Comments on: Sweatshops, Tacos, and Wal-Mart: What are the Critics Criticizing?

By: Ned Netterville

Ned Netterville — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 03:05:28 +0000

Bob: An employee is an agent of the stockholders who are deemed to be the principals in their relationship. For time immemorial it has been an axiomatic that a principal is responsible for the actions of his or her agents taken during the ordinary course of the agent’s duties. (http://www.knowledgesutra.com/forums/topic/59228-agent-principal-relationships.)

By: Inspector Ketchup

Inspector Ketchup — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 02:32:20 +0000

Wrong logic, you are in a race to unemployment because the Chinese don’t have such minimum wages, therefore they will outcompete those US with minimum wages.

But generally, the minimum wage sector is the service sector. I’m not sure that a McDonald’s employee serving your double cheeseburger order at Fort Knox is competing with a Chinese employee serving the same food at Peking ?

Such work generates very little return on investment and therefore the minimum wage create situations where it’s no longer profitable to hire such a worker because the wealth generated by the worker is not enough to cover his wage.

Minimum wage creates unemployment and higher goods prices.

By: Inspector Ketchup

Inspector Ketchup — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 02:27:25 +0000

What if he commits that harm by using the company’s resources ?
And what if, that harm was not the main motive but profit was the main motive, that is the harm is a by product of the employee’s work ?

And what if, because of the activities of the harmful employee, the company is making a lot of money ?

Who’s responsible ?

By: Inspector Ketchup

Inspector Ketchup — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 02:23:56 +0000

And I complain about my local grocery store, last day I bought a water melon and almost 50% of the weight of the watermelon is water, they are basically advertising a fruit and selling me water, that’s false advertisement.

By: Inspector Ketchup

Inspector Ketchup — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 02:13:48 +0000

In sweat shops, workers are not necessarily working there five to seven days a week, it so happens that members of a family rotate the work at the sweat shop so that one day it’s the father, the next day it’s the mother, the other day it’s the older brother while they also rotate the chores at the farm, taking care of cattle, the kids, day care for the village etc.

Or if it’s not a day, they rotate for a week or two.

Some work at sweat shops is supplemental while they keep a low expense life style at their land etc.

In that case, they don’t increase their expenses by having to rent at the city, they just pay their transport and rotate with family members to not need to have a permanent dwelling there.

This helps to pay for better equipment to make crops. A mixed economy.

Those that depend solely on the sweatshop and must have an apartment in the city are those who are having it really rough.

By: Walt D.

Walt D. — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 17:50:38 +0000

Minimum Income = Minimum wage/per hr x hours worked.
However, hours worked can be zero, particularly if the minimum wage eliminates the job, or outsources the job.
So, regardless of where the minimum wage is set, the minimum income is zero.

By: Stefano

Stefano — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 17:40:09 +0000

billwald-False; irrational, too. FDR is the reason for the minimum wage-1935.

And even if your point wasn’t historically inaccurate, explain how a minimum wage aid us in the glorious struggle against the evil yellow peril?

By: Stefano

Stefano — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 17:36:02 +0000

I made pasta for dinner. If my wife sued me because I told her I was making pasta, but I also made salad and added sauce to the noodles, at what point was I guilty of fraud?

By: billwald

billwald — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 16:17:09 +0000

Free trade is the reason for minimum wage. US workers are competing with Chinese and Indian workers, not other US workers. Without a minimum wage we are in a race to the bottom.

By: Bob Kaercher

Bob Kaercher — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 15:56:07 +0000

Ned: If a corporation’s employee commits some harm to someone, why should shareholders who had nothing to do with it be held responsible for it anyway?

By: Ned Netterville

Ned Netterville — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 15:16:26 +0000

Business corporations large and small are legal fictions operating under the aegis of State laws that protect the corporation owners (viz., the stockholders) from full responsibility (viz., personal liability beyond their stock investment) for the business activities of legal-fiction corporations. Interventions by the State into the operation of the free market include this legal-fiction shielding. This corporatism masquerading as capitalism is ubiquitous and largely responsible for the heavy burden of regulation imposed by the State on the free market. And it sullies the reputation of capitalism. The requirement of taking full responsibility for one’s actions is so basic to the concept of individual liberty that I do not think it behooves libertarians, and certainly not anarchists, to defend businesses whose owners use the State’s police powers to shirk the fullness of their responsibilities.

By: J. Murray

J. Murray — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 11:01:02 +0000

I did Google it and all I see are a bunch of activists with egg on their face for going forward with a lawsuit without bothering to check the facts. Which is why I asked *YOU* for the evidence since you seem to continue on this tirade despite everyone else sulking back to their UFO conventions to cook up new conspiracies.

By: David

David — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 04:34:44 +0000

Humans in general prefer more salt over less because sodium is a vital nutrient for human function. There’s a reason we have an entire area of taste buds devoted to “saltiness.”

By: DD5

DD5 — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 03:22:38 +0000

A citizen is also a government construct. Is it OK to embrace any citizens?

By: Anthony

Anthony — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 02:35:39 +0000

Grant,

I have to disagree with your statement that “calling it beef when it is not just beef is false advertisement”. If they said “100% beef” or made some other claim that it is 100 beef then fine, but if they just advertised a taco with ground beef then I don’t necessarily see the problem. They obviously add sauce to the meat, along with salt, spice, etc. Do those things violate the claim that it is a beef taco? If not, then why does filler in the beef violate the claim?

By: augusto

augusto — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 02:14:08 +0000

I don’t understand the essence of your post. There was suspicion that Taco Bell was committing fraud. The suspicion turned into an investigation. Taco Bell acknowledged the advertisement wasn’t clear and changed it. Information is now available about Taco Bell’s beef content. Case closed. What else do you want?

By: John

John — Mon, 06 Jun 2011 23:45:38 +0000

Actually, if you paid attention to the news. The lawsuit was dropped against Taco Bell because they had no case.

http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=13404907&sid=74

http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=taco+bell+beef&hl=en&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&biw=1440&bih=780&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ncl=dP7hJqA__Sb8wUM&ei=amXtTdTpMqPY0QGGo9ikAQ&sa=X&oi=news_result&ct=more-results&resnum=3&ved=0CEEQqgIwAg

By: Grant

Grant — Mon, 06 Jun 2011 23:44:32 +0000

And to answer the primary question, some criticize corporatism.

Not so sure how other anarcho-capitalists can embrace corporations since a corporation is a government construct:

“A corporation is a legal entity that is created under the laws of a state designed to establish the entity as a separate legal entity having its own privileges and liabilities distinct from those of its member.”

By: Grant

Grant — Mon, 06 Jun 2011 23:40:16 +0000

That’s too true. Pizza Hut is an offense to New York style pizza. I’d rather get on a plane and fly all the way across the country for a slice before eating Pizza Hut. Nas-T!

The lawsuit, even though it was dropped (it achieved its intended effect), show how the courts are the best way to deal with instances of false advertisement and/or fraud. Isn’t that an essential pillar of libertarianism?

By: Grant

Grant — Mon, 06 Jun 2011 21:18:25 +0000

“you can look up what their beef contains.”Yes, you can AFTER the lawsuit against Taco Bell. Please show me a list of ingredients published BEFORE the lawsuit. Certainly, claiming something as beef and calling it beef when it is not just beef is false advertisement. (Your red herrings about prices aside.)

I agree that should a person not like a product, they shouldn’t eat it. However, if the producer sells that product as beef when it is in fact not all beef, that’s fraud.

It’s like my apartment owner advertising my apartment at 890 square feet when it is in reality 750 square feet. That’s false advertisement and fraud.

I’m surprised to see fellow anarcho-capitalists condoning fraud and distracting away from it using red herrings.