Retribution not enough

[Declan McCullagh]

I'm actually surprised to see Steve launch into a critique of laissez-faire 
capitalism here on cypherpunks, of all places. One can admit that 
globalization has ill effects (mostly, bricks through windows of Starbucks 
thrown by bored, upper-middle-class, college-age protesters), certainly. 
But when responding to claims that factory workers in poorer countries are 
only being paid $2/hour or whatnot, it makes sense to ask: Is this worse 
than their other alternatives, like mud huts in villages?

To argue against people voluntarily entering into market-based transactions 
with each other is so a-economical and contrary to cypherpunk philosophies* 
-- wlel, I just don't think it's worth taking the time to go any further in 
a response.

-Declan

* = To the extent that there are any cypherpunk philosophies, of course.



At 01:17 PM 10/20/01 -0700, Steve Schear wrote:
>At 01:42 PM 10/20/2001 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>>On Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 05:35:53PM -0700, Steve Schear wrote:
>> > The direction of all recent administrations has been to expand
>> > globalization (i.e., interdependency) thus increasing economic risks and
>> > narrowing diplomatic choices.  In the short term, and we have no idea what
>>
>>When I speak of globalization, I mean removing barriers imposed by government
>>to voluntary exchanges between consenting people. Sounds good to me.
>
>Unfortunately, many citizens in the developing world are not party to 
>these "voluntary" exchanges, but are directly affected.  I've read the 
>reports of the many low wage sweat shop jobs, mainly performed by young 
>women, in these countries and that their alternative is worse.  In a way 
>one could portray their situations as dismal but not dire, sort of along 
>the on-screen comments of Arthur to the prostitute is dinning with "... so 
>you might say you're having a relatively good time?"
>
>In the short term economic inequalities and human rights abuses may be 
>exacerbated (e.g., the fate of rural mainland Chinese).  The long-term 
>effects of globalization are as yet unknown.
>
>
>>You seem to think of liberal global trade as a zero-sum game. This is
>>an elementary error. Instead, liberal global trade is what economists
>>would call an "expanding pie" where additional wealth is created.
>
>Agreed, but wealth is only one measure of human happiness and the jury is 
>still out on whether the vast majority of those indirectly affected by 
>globalization will find it has been in their best interests.