleBob']Perhaps if people didn't depend on the government to be there to make everything "all better" (which the government rarely does) when things go wrong, they'd be more inclined to pay more attention to what they, themselves are doing. How many top-executives do you think *don't* get such things laid out before taking a job? Do you think it's chance that they know to do this before hand?[/QUOTE]

It's this kind of absolutism that I disagree with wholly. Executives are simply not comparable to hourly labor. You have a far larger base population competing for the latter compared to the former. You also have the element of power, where a company could simply disregard hiring someone at $8/hour to work third shift at Dunkin' Donuts for asking too many questions or wanting things laid out in writing. Don't hire the nagging PITA, hire one of the other myriad applicants.

If it were this simple to negotiate aspects of work life for manual laborers, we would have never had labor unions develop, no?

You don't check the toys you buy for their "ingredients," do you? How would a reasonable person be able to tell, in the absence of *proper* government oversight (IMO, that is - either way, neither what we got in the OP and certainly what we wouldn't get if Libertarians had their way), that their toys are made with lead-free paint? Is it evident only when your child doesn't develop abnormalities and illnesses because of what they play with?

A step further, what if food items were no longer required by law to list ingredients? Given the proliferation of nut allergies (something that still stuns me), would companies be free to not mention that their items were manufactured in a plant where peanuts are used? Would we like to live with the absurdity of the McDonald's nut packet from sundaes proclaiming (I kid you not), "may contain nuts or nut particles"? Or is it so overburdensome that they have to disclose these things that we would rather not have the printing and live at peace with ourselves over the increase in yearly fatalities because companies no longer have to disclose those things? When we hope to buy a chocolate bar, and we can't find out if there is actual cocoa butter in the item, or engineered vegetable fats?

Your trust in corporations to do things fully disclosed and for the benefit of the consumer and their employees is so sorely unsupported by history that I can not, for the life of me, fathom how people think granting them greater power is a fine idea.

[quote name='camoor']So you expect everyone to read the latest edition of "Toy Safety Monthly" before going out to TRU with the kids? You really think that a monolithic company like Mattel is going suffer at the hands of consumer choice without a highly publicized incident where kids get hurt?[/QUOTE]

Personal responsibility is a scary thing. If you're going to buy something, you should have a good idea of what it is that you're spending money on.

However, the fact is Mattel was wrong in this situation. They deserved to be sued by anyone who purchased the contaminated products and they deserve to lose a lot of money for it. (seriously, the money should go to the people who were wronged, not "fines" paid into the government). It's not unreasonable to expect that toys purchased for children not contain harmful materials. If this was a case of, say, finding out 20 years later that a product used was bad, then we'd be looking at a different story. But that's not the case here. Mattel was wrong and deserves to suffer.

Instead, our government *helps* them, by making it harder for their competition... and the best some of you can come up with is "shame on government, but..."

[quote name='mykevermin']Your trust in corporations to do things fully disclosed and for the benefit of the consumer and their employees is so sorely unsupported by history that I can not, for the life of me, fathom how people think granting them greater power is a fine idea.[/QUOTE]

That's the thing though - I *don't* trust corporations. One bit. That's why I want shit in writing and I want the government to back me up when I have it. Instead, when it's brought to their attention, they take money bags from the offending party and (virtually) shut down the competition.

[quote name='UncleBob']However, the fact is Mattel was wrong in this situation. They deserved to be sued by anyone who purchased the contaminated products and they deserve to lose a lot of money for it. (seriously, the money should go to the people who were wronged, not "fines" paid into the government). It's not unreasonable to expect that toys purchased for children not contain harmful materials. If this was a case of, say, finding out 20 years later that a product used was bad, then we'd be looking at a different story. But that's not the case here. Mattel was wrong and deserves to suffer.[/QUOTE]

I see some inconsistency here, since you were disparaging Liebeck less than an hour ago. I would argue that it's not unreasonable to think that foods you purchase wouldn't give you third degree burns and send you to the hospital for over a week for skin grafts and rehabilitation that takes two years.

What I think is my greatest problem with your viewpoint is, again, that the issue was framed as "why you can't trust government..." when the other half was Mattel using poisonous materials. If we allowed deregulation, do you really foresee Mattel halting to use these materials? Or, appealing to the "don't put scalding hot coffee in your lap" anti-Liebeck senses of folks and trying to argue that kids should know better than to try to eat their Dora the Explorer action figures?

If corporations are knowingly doing things for the sake of profit that harm individuals, what kind of logic makes you think that fewer regulations and less red tape would stop that from happening? I would like an answer, because I frankly don't understand the logic.

Maybe you can help me understand the "informed consumer" angle here that you've been suggesting. I like to think of myself as a personally responsible dude (despite being up later than I normally would, which is evidence against my claim ). Let's say I want to go toy shopping: as a personally responsible dude, who likes to be informed, how can I find out which toys will and won't poison me before I go to the store?

You'll be fairly safe going with books. They tend to not be too dangerous.

As I've said before, we already know we can't trust corporations. The goal of a company is to make money (either for the shareholders, the owners, the executives, etc.). I don't trust them. You don't trust them. Only a fool would trust any company 100%.

I think we can both agree that it'd be silly for me to start a "why you can't trust private companies" thread. No one here does and no one here thinks they should.

The point of this thread, however, is that you can't trust the government. The difference is that the government is *supposed* to be there to serve the public. I wouldn't be so against "Obamacare" if I honestly felt that the proposal(s) were intended to honestly help the general public. However, if that were the case, you wouldn't be seeing these "backroom deals". Just like in the Mattel case. We've reached a point where our politicians virtually only act on things either a) to get money or b) to get power. This case with Mattel is an example of both. Money from Mattel, Power from the people who are duped into thinking that our awesome representatives are finally taking these evil companies to task, so let's vote for them again next year!

[quote name='mykevermin']I would argue that it's not unreasonable to think that foods you purchase wouldn't give you third degree burns and send you to the hospital for over a week for skin grafts and rehabilitation that takes two years.[/QUOTE]

Duh, Coffee is hot. Virtually any product, if used incorrectly, can send you to the hospital. It's a case of reasonable expectations. One can reasonably expect young children to put toys in their mouth. One can reasonably expect lead to be toxic. Thus, one can reasonably expect a company not to use lead paint on toys intended for children.

One doesn't reasonably expect a grown adult to squeeze a hot cup of coffee between her knees and attempt to de-lid it. If the case was, say, a McDonald's employee sold a 10 year old a cup of hot coffee and didn't warn the kid it was hot, then, perhaps, I would be more sympathetic to the victim. But any reasonable adult knows coffee it hot, don't squeeze it between your knees and try to take the lid off.

And, again, it wasn't that the coffee was hot - it was that McDonald's didn't properly warn her that the coffee was hot.

Likewise, I would have no problem if, say, Mattel sold a collector's type toy that was "authentic 50's style", coated in lead paint - if they made it very, very clear that the toy wasn't intended for small children and that it contains substances that are toxic when taken internally.

[quote name='mykevermin']Disputes like employees filing civil suits against employers for discrimination, underpayment, poor working conditions, and things of that nature?[/QUOTE]

I was about to give you an eye roll for thinking the common (wo)man couldn't sue a corporation in a Libertarian paradise. However, discrimination, underpayment and poor working conditions aren't illegal if not for those damned Liberals making them so. I could argue that Americans, THE MOST HUMANE PEOPLE IN THE WORLD, wouldn't purchase items made where such horrible conditions occur, but I don't want to make my daughter's Chinese-made Snow White Pez dispenser sad for lying.

[quote name='mykevermin']Like consumers suing McDonald's for serving coffee at 192F?[/QUOTE]

1/2. In MY Libertarian paradise, an individual can sue another individual or corporation if he or she is injured on another's property. If you came to my house for a cookout, somehow tripped over my grill, doused yourself with hot grease and branded yourself with my grill's cooking element, I'm getting sued. If you pick up my gas can, douse yourself with my gas and light yourself on fire with my matches, I'm getting sued unless you bound and gagged me. If you bring your gas can over, douse yourself with gas and light yourself on fire with your matches once stepping onto my property, I'm not getting sued. Do you see the differences in that wall of text?

