- McLibel -

Yes, The Perfect, TOTALITARIAN World

Posted by: Ludwig von Mises ( USA ) on May 15, 1999 at 00:01:44:

In Reply to: Re: You Get a Life and Some Facts posted by Rob Ellis on May 14, 1999 at 14:39:23:


: Mcdonalds is a successful company, but that is only because they exploit children throughout the world.

The biggest load of crap i've ever heard. Do force labor upon children? Hell no. Do they force anything upon children or adults? Hell no. All they do is advertise, a perfectly ethical, normal, and legal thing to do.

:There advertising is disgraceful to say the least because they manipulate against children.

How?

:There advertisements are not informative, they are persuasive to the extreme that little children will pester parents to make sure that they go.

Oooohhh, how horrible, they make kids want to go, that wouldn't be THE PURPOSE OF ALL ADVERTISING, now would it? In what way are they not informative? Do you expect them to say: BTW, don't eat our food, it's unhealthy crap???? Seriously, have you seen their ads? They're not that bleepin' exiting!!! Kids pester(oh my god, how terrible) because they like the food and they like the toys, NOT because of advertising.

: At the moment Mcdonalds Happy Meals in England have TY beanie babies. On tv the ads have children and they tell people to get down there and collect them.

And your point is???? Why should they not tell people to collect them ,ISN'T THAT THE WHOLE POINT??????

:How are they allowed to do this.

It's a little thing called FREEDOM OF SPEECH!!!! It's in all of the modernized countries!!! Advertising is not a bad thing. It doesn't force anyone to do anything!! It may not even give someone the urge to do anything!!!! For heavens sake, what cave have you been in???

:In a perfect market this disrespectful corporation would not be in existence anymore.

You mean an AUTHORITARIAN UTOPIA? No one that you don't like would be able to make it? A perfect market is free, not stifled by control. In what way is McDs disrespectful?

: Mcdonalds do not break the law, you are correct there. But surely because they are a large corporation with an annual profit of 20 Billion they should do more.

Do more........???????????

: Mcdonalds are a hopelessly unethical business, and they do not face up to there social responsibilities.

Social responsibilities? You mean socialist responsibilities? Don't do anything that the commies don't like??? They are actually quite ethical, and they don't exploit ANYONE, NOR DO THEY EVEN COME NEAR IT!!!

: They do not desderve to be trading

To be trading...what???

:wake up and smell the truth.

That's certainly true for you. Get away from all of this anti corporation, anti capitalist crap for a while.

:Lets all get together and bring this dfisgraceful corporation down.

Lets learn the truth about this corporation, before we decide to destroy them.

--
McSpotlight: In actual fact; if you examine the evidence; you will see that McDonald's is all for free speech for themselves; but have tried to gag more than 30 groups and companies in the UK alone; by issuing libel writs and threatening huge legal fees; for nothing more than the exercising of free speech.

Does free speech cut both ways, or do you believe it should only be available to those with the money to hire good lawyers?

As to exploiting, well, let's quote the UK's official legal representatives on the subject;

"... the sting of the leaflet to the effect that the Plaintiffs exploit children by using them, as more susceptible subjects of advertising, to pressurise their parents into going to McDonald's is justified. It is true."

... the First and Second Plaintiffs are culpably responsible for cruel practices in the rearing and slaughter of some of the animals which are used to produce their food...

The Second Plaintiff does pay its workers low wages, thereby helping to depress wages for workers in the catering trade in Britain. To this extent the defamatory charge in the leaflet is partly justified.

... I do find that various of the First and Second Plaintiffs' advertisements, promotions and booklets have pretended to a positive nutritional benefit which McDonald's food, high in fat and saturated fat and animal products and sodium, and at one time low in fibre, did not match.

and, from the Appeal judgement;


it was fair comment to say that McDonald's employees worldwide 'do badly in terms of pay and conditions' [Appeal Judgment p247], and true that 'if one eats enough McDonald's food, one's diet may well become high in fat etc., with the very real risk of heart disease.' The Lord Justices went on to state that this last finding 'must have a serious effect on their trading reputation since it goes to the very business in which they are engaged. In our judgment, it must have a greater impact on the respondents' [McDonald's] reputation than any other of the charges that the trial judge had found to be true'. [Judgment p264]

Is a totalitarian corporate state any less repressive than a totalitarian communist one?



Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup