The Truth About Factory Work Condition in China

[SlickWilly440]

So I stumbled on this video that documented the horrible working conditions, low wages, and insane overtime that Chinese factory workers have to endure.

The video is about 32 minutes long, but shocking none the less.

Here (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6733564947664645042&hl=en) is the link.

[Plekto]

Yep - most of us have been all too aware of this for the last, oh, 20+ years. And this is actually the politically correct/sanitized version for export. Imagine 4-5 times worse, beatings if you make mistakes, prison labor camps... basically anything and everything out of a Dickens novel or worse.

I don't buy things made in China.

[darighaz]

any job > no job

food is crucial

[xtine]

Yep - most of us have been all too aware of this for the last, oh, 20+ years. And this is actually the politically correct/sanitized version for export. Imagine 4-5 times worse, beatings if you make mistakes, prison labor camps... basically anything and everything out of a Dickens novel or worse.

I don't buy things made in China.

You must not buy a lot of things huh? I'm exaggerating a bit of course, but almost everything manufactured comes from China.

Although I am not advocating cruel factory worker conditions, working in a factory is better than nothing. It's better than what else is out there for them. Think this is bad? There are equally as bad (although not as rampant) sweatshops in America. In China, you may work for pennies, but if you are in a rural or non-city area, everything else is pennies too. Not so for America.

[amg]

Nobody likes the conditions there, but...

from wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_labor)

For example, a UNICEF study found that 5,000 to 7,000 Nepalese children turned to prostitution after the United States banned that country's carpet exports in the 1990s. Also, after the Child Labor Deterrence Act was introduced in the US, an estimated 50,000 children were dismissed from their garment industry jobs in Bangladesh, leaving many to resort to jobs such as "stone-crushing, street hustling, and prostitution," -- all of them, according to a UNICEF study.[2] "more hazardous and exploitative than garment production". The study says that boycotts are "blunt instruments with long-term consequences, that can actually harm rather than help the children involved."

Also, this (http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={097356AF-D125-476E-8AD5-EA62B643F7CA}) and this (http://www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/20000924mag-sweatshops.html)

[Roxie]

yup. take away the jobs, yet don't replace them with any, things get worse.

[ruaidhri]

Quite simply, there is no easy solution. Lower prices don't come without cost, namely cost in jobs and opportunities in the developed countries and exploitation in the third world countries. The question is are the developed countries in any way responsible if they object to buying products manufactured with child labor so the children are forced into even worse predicaments?

From my perspective we certainly are responsible if we knowingly purchase products made by children or by any workers under less than humane conditions. When we do so what we're saying is that the lower prices we pay justify the pain and suffering of others. Conversely, if we don't purchase products manufactured under 19th Century worker rules and are willing to pay higher prices, I don't see how we are responsible for the workers (including children) forced into even worse employment.


edited to clarify

[Plekto]

Quite simply, there is no easy solution. Lower prices don't come without cost, namely cost in jobs and opportunities in the developed countries and exploitation in the third world countries. The question is are the developed countries in any way responsible if they object to buying products manufactured with child labor so the children are forced into even worse predicaments?


I'd also like to add that all too often people see this as an either or scenario, when the real problem is exporting our jobs in the first place. Ten years ago, Levi Strauss made jeans in the U.S. with U.S. labor and materials. Now, they don't.

People talk about how bad it is in China and elsewhere and how these jobs are actually helping them... Well, my idea of charity stops when it ends costing U.S. jobs.

That's the reality - every job we send overseas drags us down towards their level a lot faster than they climb up to ours. Sad as it is, we must protect our manufacturing base. Since the companies are worshiping profits over their workers and ethics, our government must make it painful for them to make our citizens unemployed.(note - almost every other industrialized country does this and it's seen as proper)

It's not that hard to not buy stuff made in China if you look. My sweatshirt I just bought a few days ago, some were made in China, some were made in El Salvador. Same brand, different color and style - go figure. It's not perfect, but El Salvador certainly is a better choice than china.

You just have to look through a few choices most of the time. Oh, and a lot of stuff is made in Europe or the Middle East as well. I do a lot of shopping at a local family run Armenian market, for instance. Oh - look - Falafel. Not made in China. Same with clothes - a few companies still make them here and refuse to sell their souls to China. This does mean that you have to avoid malls and just about every major chain, but after a while, you honestly wonder why you ever went there in the first place. The quality at small specialty stores stays local AND the products are often better quality as well.

Kind of like McDonalds. Eventually you learn to appreciate that little burger stand or small family run chain and wonder why you ever thought that that junk was any good.

P.S. the sweatshirt - yeah, no U.S. companies make them, and I was freezing that day. At least El Salvador respects patents and has a working legal system, plus is minimally functional as a democracy. Plus, not a threat to our future security. Eventually all of North America will be one giant country/block, like the EU is. Maybe it'll take 100 or 200 years to happen, but it's clear that if you have to buy imported goods, closer is always better from a security and stability standpoint.

[ruaidhri]

You know what? I agree with Plekto. I also try to buy products from small local stores. I also check labels and I also avoid purchasing products from China. Plekto's correct. Let's support the growth of our own economy.

Home made products aren't made in sweat shops. We enforce child labor laws. We force our industry to avoid polluting the environment. Besides, the dollar spent in America stays in America as it passes through many hands and doesn't become a debt for future generations.

[Lan]

For the record, labelling all factories in China as such would be inaccurate. It's rarely reported that there are longstanding rules in China that workers must be provided with uniforms, living quarters (onsite), and fed 3 meals a day. And one day off per week. And during China's stat holidays, they're allowed vacation time, which most people use to visit their families.

I would be naive to say no factory owners are corrupt and don't pay off government officials to avoid certain regulations, but I know the few I visited did follow the rules (I visited an extended family member's). For the record, they make screws for watches, so many the reason they don't mistreat anyone is because they don't employ children. So yeah, just be aware of that.

[Sublime]

There was a great article in NGC a few years back on the topic of how new factories are built in the matter of weeks and how exactly does the Chinese employment system work. It seems to depend on where you go in China but in some places they actually care enough about the legal age to use their older relatives ID's. And 19 century or not children are actually doing that to help their families and certainly not under the threat of being punished by their parents. That's the kind of reasoning people from "first world" countries who were most likely spoiled as children would have.

Still - I'm not saying it's ok to do that. Eventually when the economy stabilizes the country will grow out of the practice - and while that is still in the future there's very little you can do about it. Ban it and the children will end up doing even more horrible jobs like begging or prostitution.

About the export of production outside of America - to me that's no surprise at all. America has always been all about commercial profit and proud of it. But it seems that the commercial profit of separate companies will eventually degrade the value of American money. Ever since you started exporting products to China you've been loosing the economic strength those products give you while adding strength to the Chinese Yuan. And now the Chinese are refusing to use the American standard for their money which is again degrading the value of the American dollar since it's becoming ever more profitable to buy more and more goods from China than it is from America.

I say good luck with building custom bikes and start thinking about exporting them to Europe fast before you start counting dollars in millions to buy a loaf of bread.;)

[Pierrot le Fou]

Errr, the Chinese have essentially fixed their currency to the US dollar, and buy boatloads of US bonds to keep the rate stable. Japan does the same thing. Because they are major exporters, it benefits them to have a stable currency, rather than to suffer deflation against the US dollar which would make it more expensive to produce goods (and therefore make them less appealing to US customers).

This is a point of contention with the US, because the US doesn't want them to artificially fix their currency lest they end up like Japan in the 80's with the burst of the bubble due to the re-valuation of the currency and increasing export costs.

[Sublime]

Errr, the Chinese have essentially fixed their currency to the US dollar, and buy boatloads of US bonds to keep the rate stable. Japan does the same thing. Because they are major exporters, it benefits them to have a stable currency, rather than to suffer deflation against the US dollar which would make it more expensive to produce goods (and therefore make them less appealing to US customers).

This is a point of contention with the US, because the US doesn't want them to artificially fix their currency lest they end up like Japan in the 80's with the burst of the bubble due to the re-valuation of the currency and increasing export costs.

Oops. Sorry then. I honestly thought higher manufacturing rates per capita at lower prices lead to a stronger more marketable currency. I guess it doesn't work that way. Or there's simply more to it than that.

[Pierrot le Fou]

If there is a strong domestic market for products (like in the US), then it makes sense to have a strong currency to increase buying power on imports, and to receive payment in that strong currency for domestic manufacturers.

In cases like China, where the domestic market has far less buying power than the overseas market, having a weaker currency makes more sense, as it allows you to manufacture in your weak currency, and receive payment in the stronger currency, with the profitability increasing according to the degree of the gap between the two.

Example:
Country A has a strong currency. Country B doesn't.
A$1 = B$10

Assuming that the average salary in Country A is A$50,000, and the average salary in Country B is B$50,000, then if Country A produces something for A$10, it will cost a person in Country B B$100 -- 10 times as much relative to their salary (this is expensive). But if Country B produces something for B$10, then it's only A$1 -- 10 times cheaper!

Obviously with transport, duties, etc. etc. it will end up a little less simple, but the general concept stays the same.

Country B can then produce the same product for B$10, but charge, say, B$50 for it overseas -- a 5 times greater revenue (and far greater profit), and it's still twice as cheap as the product produced by Country A. The Walmarts of Country A get filled with the half-price product from Country B, and everyone is happy.

Unless Country B can sell 10 times as many products in Country B (or more actually, when considering profitability), then Country B is better off with a weaker currency. Country A on the other hand will probably only be able to import 'luxury' goods, unless there's a Country C with an even stronger currency than Country A.

After a while, Country B will have its currency value due to the massive profits that it's raking in, and the fact that the currency holds a lot more value since it can trade with Country A. Suddenly those profits start shrinking, and Country D starts providing cheap goods to countries A and B, etc.

It's really the heart of outsourcing -- cheap labor allows products to be produced more cheaply resulting in great profit margins. While some things aren't going to be outsourced any time soon (typically high-quality products, luxury goods, and technologically advanced products), most commodity products can.

People like Plekto argue protectionism, which is silly -- people's wages would lose buying power if the only means of purchase were domestically produced. Everyone benefits from global trade. Country B gets a lot more bang for their buck by exporting to Country A. Country A gets a lot cheaper goods by buying from Country B. Yes, some members of Country A who used to produce the goods now bought from Country B are bitter, but you can bet they have a microwave from Country B in their home anyway.

[Sublime]

Thanks for the awesome explanation :). These things certainly make more sense to me now. So if I`m following your thoughts China is on the way to becoming a third world economic leader after America and Japan.

[Candyvan Stan]

That's high school economics stuff. I find it funny how many of us Europeans are bragging because the Euro is so strong compared to the Dollar, when in many ways, it harms our export.

Still, because the European Union does a fair share of its trading internally, it's not *that* harmful, but you can bet the United States probably does not mind the increase in exports and tourism.

I'm not an economics major though, of course. Maybe I'm missing something.

[Sublime]

That's high school economics stuff. I find it funny how many of us Europeans are bragging because the Euro is so strong compared to the Dollar, when in many ways, it harms our export.

Still, because the European Union does a fair share of its trading internally, it's not *that* harmful, but you can bet the United States probably does not mind the increase in exports and tourism.

I'm not an economics major though, of course. Maybe I'm missing something.

Me being a humanitarian kinda guy - I don`t know the first thing about economics. We were supposed to learn that as part of Geography but it kinda didn`t work out lol.

Yes but with your hundred Euros you can go on a holiday in America and buy stuff for 148 USD.

[japanat]

While the economic reasons for outsourcing are clear, and I love a bargain, I don't buy Chinese goods. Not because of the sweatshop conditions which are present in many cases, because I feel that is an internal issue that China would deal with if they were concerned enough.

I don't buy their goods because they're often times lower quality and/or unsafe. NHK has been doing some stories in the buildup to the Olympics, and it's pretty scary. Polluted water, chemically-tainted farm products, unsafe materials used in production (lead paint, etc).

Sorry, but until they get the rampant corruption which allows some unscrupulous people to ignore all safety precautions, and which often encourages such action, under control, I feel safer using products that I know have higher maintained standards. (Not that Japanese food products are doing much better lately - kawara sprouts, mislabeled/expired beef products, really old bean paste being "recycled".)

[Pierrot le Fou]

japanat, I'd tend to agree with you on the safety issue, if it weren't Japan. Because all imports to Japan have to be tested stringently (look at US beef!), there is far less of a chance of Chinese goods being tainted than Japanese goods I think. And that's the sad truth.

As China grows economically, and starts to foment internal change, you'll see the economy start to change drastically much like Japan did, with an absurd focus on creating a domestic market to shore up the problems caused by the strengthening currency. The real problem for China is that there is such a gap between the cities and country as far as revenues, that a re-valuated currency could cause a massive income gap and problems due to the size of the country.

As far as the EU is concerned, the high Euro is a problem in the sense that employment in the EU tends to not be the best, and a more expensive Euro has got to hurt economic expansion for lower-skilled workers (manufacturers) which is where much of the unemployment is. High-skilled service-oriented workers in the EU are probably increasing in demand as a result of the strong Euro, but it will take time for the workers to adjust to the changed demands.

[Plekto]

People like Plekto argue protectionism, which is silly -- people's wages would lose buying power if the only means of purchase were domestically produced.

Buying power that is at the expense of jobs or security, especially when it's based upon printed money and not on hard assests is a very poor thing to argue for.

[xinster]

haha, you should see the coal mines!

[xinster]

While the economic reasons for outsourcing are clear, and I love a bargain, I don't buy Chinese goods. Not because of the sweatshop conditions which are present in many cases, because I feel that is an internal issue that China would deal with if they were concerned enough.

I don't buy their goods because they're often times lower quality and/or unsafe. NHK has been doing some stories in the buildup to the Olympics, and it's pretty scary. Polluted water, chemically-tainted farm products, unsafe materials used in production (lead paint, etc).

Sorry, but until they get the rampant corruption which allows some unscrupulous people to ignore all safety precautions, and which often encourages such action, under control, I feel safer using products that I know have higher maintained standards. (Not that Japanese food products are doing much better lately - kawara sprouts, mislabeled/expired beef products, really old bean paste being "recycled".)

I agree 100%. Chinese people die over the dumbest bullshit, just because they have such a low value for safety and life. Sweatshops are generally an awesome, mutual creation, but man Chinese products today are like what Japanese products were in the 20s

[Kaji]

Buying power that is at the expense of jobs or security, especially when it's based upon printed money and not on hard assests is a very poor thing to argue for.

"He who gives up freedom to have security shall not have, nor shall he deserve, either one."

That aside, seems buying power is that much more important when you don't have hard backing for your currency. The Weimar Republic is a textbook example of how easy it can be to irreparably screw up unbacked paper money.

[xinster]

"He who gives up freedom to have security shall not have, nor shall he deserve, either one."

That aside, seems buying power is that much more important when you don't have hard backing for your currency. The Weimar Republic is a textbook example of how easy it can be to irreparably screw up unbacked paper money.

thats a stupid ass fucking quote at the most basic levels.

[Pierrot le Fou]

thats a stupid ass fucking quote at the most basic levels.
Only because it's not about ass fucking at all.

Up until the American Revolution, for the most part mankind was at the whims of monarchs and government or entirely absent of the rule of law. Men sacrificed their lives in order to have true freedom from the tyranny of government.

What the quote is saying is that people who sacrifice the freedom for a sense of safety don't deserve either, because they don't understand what freedom represents, and how hollow safety without freedom is.

Prudence indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed.

[Sublime]

I dunno - dying for freedom? What is freedom these days? As far as I understand it it`s the relative security in an environment where you still have the opportunity to develop yourself as a person in the manner you like. Live your life freely IE live the way you like it. All the possible constrictions come from the need to protect you from the harm that may come from others and to protect the others from you respectively.

In the context of terrorism it's a little bit more difficult to asses how much protection the government should provide because there's no way to asses the possible damage that may come from terrorism at any time. It's not based around a certain physical leader - it doesn't have it's own territory or any trait by witch it could be recognized among the common public.

Protection in America is based on the conditions by which crime happens - cops carry a gun and wear a kevlar vest because they anticipate to be attacked by a small number of people carrying at most firearms. Cops at a stadium wear helmets and shields and use stun batons because they`re most likely to need protection against blunt weapons and are expected to protect the life of the attackers.

Now how do you prevent a plane attack from happening? And if need be how far should airport security policies go? How much of an invasion on your personal freedom is it to take off your shoes and leave fingerprints at the counter besides it being tedious and time consuming. Who are you even expecting to utilize those prints against you if you're simply mister nobody - whoever would be interested in you in the first place if you haven`t committed any crime?

[Pierrot le Fou]

That's exactly the attitude that's being discussed.

Freedom is realizing that some things are worth dying for. Freedom is realizing that you'll have to give up far more to provide 'security' against those things than the risk of them happening is worth.

By insulating ourselves from reality we become detached and complacent.

[Plekto]

And I might add, we become much easier to contol.

[amg]

Here's (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200801/fallows-chinese-dollars) a neat article somewhat related to the matter. It mentions among other things that China's economic policies are helping to keep their consumers from gaining as much benefit from trade with the US as they could be.

[Sublime]

That's exactly the attitude that's being discussed.

Freedom is realizing that some things are worth dying for. Freedom is realizing that you'll have to give up far more to

provide 'security' against those things than the risk of them happening is worth.

By insulating ourselves from reality we become detached and complacent.

What's worth dying for? Your family, wife and children, your job if you're let's say a cop? Ideals? Oh sure if they make you happy then why not die for ideals. I can't help noticing that those are the same things that make other people's lives worth living in the first place. Let's just say that the glass is only ever half-full for the people who were willing to take it before they even saw it. ;)

And dying for one thing or another is simply dying. By all standards it's a much bigger ordeal living on for the sake of things you care for. Now if you're in a live-die situation where you have to choose between your life and the life of someone you love why not choose dying? It's an instant win situation - you've made it past your life with much more meaning in your earthly actions than most people. But if you're not why die for just the applause and that touching last scene.

And isn't giving up more better than giving up less by all religious definitions? Humane even if you think about the people who aren't killed in a plane crash every day? Be the good samaritan - give up your fingers at the airport or live a paranoid life cuz you're not passing through checkout unless you do anyway.

Freedom may be a lot of things but 'egoistic' is probably the best definition. So is most of the other life too. We gave that up when we decided it's a waste of time to be making our own toasts for breakfast.

PP: You say security without freedom - I say they both exclude each other on a most basic level. Or even more so life rarely gives us a set of choices in which even one is completely right and best of all others. Or even more so protecting those you love requires you to hurt someone else. It's a little thing called life - you either live it and own up to your actions or you don't. Society is a huge compromise with freedom. Learn to appreciate it.

PP: Sure thing.

[Roxie]

I very rarely do this, but,

Dying.

[Pierrot le Fou]

If everyone in the world ceased dying for ideals, then the world would be a shittier place. The point isn't to throw your life away for some ideal, it's to use your life to attain an ideal that is important enough to risk your life for. Because living without it is intolerable if you have a chance at change.

[Sublime]

If everyone in the world ceased dying for ideals, then the world would be a shittier place. The point isn't to throw your life away for some ideal, it's to use your life to attain an ideal that is important enough to risk your life for. Because living without it is intolerable if you have a chance at change.

If everyone in the world started dying for ideals we'll be back to the medieval age. You've got to understand the French Revolution may have been fought under the banner of idealism but the idea for 'a better future' was based on a purely physical set of privileges. Like personal rights, among the many the right to not starve to death because the king decided he needs a court of highly paid prostitutes more than you need food.

You see practicality doesn't necessarily exclude or even demean acts of freedom. It just makes it a lot simpler to define what exactly do you want from that freedom you're fighting for.

Besides I hate to be cynical here but it seems that killing for ideals is in the fashion these days. From a historical standpoint China's Red Army probably just wanted to finally be free from the position of being the lowest level of society. It's not uncommon to think you're mistreated when you're the industrial and production base of your country yet you're the poorest people.

And when those people were finally given power the crowd didn't fight for ideals but more so they killed people in an exhibition of how free they were in their unlimited power.

History is a huge example of how freedom is a most cynical and egoistic form of saying you want certain privileges when idealized and used as a weapon. For me life has always been ambiguous and even though I try to think I haven't lost the will to be a good person I feel that doesn't excuse any harm I might have done in my trying to help others. That's why I'm currently aiming at little things ;) like helping out a foreign student to complete his documents or helping with someone else's chemistry project. But you're free to change the world if you will - I guess I'll see you in the history books. Although I don't recommend it since you see - history books are all so fond of exposing people for their good intentions.

[Pierrot le Fou]

When did I say people should throw their lives away for impractical ideals? The crux is that you should fight for attainable ideals, and that losing the will to fight for ideals ends up badly for the world.

[Y.T.]

... and that's exactly why Chinese do need labour unions.

Though, I bet those who attempt to organize collective bargaining in China end up fired from their jobs and badly beaten...

Is it right that manufacturing from Western countries moved to China where workers are exploited and no one gives a rat's fuck about pollution prevention and control?

[Vincent]

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873)
I stand with PLF on this; he is actually making a competent argument.

[Sublime]

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873)
I stand with PLF on this; he is actually making a competent argument.

Ooookay - I realize I'm with the majority here which isn't good at all in the context of ideological arguments. :D But you see (1806 - 1873)=/=(2008). I'm sorry to say as much as I enjoy reading books about the lives of painters of the late 19th century I don't think I could live up to their ideals. Think about joining the army or the French Foreign legion these days - it totally defines your life from then on - you've skipped your university years - you've skipped getting ahead with a practice in your desired profession.

And what's competent about the idea of devoting your life to fighting for lost causes? Does it sound good? Yes, and it has the support of all famous authors at it's time because that was the time when fighting for ideals was relevant to the historical set-up. So you may quote all the revolutionaries of the period and it wouldn't mean anything to me. Sorry.

The world is a different place now where much more is expected of every single person to get ahead in life. And if that's been taking our minds away from fighting for what we desire it's given us much more opportunities to achieve a personal happiness outside of opposing the status quo.

PP: And that guy never lived to see the World Wars (Gulf War Cambodia Vietnam Kosovo and Iraq*) so he's no authority on war I'm afraid.

* http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/uswars.htm You see - I'm missing quite a few.

[Y.T.]

PLF .. there is a world of difference between offensive war* and defensive war

*we can define offensive as one country having its military fight in another country, and it doesn't matter what pretext they fight under. Defensive is then fighting on your own territory against a country that's on the offensive.

United States unfortunately has the habit of treating the whole Earth as their own backyard and thus their own territory .. from that follows that every war US embarks on is then defensive.

Imho, there's nothing wrong with a defensive war. It's as righteous as anything can be, provided the gov't you fight for is better than the alternative..

[Pierrot le Fou]

Ooookay - I realize I'm with the majority here which isn't good at all in the context of ideological arguments. :D But you see (1806 - 1873)=/=(2008). I'm sorry to say as much as I enjoy reading books about the lives of painters of the late 19th century I don't think I could live up to their ideals. Think about joining the army or the French Foreign legion these days - it totally defines your life from then on - you've skipped your university years - you've skipped getting ahead with a practice in your desired profession.

And what's competent about the idea of devoting your life to fighting for lost causes? Does it sound good? Yes, and it has the support of all famous authors at it's time because that was the time when fighting for ideals was relevant to the historical set-up. So you may quote all the revolutionaries of the period and it wouldn't mean anything to me. Sorry.
The bolded parts show your hand.

If you believe that the practical realities of 'getting ahead in your desired profession' are more important than following dreams or ideals, then that's fine for you, but to pretend it's some universal change in era? Ha! You don't think that people 150 years ago also fought to get their children ahead, and to jumpstart their careers?

Furthermore, you think all ideals are lost causes? That they're irrelevant to the historical set-up? Do you think that the civil rights movement was a lost cause? Vietnam war protests? You realize these were both successful 'revolutionary' movements that have happened in the lifetimes of many people in the US, right?

Furthermore, you called JS Mill a revolutionary? The guy was an aristocrat member of parliament! To call him revolutionary is absurd when you consider how involved in the establishment he was.

The world is a different place now where much more is expected of every single person to get ahead in life. And if that's been taking our minds away from fighting for what we desire it's given us much more opportunities to achieve a personal happiness outside of opposing the status quo.
Everyone who says 'the world is a different place now' is detached and complacent. You've resigned yourself to grinding away at a job you hate from the time you can because 'times are different' and you 'need to get ahead' in your chosen profession.

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.
- Margaret Mead

People are complacent, so they convince themselves they can't live up to ideals or realize ideals, and just grind away. Fuck that. I came to Japan because I was young, now was my chance, and the rest of it be damned. Know what? It hasn't killed my career, or otherwise negatively impacted my life. Why should ideals be any different?

[Sublime]

Furthermore, you called JS Mill a revolutionary? The guy was an aristocrat member of parliament! To call him revolutionary is absurd when you consider how involved in the establishment he was.

Oh, so he didn't actually mean that war is ok compared to the loss of personal freedom - he wasn't going to like - go to war the next day - he sorta said that to make a point in a metaphorical argument about the loss of personal freedom in the American society? Yeah - that's awesome. That totally proves your point that we should be fighting for our rights because you know - it's even worse than war! Hilarious - that should be on a Sesame Street somewhere associated with the letter R for Retarded so little kiddies can learn to recognize a moronic exaggeration made by someone whose only virtue was that he wasn't around to see the real wars. So bless his soul - he didn't know what he was talking about.

In that manner applying such statements to todays world is as I've said before excluding a hundred years of history. When you take a 'bad' and a 'worse' and reverse the logic of the statement it doesn't make you sound deep - it just sounds cool before you realize it's the cheapest trick ever.

About everything else - I just don't care enough.

[Pierrot le Fou]

You are the exact result of people who neglected ideals for material comforts. You embody the exact type of person that Mill is talking about, but can't realize it, acknowledge it, or otherwise. To you death is the worst -- it would cut in on your career possibilities! It would make you miss university! Dying for a cause is a pipe dream -- entirely impractical!

You are apathetic. You have lost your sense of what's important. Were this WWII Germany, you'd be killing Jews and talking about the futility of fighting against it -- I mean, it may hurt your chances of getting in the SS! You're the type of person that the Milgram Experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment) showed to be entirely incapable of what smarter men believed was common sense.

It's sad, and a little scary.

[RoxFontaine]

^ FUCK! I have been trying to find that experiment for the longest time and I couldn't remember the damn name of it! THANK YOU!!!!!!!

[MNJetter]

If everyone in the world started dying for ideals we'll be back to the medieval age.

. . . . . . . . .

Besides I hate to be cynical here but it seems that killing for ideals is in the fashion these days.
...You do realize that dying for ideals and killing for ideals are two completely different things, right? Both can happen simultaneously, but that doesn't make them inextricably tied to one another. I don't even know if PLF is talking about them as separate entities, but I, personally, am far more apt to see situations in which the first is a good idea than the second.

