A bunch of Libertarians on Youtube...

[Sidewinder]

But you also see seagoing merchants not only not sharing information on pirates, but actively bribing pirates to attack other people's shipping, and providing fencing/shipping/homeport services to the pirates... because piracy was lucrative, and securing a monopoly by encouraging people to harass your enemies is cheap.

I would like to some proof for this claim.

I believe he's referring to privateers.

[madd0ct0r]

yup, and in both cases the outcome is a happy chance.
You said it yourself - they act on their own imperatives, not according to our sense of beauty or fairness.

Why should I put myself in the hands of a blind idiot god?

[D.Turtle]

yup, and in both cases the outcome is a happy chance.
You said it yourself - they act on their own imperatives, not according to our sense of beauty or fairness.

Well, the thing is that it isn't the outcome of a happy chance. Evolution acts according to very specific rules. Except our sense of beauty or fairness is shaped by evolution and market forces. Our expectation of the amount of work that should be required to lead a "good life" is shaped by the market. Our expectation of what a "good life" is, is shaped by the market.

Why should I put myself in the hands of a blind idiot god?

You shouldn't. You should realize that you already are in the hands of a blind idiot god.

And then learn how to use that to your advantage.

[madd0ct0r]

hmmm, by voting in a government to run and maintain a social security system that should my job suddenly become worthless, or my body fail to keep up I won't starve or freeze to death?

[K. A. Pital]

Corporations might not report on their own abuses, but the people being affected by those abuses will. This type of information-sharing is still in its infant-stage, but already showing effect.

1. It is not "in infant stage". Since newspapers, people reported on corporate abuse quite efficiently. With the internet, even the slightest abuse gets out very quickly. However, it does not impact profits or performance that much.

Those corporations being reported on might not go directly out of business, but they will start changing their business practice.

No, they will not and have not. Witness the Dow Chemical scandal with Union Carbide. Or Coca-Cola still shitting on Third World water reserves.

Look at Apple - it is through public campaigns pointing out abuse that they have started changing those practices.

They started to talk big about how they are "changing" them, but that does not amount to real change. The Apple-Foxconn reports have been prominent for 3-4 years actually. They are still gathering record profits.

It doesn't mean that those abuses will stop immediately, but more and more people are gaining access to such information and gaining the capability to share information. This increase in information flow also increases the possibility that the people being abused realize that they are being abused and can start demanding better treatment.

Bayer AG's constant poisonings, etc. did not change the situation and the corporation did not collapse. In fact, these incidents have repeated despite a very high profile. Same with many other poisoning cases. Let me make one thing perfectly clear: reporting on corporate abuse is not in "infancy", it is very mature and yet the effect is almost nil.

[D.Turtle]

I would just like to note that I was partially arguing from a devil's advocate point of view here. My personal view is that this type of information flow is a nice bonus or maybe additional incentive, but by far not sufficient enough to guarantee good behavior. In order to stop abuse by corporations in third world countries, I think the important part about increased information flow is that it allows the people being affected to realize they are being used by those corporations and demand better treatment. I think when some of the stuff going on at Foxconn came out, the wages being paid were increased to a large degree (from absolutely horrendous to pitiful). In my opinion, what is needed to stop that kind of abuse of the situation in other countries would be the requirement that production standards meet a certain level in order to allow the importation of those goods. So for example, Apple could only use China as its production base, if those production facilities meet certain standards of safety, wages, etc.

I'll stop playing devil's advocate now, and argue my actual position.

hmmm, by voting in a government to run and maintain a social security system that should my job suddenly become worthless, or my body fail to keep up I won't starve or freeze to death?

Well, I think that would be difficult in your case.

Overall, I think the thing that often gets overlooked is that the situation IS improving. It might not happen fast enough, and there is tons of movement left to do, but it is moving in the right direction. And this is facilitated by increased information-flow. I think libertarians take a small kernel of truth (market forces are capable of providing incentives to do good) and blow it way out of proportion (market forces are the only way to provide incentives and governments detract from that).