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I was about to give you an eye roll for thinking the common (wo)man couldn't sue a corporation in a Libertarian paradise. However, discrimination, underpayment and poor working conditions aren't illegal if not for those damned Liberals making them so. I could argue that Americans, THE MOST HUMANE PEOPLE IN THE WORLD, wouldn't purchase items made where such horrible conditions occur[/QUOTE]

26% (unsupportable %age, but I'm sure few of you would really dispute it) of all consumer transactions in the US take place in a Wal-Mart. Whenever I'd asked folks (this takes place in class because it makes or awkward street conversation) where their clothes were manufactured, or what natural/artificial materials it is made out of, folks (in my limited experience) simply have no idea.

There's a great Frontline episode on Wal-Mart and globalization. But aren't *all* frontline episodes great? (BTW, their Bernie Madoff program is $23 via dvd at amazon but $2.99 via iTunes - totally worth watching.)

Part of me gets a wee bit let down that what I do for a living is less likely to have a major policy impact than one well (or not so well) made movie or television show. But media has been used to influence people as long as I can remember; I've brought up "The Jungle" countless times in terms of the influence it had on labor unions, labor rights, working conditions, etc. in the United States. But that's an example of policy changes that I support - which is just circumstantial. Instead, I'm let down when I see the news center around the 29-year old who was kidnapped and lived with her captor for 18 years. The resulting news makes for great copy and is a fascinating tale, but I can't help but worry that one person's actions is going to lead to government hyperbole and yet further unnecessary restrictions on registered sex offenders. But that's getting way off topic, something I'm trying not to do.

The point of bringing up The Jungle was that it describes working conditions when you have (1) high unemployment, (2) high unskilled population seeking work, (3) large corporations, an (4) little regulation. I don't see how moving back in that direction will be positive for laborers.

EDIT: Oh, one last point: one of my favorite clothing companies is American Apparel. Their t-shirts are some of the most comfortable I've ever worn, they fit excellently (and look good on me), they are made from cotton and include no artificial fibers, and they are manufactured in the United States. Everything we want, right? Mostly. I can't be wholly comfortable with my purchases from them because the ceo, Dov Charney (sp?), is both a revolting hipster and a downright ing sleazeball who has had numerous sexual harassment suits brought against him over recent years. He, as an individual, and his company's marketing practices (ever seen one of their catalogues?) are more than enough to turn off people - who will otherwise go right back to buying the shirts made by 6-year old Kai Lan. They're not even an ideal company for me to purchase from, but they're the closest thing to it.

that's why I stopped having folks over.

[quote name='mykevermin']I don't think you and I are picturing the same "free market." The libertarian ideal wouldn't allow for lawsuits - that's government interference. You get discriminated against because you're a woman or a minority? Your kid dies because he or she was gumming on a lead-paint covered "Dora the Explorer"? Well, now you better vote with your wallet - after all, the company's best interest is to not kill you; but that doesn't mean they should be held criminally or civilly liable if they do.[/quote]
Have you ever even met a libertarian? Lawsuits essential part of a free market. How else would you get reparations from someone who had screwed you over?

Nonsense. I see and grasp both sides of the argument. But I don't see collusion between corporations and government a satisfactory reason to try to push some kind of libertarian laissez-faire ideal that would even further assist corporate power nationally and globally. There's no logic in that, and it's simply a post-hoc justification of one's ideal that people refuse to really, truly criticize.

Click to expand...

Government is not reason; it is not eloquence, it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant, and a fearful master. -George Washington
Government is force. The government can pass laws to do what ever they want to you. Corporations cannot. If you don't limit government's power, then things like the these regulations tend to happen. Government becomes corrupt, and pulls shit like this. They don't care about the people anymore, they only care about who feeds their pocketbook. BTW what ever happened to trust-busting? It seems we just let large corporations control everything now.
[quote name='mykevermin']Disputes like employees filing civil suits against employers for discrimination, underpayment, poor working conditions, and things of that nature? Like consumers suing McDonald's for serving coffee at 192F?[/quote]
You can sue for what ever you want. A jury decides the merits of your case. That's how it is supposed to work in this country.
[quote name='mykevermin']26% (unsupportable %age, but I'm sure few of you would really dispute it) of all consumer transactions in the US take place in a Wal-Mart. [/quote]
Wal-Mart is destroying America. Every day low prices, means every day low paying jobs, and shitty merchandise made in Chinese sweatshops. Wal-Mart also drives out small businesses, drives down wages and the American standard of living. I can't wait to see it go under.

Whenever I'd asked folks (this takes place in class because it makes or awkward street conversation) where their clothes were manufactured, or what natural/artificial materials it is made out of, folks (in my limited experience) simply have no idea.

Click to expand...

The magic of globalization. Why employ a American worker for $13 a hour when you can get some kids in China to do it for 10 cents?

There's a great Frontline episode on Wal-Mart and globalization. But aren't *all* frontline episodes great? (BTW, their Bernie Madoff program is $23 via dvd at amazon but $2.99 via iTunes - totally worth watching.)

Part of me gets a wee bit let down that what I do for a living is less likely to have a major policy impact than one well (or not so well) made movie or television show. But media has been used to influence people as long as I can remember; I've brought up "The Jungle" countless times in terms of the influence it had on labor unions, labor rights, working conditions, etc. in the United States.

Click to expand...

I have no problem with unions.

But that's an example of policy changes that I support - which is just circumstantial. Instead, I'm let down when I see the news center around the 29-year old who was kidnapped and lived with her captor for 18 years. The resulting news makes for great copy and is a fascinating tale, but I can't help but worry that one person's actions is going to lead to government hyperbole and yet further unnecessary restrictions on registered sex offenders. But that's getting way off topic, something I'm trying not to do.

The point of bringing up The Jungle was that it describes working conditions when you have (1) high unemployment, (2) high unskilled population seeking work, (3) large corporations, an (4) little regulation. I don't see how moving back in that direction will be positive for laborers.

EDIT: Oh, one last point: one of my favorite clothing companies is American Apparel. Their t-shirts are some of the most comfortable I've ever worn, they fit excellently (and look good on me), they are made from cotton and include no artificial fibers, and they are manufactured in the United States. Everything we want, right? Mostly. I can't be wholly comfortable with my purchases from them because the ceo, Dov Charney (sp?), is both a revolting hipster and a downright ing sleazeball who has had numerous sexual harassment suits brought against him over recent years. He, as an individual, and his company's marketing practices (ever seen one of their catalogues?) are more than enough to turn off people - who will otherwise go right back to buying the shirts made by 6-year old Kai Lan. They're not even an ideal company for me to purchase from, but they're the closest thing to it.

Click to expand...

Welcome to the Wal-Martification of America. Every day low prices, every day low paying jobs, and the screwing over of America.

I wish I could wear American Apparel, but you can get half-cotton, half-poly Hanes T-Shirts for $3 at A.C. Moore.

I remember seeing someone try to rationalize sweat shop labor. Basically by saying that even though it may seem horrible to us, the people in those shops are paid better than most in their country and that if not for those shops they'd have no work at all.

I guess there is a point there, but that still doesn't make it right. Not when corporations are getting rich by exploiting the bad situations these people are in. We're saving money on cheap clothing while these people are getting screwed royally.

Then there was the argument that wal mart being unionized would raise prices. I believe that wal mart could easily absorb the cost of higher wages while keeping their prices the same. It isn't like the company is barely breaking even as it is.

[quote name='fullmetalfan720']I have no problem with unions.[/QUOTE]

Surprisingly, I have no problem with unions either...

with two minor changes.

First, no union should have special protections under the law. No business owners or managers should be forced by the government to associate with any union members (outside of previously agreed upon contracts).

Second - a union, when you break it down, is a group of individuals, joining together to set a common price (either through pay or other compensation, like health benefits, etc.) for their goods and services.

Most of you are like "Yeah, duh."

So, let's say another group of individuals - in this case, Gas station owners within a small location - were to all join together and set a common price for their goods and services. Would you howl and scream? Would the government come in and break up this collusion?

Why is one situation perfectly okay - yet the other bad, bad, bad?

Well, the simple answer is that one is legal and the other is not (whether it takes the form of price fixing or monopolization).

I suppose you're asking a broader philosophical question, however. In which case my answer is simply power is the major difference.

Funny, I can change the below slightly yet it still has the same meaning.

[quote name='UncleBob']
The difference is that the Police are *supposed* to be there to serve the public.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='mykevermin']Well, the simple answer is that one is legal and the other is not (whether it takes the form of price fixing or monopolization).

I suppose you're asking a broader philosophical question, however. In which case my answer is simply power is the major difference.[/QUOTE]

I guess that second one is more covered by the first one... Unions are given special protection by the government that allows them to do something legally that, if any other group of people tried to do, they'd be looking at lawsuits, fines and jail time.

As for power, there are basically two types of power. That which is taken by force (i.e.: gimme stuff or I'll shoot you) and that which is given by need/want (i.e.: I can't live without this cheap plastic crap from China, here, Walmart, have 10% of our economy). The first, I'm sure we can all agree with is generally wrong. The second...

I'll disagree with you and point you in the direction of Bill Domhoff's book "Who Rules America?"

http://www.amazon.com/Rules-America...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1251655364&sr=8-1

Buy a used prior edition; it's not lot different, and it can be had for $0.64 instead of $48:
http://www.amazon.com/Who-Rules-America-Power-Politics/dp/1559349735/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpi_5

Trust me. We may not agree on much, but I think you'd really like Domhoff's thesis and it would give you a more refined idea of power than what you've elucidated on.

fullmetal you should give it a read, too.

[quote name='mykevermin']EDIT: Oh, one last point: one of my favorite clothing companies is American Apparel. Their t-shirts are some of the most comfortable I've ever worn, they fit excellently (and look good on me), they are made from cotton and include no artificial fibers, and they are manufactured in the United States. Everything we want, right? Mostly. I can't be wholly comfortable with my purchases from them because the ceo, Dov Charney (sp?), is both a revolting hipster and a downright ing sleazeball who has had numerous sexual harassment suits brought against him over recent years. He, as an individual, and his company's marketing practices (ever seen one of their catalogues?) are more than enough to turn off people - who will otherwise go right back to buying the shirts made by 6-year old Kai Lan. They're not even an ideal company for me to purchase from, but they're the closest thing to it.[/QUOTE]

I know what you mean. The executive is a sleazeball, and he's still 10 times more humane then any of the Waltons ever will be.

I sometimes wonder if Sam Walton would be happy with the way his company is currently being run. I mean, it is the most successful retail chain in the country, but at what cost?

[quote name='mykevermin']I like that this argument is framed as "Mattel is cheap and poisoned a bunch of kids with its cheap and irresponsible and unethical labor...so you know this means you can't trust government!"[/quote]

I could have sworn that the argument was that you can't trust government because, as a result of Mattel's lobbying, they were spared righteous consequences from their unethical behavior.

[quote name='mykevermin']As opposed to the free market where there could be no regulations on the corporations that poison and harm consumers?[/quote]

Not at all. As opposed to the free market where everyone plays by the same rules.

[quote name='mykevermin'](spare me the philosophical 'people would stop buying mattel' response, because you can't possibly believe that people have the energy, knowledge, or willpower to collectively defeat a corporation. this libertarian naivete is a pipe dream no different than the ISO college kids who think that Communism hasn't really "been done right yet.")[/quote]

Okay, but I wasn't going to make this argument.

[quote name='mykevermin']It's a shame that government and corporations collude like this. Its further proof to me, at any rate, that the next great American growth period will come with the death of this kind of manufacturing and a growth of green, local, American manufacturing.[/QUOTE]

I hope you are right, but I have my doubts.

[quote name='UncleBob']I guess that second one is more covered by the first one... Unions are given special protection by the government that allows them to do something legally that, if any other group of people tried to do, they'd be looking at lawsuits, fines and jail time.[/QUOTE]
No. Unions are the accumulation of labor the same way a bank is the accumulation of capital. If unions were trying to set all pay scales across an entire industry to one scale and then enforce it, you'd have a case.

[quote name='UncleBob']I'm not sure I've ever met someone who considers themselves a libertarian who would be against a lawsuit between an individual harmed by a company that was doing bad things.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='UncleBob']As for insulting her, anyone who thinks it's a good idea to place a scalding hot (I refuse to believe that she didn't know it was hot, since she went there on a regular basis for coffee), cheap cup of coffee, with a flimsy plastic lid, between one's legs, the proceed to take the lid off... well, let's just say most people of normal intelligence would know that's not a good idea.[/QUOTE]
I don't get this. "We" expect the courts to defend us from companies that are insane and do crazy shit. "We" also acknowledge that the courts are insane and do crazy shit. Where should a reasonable person (haha) find solace between these two again?

[quote name='mykevermin']I don't think you and I are picturing the same "free market." The libertarian ideal wouldn't allow for lawsuits - that's government interference. You get discriminated against because you're a woman or a minority? Your kid dies because he or she was gumming on a lead-paint covered "Dora the Explorer"? Well, now you better vote with your wallet - after all, the company's best interest is to not kill you; but that doesn't mean they should be held criminally or civilly liable if they do.[/QUOTE]

Can you tell me where you get your information on Libertarianism because I can't seem to remember where lawsuits aren't allowed in the Libertarian ideal? Between my gray jumpsuit issuance and morning group calisthenics, they neglected to inform me I gave up my right to sue people.

I fail to see how culpability can magically disappear under the Libertarian 'system' of freedom. Favoritism to one group over another is what "interference" is, not criminal or civil infractions against individuals that are mediated by government. That's the primary function of Libertarian government, Myke.

Freedom doesn't require an absence of law, just the absence of laws that protect one group or person at the expense of another. It still requires justice, and does not necessitate chaos in order to be realized. But for someone who distrusts the idea of personal liberty and it's inherent insecurities, I can understand why you don't fully understand the concept.

[quote name='speedracer']No. Unions are the accumulation of labor the same way a bank is the accumulation of capital. If unions were trying to set all pay scales across an entire industry to one scale and then enforce it, you'd have a case.[/quote]

A.) There are Unions that are large enough that they try to shift the pay scale within an entire industry. Say, the United Auto Worker's Union.

B.) So, if the three gas stations within one small town in the middle of no where got together and decided to start charging $10/gallon for gas, you'd be okay with that, since it's not the entire industry, but one localized case?

I don't get this. "We" expect the courts to defend us from companies that are insane and do crazy shit. "We" also acknowledge that the courts are insane and do crazy shit. Where should a reasonable person (haha) find solace between these two again?

Click to expand...

"We" expect "the government" to work for us - but they do batshit crazy things.
"We" expect "companies" do make stuff for us - but they do batshit crazy things.
"We" expect a lot of things. We have to find a balance on a regular basis.

[quote name='bmulligan']Can you tell me where you get your information on Libertarianism because I can't seem to remember where lawsuits aren't allowed in the Libertarian ideal? Between my gray jumpsuit issuance and morning group calisthenics, they neglected to inform me I gave up my right to sue people.

I fail to see how culpability can magically disappear under the Libertarian 'system' of freedom. Favoritism to one group over another is what "interference" is, not criminal or civil infractions against individuals that are mediated by government. That's the primary function of Libertarian government, Myke.

Freedom doesn't require an absence of law, just the absence of laws that protect one group or person at the expense of another. It still requires justice, and does not necessitate chaos in order to be realized. But for someone who distrusts the idea of personal liberty and it's inherent insecurities, I can understand why you don't fully understand the concept.[/QUOTE]

This post was just the viagra I needed this morning.

I am getting pretty tired, myself, of folks on here attempting to pigeon-hole Libertarianism as some far-fetched and unrealistic chaos utopia that would guarantee a corporatocracy. Nothing is further from the truth.

I've always felt that if you want to know what Libertarianism really is, look at your own life, your own home, and your own family - analyze how you run it. That's more than likely libertarianism, and your reaction to anyone coming in your house favoring one family member over another or trying to tell you how to run your house is a Libertarian reaction. To me, Libertarianism is simply applying those feelings and philosophies to a government.

It's ironic that even though almost everyone acts and believes a truly Libertarian philosophy about themselves and their homes, they want all types of intervention for everyone else because it somehow gives them a sense of the world being fair and safe.

Maybe we need to have another thread for nothing but analyzing and educating folks around here about on Libertarianism.

[quote name='bmulligan']Freedom doesn't require an absence of law, just the absence of laws that protect one group or person at the expense of another.[/QUOTE]

If you permit discriminatory treatment to occur, you allow the dominance of one group/class (both in terms of economics, gender, race, etc.) over the others to continue and exacerbate itself.

That is not freedom.

[quote name='mykevermin']If you permit discriminatory treatment to occur, you allow the dominance of one group/class (both in terms of economics, gender, race, etc.) over the others to continue and exacerbate itself.

That is not freedom.[/QUOTE]

Freedom doesn't require an absence of law, just the absence of laws that protect one group or person at the expense of another.

Click to expand...

I don't see how not having laws that favor one group over another means "permitting discriminatory treatment to occur."