: 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.
Right the problem is that competition, due to economies of scale, monopoly, externalities etc. doesnt exist on the national scale so some people think this can be remedied by removing barriers to allow international competition. I can see how that would be the case temporarily until there where winners and losers like on the national scale and the new aristocracy stood triumphant once more.
: : 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.
And that makes it alright? Now I know your more moral than that, if simply because you should be able to empathise with these people in conditions of labour you'd find unacceptable and they can't just get a different job.
: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.
I can see the logic, logically speaking capitalism is spot on and so is your brand of libertarianism but I regard what is real as rational, I'm standing as judge here, as everyone must, and the real world record is dispicable.
: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.
And that is good? I can't understand this, I've heard this from gloating capitalist and the "our hands are tied as hell" socialists, no you arent either so I'll ask you again is this good?
: : 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"
Which I think justifies the call for international global regulation.