1. It is not "in infant stage". Since newspapers, people reported on corporate abuse quite efficiently. With the internet, even the slightest abuse gets out very quickly. However, it does not impact profits or performance that much.

I think this largely depends on what kind of abuse gets reported, who it affects, etc. For example, scandals about contaminated baby milk, toys, etc have had drastic effects. On the other hand, the stuff at Foxconn has had very small effects. But yes, I wish that reported abuse would impact profits and performance a lot more.

No, they will not and have not. Witness the Dow Chemical scandal with Union Carbide. Or Coca-Cola still shitting on Third World water reserves.

Except that the first case did lead to a change of behavior. The second one is bad, and I agree that a lot more should be done by governments to crack down on such things.

They started to talk big about how they are "changing" them, but that does not amount to real change. The Apple-Foxconn reports have been prominent for 3-4 years actually. They are still gathering record profits.

Well, I didn't say that they wouldn't still see profits. I said that they would start changing their behavior - which they are. Is it enough? No way. Could it go faster? Hell yes. Would government intervention help? Yes. But public information campaigns are having an effect. I wish it were more.

Bayer AG's constant poisonings, etc. did not change the situation and the corporation did not collapse. In fact, these incidents have repeated despite a very high profile. Same with many other poisoning cases. Let me make one thing perfectly clear: reporting on corporate abuse is not in "infancy", it is very mature and yet the effect is almost nil.

I disagree that the effect is almost nil. There have been enormous improvements in behavior by corporations, etc. This is abundantly clear when one looks at the situation in first-world countries. Now, some of this was done by moving production to third-world countries and abusing lower standards there. But as their standard of living increases, and their access to information increases they also start demanding better treatment - and are getting it. They still have a far way to go, and it might lead to another cycle of moving production to Africa and starting all over again, but it is simply not true that making information about abuses public doesn't change the situation and the behavior.

[madd0ct0r]

hmmm, by voting in a government to run and maintain a social security system that should my job suddenly become worthless, or my body fail to keep up I won't starve or freeze to death?

Well, I think that would be difficult in your case.

You mean the freezing, starving or voting?

I agree with you about the kernel of truth comment.
But I also agree with Sats Bush about the general ineffectiveness of public campaigning. The company has three choices, accept the lost business (cost $X), improve the standard (Cost $Y) or pay for counter-marketing (cost $Z)

Rationally, they'll do which ever is cheapest. This is especially true of large corporations where decisions like this are made by a series of people (eg, the marketing department has to submit the options to be chosen upon, but the guy who writes the report doesn't make the decision, and won't want to affect his own chances within the company. The accounting department confirms the numbers, but the three people checking it are just checking the options, the decision is not up to them. It then passes to the next set of people, who don't make a decision, but recommend a course of action to the next group and so on. With each stage the dick option becomes more and more likely to be carried out, because at every stage the person is responsible to someone else who knows a little less about the issue, right the way up to the people paying money to fund managers who buy the shares)

A smaller company might have somebody prepared to make a principled stand, or even to have been set up on this basis (eg bodyshop, before it was sold to unilever)

[Terralthra]

They started to talk big about how they are "changing" them, but that does not amount to real change. The Apple-Foxconn reports have been prominent for 3-4 years actually. They are still gathering record profits.

Well, I didn't say that they wouldn't still see profits. I said that they would start changing their behavior - which they are. Is it enough? No way. Could it go faster? Hell yes. Would government intervention help? Yes. But public information campaigns are having an effect. I wish it were more

The only change in behavior has been FoxConn putting in nets to keep suicidal employees from successfully killing themselves by jumping off the building, rather than actually improving their treatment so they aren't suicidal.

Why? Because it's cheaper.

[K. A. Pital]

I think this largely depends on what kind of abuse gets reported, who it affects, etc. For example, scandals about contaminated baby milk, toys, etc have had drastic effects.

You mean the chiefs of the factory were shot by the Chinese government? Seriously, that's not a libertarian response. Looks more like an old-fashioned Soviet one, actually.
On the other hand, the stuff at Foxconn has had very small effects. But yes, I wish that reported abuse would impact profits and performance a lot more.

Except that the first case did lead to a change of behavior.

Too bad I never heard about it:
++en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Carbide_Corporation#Sydney_Harbour
++en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster#Settlement_fund_hoax

The second one is bad, and I agree that a lot more should be done by governments to crack down on such things.

You are then advocating an anti-libertarian solution, but I guess that's natural since you said you only held these positions as a Devil's Advocate.

Well, I didn't say that they wouldn't still see profits. I said that they would start changing their behavior - which they are.

Proof of the change?

I disagree that the effect is almost nil. There have been enormous improvements in behavior by corporations, etc. This is abundantly clear when one looks at the situation in first-world countries.

See link above with Union Carbide and dioxin poisoning. Also, just reading some stuff on the recent Bayer activites and some actions of other corporations demonstrates, if anything, that the improvements had occured between 1900-1930 during the 1950-1970 period and basically since then there has been not much of an improvement. Sorry, but saying that it was some sort of boycott or whatever that improved the corporate behaviour in the First World is patently untrue. This behaviour was, is and remains improved only by corresponding legislation - which corporations continue to flaunt if they have the ability to do so. And which is evident that they would easily do had it not been the crushing power of the First World legalese, since in teh Third World they rely on practices which would result in massive legal trouble had it been done to First World citizens. Therefore the solution is not libertarian, the nature of corporate improvement is non-libertarian and corporations are the same shit as they were back in the early 1930s and if they had a legal way to make it just as it was back then, they would.

...it is simply not true that making information about abuses public doesn't change the situation and the behavior.

Without the legal constraints it would be true. As one can see in excessively corrupt environments where the law is not being followed, corporations gladly use abusive practices, no matter how it is reported in the Internet, or in fact whether it is reported at all or not. So the only thing that changes the situation is the relatively low level of corruption in the First World which makes it impossible to flaunt labour-protecting and environment protecting laws so easily. If it was possible, no amount of public outrage would change one inch of corporate behaviour. That is the end of my argument, but I can bring yet more examples to show how strict adherence to law, not public surfacing of outrages, keeps corporations in their place.

[D.Turtle]

You mean the freezing, starving or voting?

I meant the voting. Starving is always possible, and I don't know if it gets cold enough where you live.

I agree with you about the kernel of truth comment.
But I also agree with Sats Bush about the general ineffectiveness of public campaigning. The company has three choices, accept the lost business (cost $X), improve the standard (Cost $Y) or pay for counter-marketing (cost $Z)

Rationally, they'll do which ever is cheapest. This is especially true of large corporations where decisions like this are made by a series of people (eg, the marketing department has to submit the options to be chosen upon, but the guy who writes the report doesn't make the decision, and won't want to affect his own chances within the company. The accounting department confirms the numbers, but the three people checking it are just checking the options, the decision is not up to them. It then passes to the next set of people, who don't make a decision, but recommend a course of action to the next group and so on. With each stage the dick option becomes more and more likely to be carried out, because at every stage the person is responsible to someone else who knows a little less about the issue, right the way up to the people paying money to fund managers who buy the shares)

A smaller company might have somebody prepared to make a principled stand, or even to have been set up on this basis (eg bodyshop, before it was sold to unilever)

I completely agree with what you've written. Increased information flow results in raising the amount of lost business and the expense of counter-marketing (and lowering the chance that it works). Thats why I think it is somewhat effective.

The only change in behavior has been FoxConn putting in nets to keep suicidal employees from successfully killing themselves by jumping off the building, rather than actually improving their treatment so they aren't suicidal.

Why? Because it's cheaper.

Foxconn more than doubled the wages they were paying at their Shenzhen factory. That is a significant increase. They should do more - especially in improving working conditions, but its not like they didn't change anything.

You mean the chiefs of the factory were shot by the Chinese government? Seriously, that's not a libertarian response. Looks more like an old-fashioned Soviet one, actually.
On the other hand, the stuff at Foxconn has had very small effects. But yes, I wish that reported abuse would impact profits and performance a lot more.

Oh thats definitely not a libertarian response
I meant more in the direction that they improved the quality of their products (by removing poison). But I'm with you that I would love more impact on profits.

Too bad I never heard about it:
++en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Carbide_Corporation#Sydney_Harbour
++en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster#Settlement_fund_hoax

I meant in the change of production methods. Thats why I point out the situation in first world countries. Such a disaster as at Bhopal or a scandal as at the Sydney harbour is almost unthinkable nowadays in a first world country, and would lead to huge problems for that company. Obviously governments play a large role in that, but the entire environmentalist movement came about because of pressure by the populace. You see the same thing starting to happen in China, where people are starting to demand better air quality, etc as their standard of living improves.

You are then advocating an anti-libertarian solution, but I guess that's natural since you said you only held these positions as a Devil's Advocate.

I wanted to see if anything useful could come out of the largely useless first post. And we are now at a situation where that is the case. And yes, my solution is strongly anti-libertarian, because in my view one large role of government is to take the views of the populace and implement them as far as possible. This obviously runs counter to the libertarian viewpoint.

Proof of the change?

I'll point to my reply to Terralthra further up this point: Foxconn more than doubled wages at the Shenzhen plant as a reaction to the high suicide rate. Something they only did after this high suicide rate became public - nicely illustrating my view of how increased information flow is useful.

See link above with Union Carbide and dioxin poisoning. Also, just reading some stuff on the recent Bayer activites and some actions of other corporations demonstrates, if anything, that the improvements had occured between 1900-1930 during the 1950-1970 period and basically since then there has been not much of an improvement. Sorry, but saying that it was some sort of boycott or whatever that improved the corporate behaviour in the First World is patently untrue. This behaviour was, is and remains improved only by corresponding legislation - which corporations continue to flaunt if they have the ability to do so. And which is evident that they would easily do had it not been the crushing power of the First World legalese, since in teh Third World they rely on practices which would result in massive legal trouble had it been done to First World citizens. Therefore the solution is not libertarian, the nature of corporate improvement is non-libertarian and corporations are the same shit as they were back in the early 1930s and if they had a legal way to make it just as it was back then, they would.

I agree. In a large part the influence of increased information flow is through the influence that information has on the government and not directly on profits.

Without the legal constraints it would be true. As one can see in excessively corrupt environments where the law is not being followed, corporations gladly use abusive practices, no matter how it is reported in the Internet, or in fact whether it is reported at all or not. So the only thing that changes the situation is the relatively low level of corruption in the First World which makes it impossible to flaunt labour-protecting and environment protecting laws so easily. If it was possible, no amount of public outrage would change one inch of corporate behaviour. That is the end of my argument, but I can bring yet more examples to show how strict adherence to law, not public surfacing of outrages, keeps corporations in their place.

Again, I agree, but would point out that the law in first world countries was a result of the outrage being expressed by certain groups of the population. And thats why I think more information is always a useful thing, because it pressures the government into doing something. As more and more people get access to information and are capable of putting it out there, the harder it gets for governments to ignore their views and the harder it gets for companies to ignore the laws.

[Terralthra]

The only change in behavior has been FoxConn putting in nets to keep suicidal employees from successfully killing themselves by jumping off the building, rather than actually improving their treatment so they aren't suicidal.

Why? Because it's cheaper.

Foxconn more than doubled the wages they were paying at their Shenzhen factory. That is a significant increase. They should do more - especially in improving working conditions, but its not like they didn't change anything.

Conceded. I had not heard about the wage increase. I'll point out that twice a little isn't a lot, though, especially considering the working conditions.

[Simon_Jester]

It's not so much the wages- it's the hours, the attitude of management, and the safety. As noted, working in a cloud of powdered aluminum is killing conditions.