GEORGE SOROS SUPPORTS HIGHER TAXES ON RICH; HOW NICE OF HIM!

Insights, indeed, from a Sith Lord.

I saw George Soros on Fareed Zakaria’s CNN show tonight. You have got to laugh when hearing the moronicity coming out of their mouths. Fareed going on about how socially concerned Soros is, and Soros welcoming the praise, adding to such praise even. Look, I’m such a philanthropist, if only all rich people were like me, poverty would be eradicated, blah blah.

Can Soros really claim that his philanthropy and taxes are more than what he receives in bailouts/crony deals/central bank ‘puts’?

THE BENEVOLENCE OF DELUSION, OR THE DELUSION OF BENEVOLENCE

I have a hard time believing anyone could be so stupid or wicked, so I’m guessing he’s just plain deluded. Soros equates the health of his crony investments to the well-being of society, so it’s no wonder he feels so noble about being the beneficiary of bailouts. He very well knows that if the US government goes bankrupt, his companies will go under as well, so it’s no wonder he supports the call for the rich to ‘pay their fair share.’

This is where your taxes go!

Aside from his false charity, it’s just downright bad economics to believe that giving more money to the institution that caused this crisis in the first place (government) is going to help matters.

WHY LISTEN TO THEM?... ARE YOU A MORON?!

George Soros and Warren Buffett try to portray themselves as different from the rest of the insanely rich cronies in the financial sector, by citing how charitable they are, and by reciting platitudes about how they want to distribute more wealth to the poor. Don’t believe it. It’s no coincidence that they’re among the richest of the rich, while the economy is in the doldrums ― they are part of the problem.

The rich-poor divide can be narrowed, indeed, but a major part of such an achievement will require the opposite of higher taxes and increased government control over people’s lives. The first step to recovery is a removal of political privilege, which has poisoned the financial sector and along with it the ‘real’ economy.

WHITNEY HOUSTON DIES AT 48; IS SELF-LOVE REALLY ‘THE GREATEST LOVE OF ALL’?

Ah, growing up in the 1980s. 

Give them a glass of milk...

Details are still hazy as to what caused Whitney Houston’s death, but I would like to touch upon her admitted drug problem in any case. It’s notable to me in connection with one of her early hits, ‘The greatest love of all,’ whose lyrics [new tab] are a rare phenomenon in pop music: a nod to ‘the virtue of selfishness,’ a term popularized by Ayn Rand.

You would think that someone singing about developing self-esteem early on in a child would be able to face the hardships of fame without developing addictions. But apparently, “learning to love yourself” was not enough to keep Houston out of rehab.

I admit that my depiction of events is quite simplistic, and only the person themselves, if anyone at all, can understand what they have gone through. But my main point is that it is quite easy to sing about self-love (not a euphemism); it’s another thing to direct one’s energies in a healthy, holistic manner.

BEING SELFISH AND KEEPING FOCUS

When one reads Ayn Rand’s ‘selfish’ heroes who succeed against the establishment, this can serve as inspiration for accomplishing difficult feats in one’s life.

I know that ‘The fountainhead’ helped me, in however small a way, conquer a mini-crisis I was facing at the time I read the book. Sometimes, when being driven to do something unexpected or unsettling, you have to drill in yourself, mantra-like, “I have to be selfish here, I have to be selfish...”

However, the desire to satisfy one’s self may lead one to lose focus as to what it is that one actually wants. One might do a ‘selfish’ act simply to make a statement, rather than to accomplish something good. To insist on acting for one’s self doesn’t automatically mean that one’s decisions will be healthy.

Being ‘selfish’ may even indicate a reluctance or fear to expand one’s worldview. This is a prelude to ‘capital consumption’ of one’s mind, that is, an atrophying in mental staleness.

WHY THE SELFISH-UNSELFISH DUALISM AT ALL?

Man is a social being. But seeking self-interest should not be looked down upon. Actually, the problem is in supposing a dichotomy at all between ‘selfish’ and ‘unselfish’ acts. In truth all acts could not be for other than the self. What varies is the timeframe on which such selfish acts are based.

(Private property and free trade have developed alongside humanity’s lengthened timeframes for action. The mentality of acquisition-by-force as exemplified by the state, is a vestige of mindless savagery.)

It is often easier to give in to other people’s wills ― being ‘altruistic’ ― even as this slowly eats away at your potential. It’s tougher to summon enough ‘capital of will’ to assert one’s long-term valuations.

FINAL REMARKS

To shun society hinders interactions by which one otherwise attains self-growth. 

What is stultifying is not so much doing things ‘for others,’ but rather the notion of an external duty to do so, of acting against one’s longer-term evaluations.

(As we know, ‘duty’ is often cited as a pretext for state expropriation of private property.)

In the process of discovering and realizing one’s values, one must be wary of defying for the sake of defying, in ways that hinder fruitful ‘socially-oriented’ endeavors, or defying out of a narrow view as to what constitutes one’s happiness.

It would be careless to judge Whitney Houston’s character on the little that I know, but her death at 48 years old can serve as a reminder that conscious recognition of one’s worth is only the first step in a long road to self-actualization.

THE PHILIPPINES AND COLOMBIA: SOME OMINOUS PARALLELS

The own-goal that cost Andre Escobar his life.

I just watched ‘The two Escobars’ (2010) [new tab], a documentary about two Escobars (naturally) from Colombia who died violent deaths related to the drug trade in the 1990s. Pablo Escobar was a billion-dollar drug lord, and Andres Escobar was Colombia’s football team captain, most famous for scoring in his own goal, costing Colombia the 1994 World Cup. Andres was shortly after killed in an altercation with mobsters furious at his mistake. These events weren’t that long ago; you might have read them in the papers when they happened.

SUPERFICIAL GIMMICKS FOR SHOW

It struck me that the Colombian situation related quite well to the Philippines. Here was a country whose own government was intent on cleaning up its image via superficial means, that is, by aiding in the success of their football team.

Pablo Escobar

I don’t know how it would have mattered if Colombia went on to win the World Cup, if underlying factors made for a perpetuation of violence and instability in the country. But apparently, politicians like then-president César Gaviria were satisfied with having their football team overshadow harsher realities, or perhaps they hoped that a champion football team would translate to a growing economy.

In the Philippines, the situation isn’t too far off. We have a Department of Tourism which managed to come up with “It’s more fun in the Philippines” [new tab], but what is there to show for such a claim? How long can Filipinos bank on the country’s natural wonders, when much of it remains undevelopable (due to lack of capital)? Add to that the fact that most Filipinos are in poverty; conflict rages in Mindanao; journalism is an especially dangerous profession; traffic sucks; etc.

And then there’s the Manny Pacquiao phenomenon, where being ‘proud to be Filipino’ is supposed to make a difference in people’s lives. Heck, there’s that semi-successful football team, the Azkals, behind which Filipinos rally. At least Colombia managed to make it past the qualifiers.

SPORTS FUNDING VIA FREEDOM, NOT MOB SUBSIDIES

Traffic. More fun in Colombia!

The success of Colombia’s football team is attributed to funding by Pablo Escobar, a football fanatic. After Pablo’s death, much of the financing stopped. Many in the documentary believed that sans drug money, Colombian football was doomed. To me, this is a rather myopic view of the situation.

With a community largely in poverty, it is only natural that people’s priorities will not be recreational activities like sports. But as prosperity grows, so does demand for ‘non-essentials.’ One would be mistaken to believe that it takes coercive funding for programs to succeed.

Football doesn’t need a drug lord benefactor or government subsidies; it needs the growth of capital, which is best achieved by leaving businesses alone to seek ways to satisfy consumers. From this profit motive comes employment, output and a better standard of living.

Some analysts are bullish on Colombia [new tab], partly due to increasing economic freedom in the area. If such freedom and progress are sustained, I’d wager that the country’s soccer program would take off once again.

Similarly, the Philippine government should lay off on funding sports. It can very well abolish the Philippine Sports Commission, and should just get out of the way of markets. If a certain sport succeeds, this should be on account of consumer preferences, and not the whims and guesses of politicians.

BEAT DRUGS BY HEALTH AWARENESS, NOT CRIMINALIZATION

drugpolicy.org

Like most governments, the Philippine government is on a ‘war on drugs.’ Such a war is futile, even counterproductive. If politicians were really sincere in stopping the violent operations of drug lords, they would stop prohibition.

Who do you think suffers the most when drugs are legalized? Is it the youth? The mothers?

No, it’s the mobsters themselves, who find their monopoly in jeopardy. They now have to face legit competitors, which brings prices down and makes the business far less lucrative. With competition also comes higher quality and safety standards, and more openness to seek assistance in cases of addiction. Whatever horrors society faces by a legalization of dangerous drugs, the alternative, of market capture by violent elements, is always worse.

FINAL WORDS

Stability of a community rests on more than popular memes and celebrity teams. The Philippine situation may not be as bad as what goes on in Latin America, but this shouldn’t lure us into complacency. Alas, it may take a crisis of some proportion for Filipinos to see beyond cheap gimmickry and ethnocentric diversions.

PIERS MORGAN OWNS RON PAUL; RON PAUL WANTS BRITISH SOLDIERS TO DIE

A couple of months back, I caught a little bit of Michael Moore on Piers Morgan. The two loved each other, as they were getting off on their own ideas of ‘good capitalism.’ 

According to Moore, the goodness or badness of capitalism was in the “attitude” of the businessmen who practiced it. If a businessman was just doing it for the money and didn’t like being taxed, he was a ‘bad’ capitalist. However, if he was socially aware, gave to charities and took joy in the government expropriating his income, he was a ‘good’ capitalist. An example of the latter, according to Moore, is Warren Buffett.

It didn’t surprise me when Piers Morgan, in interviewing Ron Paul a couple of days ago, dropped the name of Buffett [new tab] as evidence that giving to the government was not a bad thing. Here’s a guy, said Morgan of Buffett, who was begging the government to tax him.

SAVE THE POOR, O GOVERNMENT, BECAUSE ONLY YOU GIVE A SHIT

Let’s assume that Buffett isn’t the politically connected honcho that he is. I think that Piers should be encouraged by the fact that someone is willingly being charitable sans government. This would mean that with all these bleeding hearts around such as Piers himself, coercion is not needed after all for people to aid the less fortunate (not to say that coercion makes constituents more charitable).

“Attitude” doesn’t make for a political system. I can just imagine Michael Moore lobbying for the legislation of “Right Attitude Capitalism.” What a truly stupid idea. No, what matters is whether profits are arrived at via political (coercive) or economic (non-coercive) means.

BAILOUTS AT THE EXPENSE OF RECOVERY

And then there was Piers’ claim that bailouts work! General Motors is still around, so the money used to prop up the failing auto giant must have been used wisely!

Oh no! We must save the expression 

‘Kodak Moment’ from becoming one of irony!

With such logic, the government should have stepped in when Kodak went bankrupt a month ago. Of course, such a bailout would have been to the prejudice of consumers whose preferences in digital photography were better satisfied by Kodak’s competitors.

Or does Piers think that the competitors of GM and Kodak, not to mention other sectors, have no capacity to create jobs? That the government alone knows or knows best with regards to job creation and productivity?

THE NEW ‘STIMULUS’: HEAD IN THE SAND

Piers was at his most pathetic in his attempt to discredit Ron Paul when he cited the drop in the rate of unemployment from 8.5% to 8.3%, which to Piers showed that Obama was on the right track. And when Ron Paul explained that the drop was a result of statistical wizardry (lowering the number of people counted in the work force, by 1.25 million), Piers seemed outraged at this party-pooper who refused to escape from reality. How could you, Piers appeared to imply, don’t you know that economies run on confidence and good spirits?

Are we then to believe that if the government fudged the numbers so as to bring unemployment down to 1%, the joy felt by people would spur people to prosperity and overcome the truth?

RON PAUL HATES BRITISH, POLICEMEN

You mean the impending war on Iran is about OIL?!

I wouldn’t be surprised to see Ron Paul’s ironic statement, about letting British soldiers die in place of American soldiers, being taken out of context so as to make him appear like a cold-hearted isolationist who hates British people like Piers Morgan. Of course, Ron Paul was just trying to express how wrong it was to place a duty on any particular citizens, Americans in this case, for the sake of maintaining the US’ role of ‘policeman of the world.’

It is truly wondrous that the Obama administration is able to scare the population into supporting another war, just nine years after the failed Iraq war (which is still going on) began. The same arguments, and the same tactic ― striking fear ― are used, and effectively.

I recommend for you to read Doug Casey’s recent conversation about Iran [new tab].

ABORTION

Ron Paul was weakest in his argument against abortion, as he resorted to old talking points, but Piers’ argument, that abortion was an act of liberty, was worse. Considering that he thinks that violating one’s property rights is in keeping with another’s ‘rights’ to education, health care, etc., it’s no surprise that Piers believes that a mother is ‘free’ to harm a human fetus.

FINAL REMARKS

Piers Morgan would fit right in with the Jon Stewart clip [new tab] of mainstream media blatantly ignoring Ron Paul’s presence in polls. I myself have heard Piers enumerate the GOP candidates to the exclusion of Ron Paul. You’d think this meant Ron Paul was such a small presence, but I have never seen Piers so disoriented and way over his head, not to mention biased against his guest.

Libertarianism. Where being consistent 

is not necessarily a bad thing!

We need not suppose that Piers has puppet masters pulling his strings and telling him how to discredit Ron Paul (“Make him look cruel, but give him some token points for being a family man”). It does seem that Piers believes the stupidities he defends.

To Piers Morgan, consistency in views is mere hard-headedness and inflexibility to changing times. Indeed, if someone starts off making careless opinions based on what is fed to them by the media, it would be foolish to be obstinate.

But if someone arrives at ideas which, although not perfect, remain unchallenged by better paradigms, is it really a fault to be consistent? 

RELIGION, THE STATE, AND THE ADVANCE OF THE HUMAN MIND

Outline:

Part I

Collectivism

Nationalism and the ‘closed-bible’ outlook

Being ‘chosen’ is isolationism

Part II

Primitive bloodlust and the state as keeper of order

Prohibition and legislation never make for change

Part III

Scripture as political propaganda

Who hears the voice of God? Politicians of course

Was God a monarchist?

The voice of God passes to the heirs

Christianity: a new ethics

Part IV

Faith

The Bible as myth

Contra Bible positivism

Final remarks

***

PART I

COLLECTIVISM

In religion, particularly Judaism and Christianity, a collectivistic attitude manifests itself in different ways. 

In the Bible, the works of numerous authors over several centuries are treated as a single ‘good book’ with a supposed singular God theme.

This is to the prejudice of the authors and prophets whose works are complete in themselves. Imagine J.K. Rowling being lumped together with Stephen King by future readers, in a book called ‘The 21^st-century fiction book,’ and you can begin to realize how ridiculous is this ‘book collectivism.’

The books that comprise the Bible are so varied in terms of style and substance, not to mention quality. David’s psalms suffer in their being associated with other books that chronicle in pedantic fashion such boring genealogies of no spiritual significance.

NATIONALISM AND THE ‘CLOSED-BIBLE’ OUTLOOK

To imagine that ‘The Word of God’ or ‘The Gospel of the Lord’ are limited to works of several tribes who lived in a rather small section of the world, is a folly of the ethnocentric, and makes for staleness. 

Cary Grant, a premiere figure 

in the 19th-century 

transcendentalism 

movement

200 years ago, Ralph Waldo Emerson lamented the attitude of many Christians in believing that the time of ‘divine inspiration’ has come and gone long before:

With each new mind, a new secret of nature transpires; nor can the Bible be closed, until the last great man is born. ― ‘Uses of great men,’ from Representative men

BEING ‘CHOSEN’ IS ISOLATIONISM

A more obvious display of collectivism is the idea of being a ‘chosen people,’ where everyone else is a Philistine. How can trade prosper and expand when the idea of being chosen over others is taken to heart?


Pharaoh was a villain, not because he practiced slavery. Slavery was socially acceptable at the time, even by Jews. No, Pharaoh was a villain because he was not an Israelite.

Today, as Judaism and Christianity are practiced all around the world, the idea of being chosen has shifted from one concerning race, to one concerning creeds ― still a collectivistic, divisive attitude.

But actually, by the time of Jesus’ ‘Good Samaritan,’ the Jewish notion of being ‘chosen’ had begun to lose ground. That the Gospel’s philosophy is so different from anything previous just emphasizes the variety of views expressed in the many books we generalize as the Bible: another point against book collectivism.

***

PART II

PRIMITIVE BLOODLUST AND THE STATE AS KEEPER OF ORDER

What did the preacher mean by saying that the good are miserable in the present life?... The legitimate inference the disciple would draw was, -- ‘You sin now; we shall sin by and by; we would sin now, if we could; not being successful, we expect our revenge to-morrow.’ ― Ralph Waldo Emerson, ‘Compensation,’ from Essays, First Series

 

Considering that God punishes disobedient folk with horrible deaths or an eternal afterlife of misery, is it so hard to understand why the initiation of violence on others in the name of morality is so prevalent in society today? That the monopoly on arms known as government is turned to as solution to supposed ‘market failures’?

PROHIBITION AND LEGISLATION NEVER MAKE FOR CHANGE

To believe that reform or justice are meted out through coercion is simply bad psychology. Coercive prohibition on anything, even murder, never alters attitudes; it merely modifies behaviors only so that such appalling attitudes manifest in other forms of behavior.

This principle helps us understand why top-down approaches (legislation as means of ‘change’), central planning, and even nagging, are ineffective.

Yogi Paramahansa Yogananda speculated 

that Elijah and Elisha were previous incarnations 

of 

John the Baptist and Jesus, respectively. 

Far out!

Social change occurs via evolution of mentalities, with any corresponding legislation being merely indicative and not causal of such change.

(For libertarians rooting for Ron Paul, their attention should be not so much on his being elected as on the drastic altering of mindsets that would make Ron Paul electable.)

As it is, even present criminal elements as most manifest in the state are a factor in the maturing of individuals in a yet-adolescent species.

***

PART III

SCRIPTURE AS POLITICAL PROPAGANDA

In my grown understanding of political economy, much of the Old Testament, in particular the two Kings books, reads like political propaganda. Makes you wonder if campaign speeches and commercials of today will end up as scripture 3,000 years from now.

Let’s consider some of the BS the people back then were made to swallow by their leaders.

WHO HEARS THE VOICE OF GOD? POLITICIANS OF COURSE

For one, the voice of God is supposedly heard by only a select few: politicians. And given that it’s God speaking and sanctioning whatever genocidal acts are committed by kings, everyone else should take heed, lest they be struck by lightning.

WAS GOD A MONARCHIST?

How brilliant was it to envision an ultimate being, ‘God,’ dictating his will via coercive leaders. Can a true-blue freedom-loving anarchist really believe that an all-wise being considered monarchy a viable political system?

THE VOICE OF GOD PASSES TO THE HEIRS

Even political nepotism, ‘keeping it in the family,’ is to be taken as a given. Today, we know how backwards such a view is. In the evolution of humanity over time, the relevance of actual genetic relations fades, in favor of associating among people according to ideas.

Emphasis on lineages and tribes is yet another mark of primitivism that ought to be discarded in a society where economic and intellectual capital are vastly increased.

CHRISTIANITY: A NEW ETHICS

The New Testament clearly perpetuates the father-son theme, even as in most everything else a revolution in morality begins. Given prominence in Christianity, is the matter of forgiveness, even to the point of denial of one’s organism. ‘Strength’ becomes a matter of humility rather than obvious shows of political might.

Finally, an excuse to use Bruce Lee in my blog!

Jesus’ ability to craft a more life-responsive system of morals in contrast to stale ‘pharisitical’ dogma is like Jeet Kune Do to the Jewish ‘Kung Fu’ of the time.

What a scandal was caused by this guy who:

• defied written law (“The Sabbath was made for man”);
• touted individualism over tribalism (“I am come not to bring peace but the sword”);
• found value even in transgressions against one’s person (“Turn the other cheek”); and
• neither condoned nor condemned established sinners.

Yet it is too simplistic to suppose that the Old Testament was crude and the New Testament refined. The story of David and Goliath, for example, is an early tale of the power of the mind over brute strength.

***

PART IV

FAITH

Like Zoolander, we often ask ourselves: 

“Who am I?”

Faith will always have a place in our lives. Even with our advanced sciences we could not settle very elementary aspects of our existence. Reason can only go so far. We could not know beyond what we perceive.

Kant’s paradoxical ‘antinomy’ of space and time remains irresolvable. How could we reconcile existence’s seeming infiniteness (because there will always have to be something beyond the end), yet necessary finiteness (because there must be a limit to everything)?

The fragility of our states of mind is understood in mystical experience, which promises new ways of perceiving life but remains non-conveyable to those who have not had it. We have to concede that all we know is derived from whatever frameworks we have, but frameworks themselves are ever-changing and unique. ‘Ultimate’ knowledge, even of the smallest detail, escapes us.

THE BIBLE AS MYTH

Yet this should not be an excuse for throwing one’s self (taking a ‘leap’) to worship whatever one may imagine to be ‘God.’ The enduring value of traditional religious literature remains mythical or symbolical, independent of historical phenomena. A more intellectually advanced folk would look to Jesus’ life and ministry in the analogical way we look at the creation story, which most of us realize did not occur 7,000 years ago.

CONTRA BIBLE POSITIVISM

Indeed, ‘faith’ is applicable to a priori matters alone. To ask “Did so-and-so really die for us?” or “Was his mom conceived without sin?” is just as futile and unproductive as focusing on Newton’s falling apple as opposed to the principles of physics on which Newton expounded.

Taking the above in consideration, we understand the popular quote of “For those who believe, no proof is necessary” more deeply. Faith simply has nothing to do with reason.

***

FINAL REMARKS

What fun!

There’s no getting around that in one’s intellectual development in the two touchy topics of religion and politics, much of one’s preconceptions must be reassessed, if not utterly abandoned. A willingness to do so has more to do with one’s psychological disposition as opposed to mere intelligence.

However much one succeeds in expanding their understanding, I believe that present unhealthy and inefficient fixations on past modes of living and thinking will be shed off ― eventually. Short of a cosmic or nuclear wipeout that is.

***

Related links:

Eid-Al Fitr 2011 and the Muslim threat

The role of religion, an excerpt from my essay collection ‘The new president...’

THE STATE IS WAR; WHY DON’T YOU GET IT?

War... adds spice to a life of mediocrity.

My exposure to local current events is limited to a few clips of the stupid Corona impeachment trial, which has been appalling, my tongue-in-cheek remarks [new tab] last week notwithstanding.

It’s considered natural by most folks to see executives of private companies being summoned to the Senate and made to explain the way they conduct business, e.g. the giving of discounts to certain influential people. Apparently, the government has all the right to harass individuals and threaten them if they don’t show up in court.

Of course government intrusion isn’t limited to forced summons. More significant are the regulations and taxes imposed on the pretext of ensuring ‘a level playing field’ or ‘fairness’ or for the protection of people’s ‘right’ to work, to be educated, to receive health care, etc.

NO GETTING AROUND IT

What is so hard to grasp about the fact that the state is first and foremost an instrument of coercion, of violence?

Just last week I said [new tab]:

It is with the expansion of the time horizon of Homo Sapiens that free trade and property came about. The necessity of killing competitors for the acquisition of a meal was eliminated, in that interactions between ‘foreigners’ became mutually beneficial.

He has better ideas, I suppose.

YEAH, BUT...

Yet even when someone concedes that, yes, the state is inherently coercive, what makes them turn to the state as a means of economic redistribution?

Such an attitude can only be sustained when one is trapped in a paradigm of war. In it, one assumes that people can never get along. The only way things can be settled, the only way that the weak majority can get ahead, is by trumping the powerful class via politics.

A NEVERENDING CYCLE OF POOR LOGIC

Ironic how it is precisely via the state that the ‘bourgeoisie’ continues to oppress the less well-to-do. But this is not seen by the self-styled proletariat. To them, riches equate to political influence. In fact, such adverse political influence is only possible when a majority is there to believe that such political influence is necessary for social order.

Moron.

Sans government control, the proletariat/consuming public have the ultimate say as to the distribution of resources ― you can’t get more ‘democratic’ than that.

FINAL REMARKS

Not to say that conflict will be eradicated upon the abolition of governments. But there are private solutions to this: self-defense, and arbiters that compete for public confidence.

One ultimately believes in peaceful interactions among people ― the market, for lack of a more populist word ― or unending war, the latter justifying the perpetuation of government. The state is war; do you get it now?

APPLE EXPLOITING CHINESE WORKERS? KEEP THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF IT

Coerced... to wear these crappy blue hats!

I can imagine many an advocate of liberty drawing the line when it comes to having multibillion-dollar companies like Apple paying dirt-cheap wages to workers in China, who have to cope with hazardous, horrendous working conditions.

Yet one’s lamentation of the situation should not equate to more regulations and restrictions on employers.

My suspicion is that these reports are in line with US congressmen’s push for protectionistic ‘Made in America’ or anti-BPO legislation such as US House Bill 3596. But let’s focus on the issue of worker ‘exploitation,’ and whether government intervention would indeed save poor laborers from their ‘bondage.’

VOLUNTARY LABOR IS NOT SLAVERY

We have to distinguish between slavery, which entails forced detention and bodily threats, to voluntary labor, even if the latter involves very unfavorable conditions. My understanding of the situation is that Apple’s China workers, dealing with next-to-nothing paychecks, have no other options available to them. Whatever growth China has experienced has not been fast enough to undo the shit that Mao’s and Mao-like policies have wreaked on the population.

So if Apple were prohibited from hiring in the area, or were coerced via regulations to pay above-market wages and increase safety measures, these workers would be left jobless, or less of them accommodated. The current situation may not be pretty, but the consequences of intervention would be worse.

REFUSE TO BUY

Okay that is it, I am not going to buy this 

overpriced crap. Not that I ever planned to.

Even as Apple should be free to hire wherever they want and offer very limited benefits, this does not mean that their customer base or people in general won’t be appalled enough to stage a boycott (if the reports are true, that is). 

Heck, although iPads, iPhones and iPods are not ‘sulit’ for me to begin with, knowing about how such products are made may give me more reason not to support Steve Jobs’ creations.

It’s like how people can refuse to buy fur coats, knowing that animals are bludgeoned to death to make them. Or with diamonds, which are often the product of what would be correctly considered as (government-perpetuated) slavery.

IF GOVERNMENT CAN KILL FOR ‘MORALS,’ WHY NOT ANYBODY?

By preventing the hiring of cheap labor from abroad, the cost of everything goes up, and this makes for poorer living standards in general, which further delays whatever improvement in living conditions can be hoped for by poor workers.

The overall adverse long-term consequences of government intervention may not be apparent, but the effects are definite. Once you start conceding this or that for the government to step in, there’s no limit as to the expansion of the state, and the long term is given up altogether.

WHAT IF EVERYONE PLAYED HERO LIKE THE GOVERNMENT?

And why stop at coercion via government law? If coercion is to be accepted on a ‘moral’ basis (even as the initiation of violence is antithetical to morals), what is left to stop just any random citizen from shooting anyone who refuses to pay for another’s medicine/tuition/subsidy? Why not murder anyone who is unable to pay higher wages? Why not torture someone who refuses to sell something at a lower price?

Alas, the acceptance of government in any part of human affairs is a step backwards for peaceful civilization. As ‘obvious’ or tempting as it is to seek government to remedy lamentable situations, some ‘cold’ analysis may be necessary to prevent meddling from making things worse.