: Oh I know the history of it but I also know that the abandoning of these things now will only benefit the rich and shameless, the companies that can use their superior market position and economies of scale to wack the rest of us into submission.
The opposite. Removing their protections now would expose them to real competition. Sure thy would start out bigger but as ive explained before that doesnt mean they will stay ahead. If they do then it will be by actually offering the (perceived) better deal for a consumer.
: The cheap nikes etc. available in the US, which allow even your deprived communities to live fairly well and errode arguemnts about socialism, are the result of slavery wages and dangerous conditions in the third world.
Those situations were present already. Much as i would like to see the economic expansion of poor nations I can only begin with the notion that every cent paid out in the poor country is one more they can use. The alternative - to try and jump the gun on development by manking laws forcing Nike etc to pay US rates of pay would simply result in them pulling out entirely and thus the poor nation receiving nothing at all.
: How can you resolve these matters without interference? Remember that rationalising to the rich has about as much effect as moralising too.
The 'interference' required would be the one 'rule of thumb' suggested by the Decleration of Independance - "Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights"