Do Corporations in America Enslave?

employment in a corporation merely means that they rent our time and labor. And when they can find cheaper rent, they often cut ties with us who charge a higher rent in pursuit of the cheapest rent. Of course, when the cheapest rent is offered by those outside this country, then corporations show how loyal they are to this country. See the bottom line is often more important than the welfare of American Laborers and American neighborhoods.

Clear, concise, and to-the-point - how can anyone not understand that?

Part of your argument is exactly why there are supposed to be laws regulating the immigration of foreign labor into our market. The other part is about the laws regulating international trade and commerce. Obviously, some of our laws are not working in our favor, or else the enforcement of those laws has been skewed to favor certain parties. This should be corrected, and I have been petitioning my government for several years to do so. What to do? Reference the Declaration of Independence.

But you see what we're dealing with.

immigration laws, it includes our trade agreements that allow for our corporations to move manufacturing out of America and not care about wrecking their new environment or underpaying their employees.

But here is another issue, even with correction in the laws, we still have the rental issue. Why not have a stimulus program where the gov't starts up manufacturing centers that eventually become owned by workers.

Never ask a poor person or PAC to get you a job. Small business does do that if not penalized. Though a teacher and pastor, I have been a member of a local Chamber of Commerce for 16 years, the first pastor to do so in a small town of Downey, Ca. It is good to do so because one sees just how many job killers Dems in power prefer to job creators. The Chamber does have some sway. If you can, join one and put as much pressure as you can to push for jobs not crazed spending. thanks, Backyard for the reminders.

One for the archives. Thanks!

shame is that it made caday5 emerge to spew drivel. His rantings are devoid of empiricism, of knowledge (much less understanding) of history, and loaded to the gills with mad (not anger, mad).

Thanks to Garnet92, rakoons, and INTHENOW for their sensibleness. And thanks to you for your post.

what is the pay that those small businesses are giving? And please classify that by the kind of small business.

what you think is the ideal wage and price for everything.
Your question ignores the marketplace. People buy and sell, employ and gain employment based on need, desire, abundance or lack thereof. All these things and an infinite number of other variables determine prices and wages. But because you're a Socialist and think everything can be micro-managed, you cannot understand these things.

It is clear that when people work for $8 to $10 an hour, there is not much money they can spend on their families or much they can buy.

It is quite clear that these service sector jobs have caused the average worker's pay to either stagnate or drop--something that stats can show. It is also quite clear that the marketplace needs regulation because history shows that people try to get rich by cheating others. How many regulations one needs will determine whether it is micromanaging.

As for the socialist label, what does that mean? Nothing really. It is an umbrella term used by conservatives to marginalize views they don't like. Unfortunately, too many conservative are into discrediting others than thinking through the issues. And btw, did you know that both Martin Luther King and Helen Keller were socialists? And the man who wrecked our economy, George Bush, was not.

The Leftists here at TH and around America cannot follow your reasoning, because they willfully ignore the logic involved in Freedom, and the personal responsibility that comes with it. All together now everybody, THERE'S NO FREE LUNCH, AND LIFE IS EXTREMELY HARD. There, once again we've said it. If you don't like a job, don't take it. If you don't like a country, don't live in it. If you can't afford to do something, get off your rear end and do something about THAT. All we can and should do, is band together to protect the freedom of each other, and that includes from the gun held at our heads by the State in a Socialist Liberal Fascist regime.

and the conservatives here are in denial that we live in interdependence on each other.

to liberty, and to the PURSUIT of happiness. That I understand.

Liberty means that I have an unalienable right to do whatever I want with my property, as long as I do not infringe on another's like right.

Do I have a right to a job? No. Do I have a right to a "living wage"? No. If I'm working at a job, do I own the job? No. Given the unalienable right to liberty, what should be the federally-mandated minimum wage? Zero.

Does one have a right to healthcare? No. To say that one does is to say that one has a right to enslave others, to make them give away their property against their will.

Is it "fair" that one person is paid $7 per hour and another $20,000 per our? Of course. If I'm willing to exchange $7 for someone's time, talent and effort to get something done -- and no more -- I'll either get that or not. If I want someone to broadcast on my radio stations, achieve an audience of 20 million weekly, and ad revenues of $10 million weekly, I'd be willing to pay someone $20 million per year, if I had to. Maybe more, if I thought someone else might hire him away.

Do we have a recognized right to a livable wage, health care and so on in this country? No. Do we have a moral right? Yes--that is unless you think people are disposable.

So if some make more than me, that is fine. But that everyone has a right to work and live, read Martin Luther King on that to see an opposing view to the majority view expressed at the TH blogs.

"livable wage" or healthcare.

"Do we have a moral right? Yes--that is unless you think people are disposable." Both nonsequitur and drivel.

"But that everyone has a right to work and live, read Martin Luther King . . . " You have no RIGHT to work. You have an OBLIGATION to work. And you have no RIGHT to read MLK. If you have learned to read, and if you have either the money to buy a book or have a library card, and if you get yourself to either the store to purchase or library to borrow, THEN and only then you may have the opportunity and privilege of reading MLK.

You have no-nil-nada-zip-zilch right to anyone else's property. El zippo.

Most of the rest of the world disagrees with you. Unless you can say that we have no responsibility whatsoever for those who are without, then we have a moral responsibility. But at that point, you have answered the question Cain asked with a definite no. The problem Cain had was that just asking the question a sign of guilt.

But you can look at it another way, why should a person, or group of people, respect a system and the people that follow that system if that system does not respect their basic right to live.

refuse to connect, caday5.

Poverty --for all but the infinitessimal few who are mentally and/or physically utterly helpless -- is a behavioral disorder. Choices have consequences. Behaviors have consequences.

Even the above-described disabled have no RIGHT -- whether legal or moral -- to my property. For whatever reason -- conscience, misguided guilt, religious conviction, other -- if I choose to offer charity to those disabled, it will likely be of benefit. If I choose to offer charity to the masses with the above-described behavioral disorder, it will almost-surely enslave them and relegate them to ongoing -- albet unnecessary -- poverty.

I'm sure, caday5, that most of the rest of the world disagrees with me. It's called "wealth envy". There's a reason why the USA is the most-prodigiously-successful society in the history of humankind: liberty.

So where did you get your definition of poverty as being a behavioral disorder from?

I would initially guess, by the terminology you use, that it comes from a carefully studied research paper that was published in a peer-reviewed journal. Is that the case?

See, what you forget is that you are not solely responsible for your success. That is because we are interdependent, not independent. And many times, our wealth comes at the expense or even abuse of others. That is much of the explanation for discontent with the US. Much of our wealth comes from abusing others.

If you look at it Biblically you will that God commanded his people to share with the poor because what his people had they had by God's grace.

You keep all your money and answer Cain's question with a resonating NO! Then as people see you not respecting their right to live because they are human, see if they respect your right to keep your possessions.

specifically) want the government to enslave and not the corporation. In other words, the citizen "lives" for the government and not the government "living" for the citizen.

Enslavement is wrong, both by the corporation and by the government.

Frankly, this is why I am self-employed. I make the decisions concerning myself and what I do. (I admit it took almost 20 years as an engineer employed by others to reach a point where I could do this. But this was my plan from when I graduated from high school.)

But everyone can have this "mind-set". Just realize that you are self-employed, even if you work for a corporation. If you don't like what is happening at the corporation, find another job.

I want neither to enslave. The purpose of regulations is to keep one part of the private sector from enslaving another. But if an elected gov't does not represent the people, then regulations can be seen as harassment at the least.

So the point is to get gov't to represent the people so that it provides protection for its citizens from the abuses of other citizens.

My home computer caught a virus blocking my access to the internet, so I have not been able to engage here. C5 continues to "hold his own" here by blocking logic, facts, and history with only his ideology as a shield and a weapon. Isn't it funny that NO ONE ELSE is talking about "enslavement" in this country except C5? I'm afraid that either the vast majority of people don't agree with him, or maybe they're just happy being little "slaves to corporations".

I will reiterate: "there is a great degree of choice and free will" in this arrangement. Any of us may choose to work for a certain employer or not.

But what if one chose to not work at all? Is that person entitled to receive some of my income so they can eat, have a place to stay, maybe a car, a TV and a microwave oven? Does that person deserve to receive the same level of benefits of life in this country as the person who does work and EARNS his own living? I THINK NOT!

RE:Saturday, February, 14, 2009 4:31 PM
You said, "As for the socialist label, what does that mean? Nothing really."
You have claimed the Socialist label yourself on these pages and it does mean something. Socialism is the philosophy you hold that is antithetical to mine and the others commenting here. It is the philosophy that requires the government to take my money to feed, clothe, and house the sorry SOB in the question above. Yes, it DOES mean something.

That I am the only one talking about enslavement logically implies nothing. Remember, there was a time that only one man was talking about a future flood.

There is plenty of documentation that points to enslavement, in particular the documentation regarding the sweatshops and living conditions of the people employed by the sweatshops. They belong to the set of stakeholders of Capitalism because they are impacted by the system. If you want I can give you some examples.

But my guess is that you are not interested. Unfortunately, just like the harlot who captured the time and soul of a young man by using flattery, ideology often does the same here. That is, the ideology that makes us feel the most alive and significant, is the one we designate as true regardless of the facts. Here that ideology of rugged individualism and a me-first prosperity is very flattering. But the end result is not so pretty.

I find it amusing that you can denounce me without logically engaging with specific points I have made.

Excuse me, but I was under the impression that they were illegal. Which means, wherever they exist in this country, they no doubt employ ILLEGAL labor, which means that they are most likely ILLEGAL ALIENS, who are here because my government has ignored immigration laws and refused to enforce them for I don't know how many years. You see, it is mainly leftists who are blocking the enforcement of immigration laws, thereby tacitly allowing the formation of these illegal sweatshops. Americans, by and large will not work under such conditions. If you are talking about sweatshops in other countries, how are we going to affect that other than diplomatically?

The fact that you are the only one talking about "enslavement" implies that generally, it is NOT AN ISSUE. I am not enslaved, I don't involve myself in that activity, nor do I condone it. IT IS ILLEGAL! So, to the extent that "enslavement" exists, what can we do other than enforce the current laws? I advocate enforcement.

This has nothing to do with "rugged individualism" as the philosophical choice of many Americans. Rugged individualism does not imply any lack of sympathy to the terrible plight of others. It is a philosophy that holds fair play, individual responsibility, self-reliance, equality of opportunity, not outcome as major tenets. To the extent that any are enslaved, contrary to the law, the law should be brought into force and the guilty prosecuted.

sweatshops exist overseas and employ local people. But their work and living conditions are horrendous. This was the point of our policies in Central America in the 80s and our companies' practice of using sweatshops in Asia.

out of the woodwork with your excellent common sense post. My favorite part is the remeinder that we can revolt and overthrow. I for one am itching to do just that because I think it's the only thing that's going to work after all is said and done. The government is full of rot, especially on the left, but we have enough on the right also; Specter, Snowe and Collins comes to mind but there are more. Until and unless We The People knock them off their high horses, things will continue to get worse until at last we'll have no rights left at all, including the right to work for paying corporations. Great Post BMU.

Given that each of has an unalienable right to liberty (though in most parts of the world thuggish governments proscribe that right), anyone anywhere has an unalienable right to offer work to anyone anywhere and to stipulate remuneration and work conditions.

Given that each of has an unalienable right to liberty (though in most parts of the world thuggish governments proscribe that right), anyone anywhere has an unalienable right to accept or reject work from anyone anywhere, considering remuneration and work conditions.

Some ignoramus in America is bound to rant that the former should be shunned for operating a "sweatshop", that despite having quadrupled the latter's standard of living, and that despite the latter's productivity being, say, 1/20th of the average American.

A liberal is a liberal is a liberal. Ignorance is bliss. You just can't fix stupid.

Hey, close the "sweatshop". That'll help. ow all those folks can return to abject poverty.

You applaud what benefits you but curses others. If liberal = ignorance, you must be a die-hard liberal.

"sweatshops", caday5. I benefit from liberty; everyone does. Your post is both nonsequitur and illiterate.

Liberal does not equal ignorance. At one level, you're saying that a person equals a condition. That's stupid. It's a stupid as saying, "Peace is patriotic." It's as stupid as saying, "Give peace a chance."

In many cases, liberalISM seems the result of ignorance, but in many other cases, it seems the result of stupidity, and in the latter cases in can't be fixed.

Was you brother an only child?

He just likes me.
Yes, the government is full of rot, and it's getting more rotten and more smelly by the day.
As I've told C5 before, it's not corporations we have to worry about in this country, it's the government. The government legitimately exercises the force of arms to enforce the laws of the land. However, it is the government that has often, in the past and in many places in the world, used the force of arms in an illegitimate manner. Taking away rights and freedoms from the people. And I'm not talking about phony rights like abortion, gay marriage, and such. I don't find those in the Constitution.

You are right that "sweatshops" in many parts of the world DO improve the living conditions of many of those who work there. If we want to give everybody in the world a better living condition, export Capitalism.

we benefit from our own liberty but in terms of economics, people are cursed by capitalism as well as blessed. Capitalism is not liberty. In fact, the neoliberalism we follow today works against liberty because it allows elite groups in the private sector to rule over others by controlling the economy. The less government, the more we are vulnerable to the private sector groups with power and money.

What is said here is simply a denial of the sin of the private sector and a demonization of the gov't. If the gov't is elected, then it is the voters' responsibility to make sure that the gov't represents them. Of course, your view is a minority view, then you first have to win the minds of fellow citizens.