.....PLF, for the most part I agree with you, but that was a cheap shot with the Milgram experiment. Intelligence and ethical fortitude were not part of the experiment's control factors -- have you spoken with all of the participants? Or even some of them? How did you determine that they are fundamentally different from the so-called "smarter men" you talk about? If you want to make a claim like that, post something more detailed than the wiki article, if in fact such detail exists.

[Sublime]

You are the exact result of people who neglected ideals for material comforts. You embody the exact type of person that Mill is talking about, but can't realize it, acknowledge it, or otherwise. To you death is the worst -- it would cut in on your career possibilities! It would make you miss university! Dying for a cause is a pipe dream -- entirely impractical!

You are apathetic. You have lost your sense of what's important. Were this WWII Germany, you'd be killing Jews and talking about the futility of fighting against it -- I mean, it may hurt your chances of getting in the SS! You're the type of person that the Milgram Experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment) showed to be entirely incapable of what smarter men believed was common sense.

It's sad, and a little scary.

You remind me of those people who dial random numbers to explain about the merits of scientology or whatever's hip.

I mentioned earlier that I'm the humanitarian kinda guy - you know what? That's my career - pharmaceutical studies - preparing meds at worst and researching a cure for cancer at best. Clinical pharmacy stands somewhere in the middle of my priorities because I'd also enjoy the experience of working with patients. And you know what my biggest downside is? I'm the emotional equivalent of a :insert random inanimate object:.

So maybe you're starting to realize where I'm going with this and what I've been trying to avoid by mentioning the area of my studies. Being associated with Mother Fucking Teresa - because that's how you morons think - it's either one extremity or the other heaven or hell. Either I'm the devil or the Virgin Mary incarnate.

And you know the best part about being apathetic? You can do actual work without the downside of thinking about the person whose autopsy you're watching or the lab mouse struggling in an aquarium full of ether fumes. I'm sorry to say you'll never be a good doctor or anything else with that attitude. Because all your ideals are based on false romancing the reality. You said you live in Japan - go save some whales - at least those could benefit from people like you because you're the only ones who won't be afraid of jail time when it comes to throwing a steel cable around a fishing ship's propellers. Talk about common sense.

PP: Neither has to burst a coronary here you see we're merely exchanging ideas. I understand the internet and written words in general don't allow for things like body language or things that will generally make an argument less of a dog-fight and more of an enjoyable experience but still - neither of us needs to bite the other's head off to prove a point.

[japanat]

You know, an apathetic health professional, of any kind, is one of my worst nightmares - not to mention a contradiction. You scare me...

[Sublime]

You know, an apathetic health professional, of any kind, is one of my worst nightmares - not to mention a contradiction. You scare me...

Do I have to have an emotional relationship with you to treat you? Besides I'm never apathetic towards my work. Being a good professional is beyond what you feel or don't feel for the patients as far as I go. In any case I don't count on my emotions to motivate me to do my job... What would you prefer - a doctor who depends on his good mood to function or somebody who's happy to do his job any day because he keeps the personal stuff out of the business. So where's the bigger contradiction?

That's why idealists usually turn to fine arts as a form of expression. I also paint (poorly) and play the piano (again poorly) but that's what I do on my own time. There's a difference between what you can allow yourself to suck at and what requires you to be at the top of your ability because other people's health depends on it.

For the last time people - practicality means exactly what it means and certainly not a cold-hearted bastard. I'd be happy to join a small charity if it doesn't take too much of my time because I'm already devoting my life to things that matter to me. Not out of idealism but I've never been a fan of big words. I just want to be good at my job. And if people don't appreciate that because I've skipped pet-rescue and volunteering for the neighborhood civil squad it's their problem.

Wow - what a turn-around - I tried to be a regular guy living his life the way he likes it but you just had to jump on me for not saving the world every day.

...You do realize that dying for ideals and killing for ideals are two completely different things, right? Both can happen simultaneously, but that doesn't make them inextricably tied to one another. I don't even know if PLF is talking about them as separate entities, but I, personally, am far more apt to see situations in which the first is a good idea than the second.

No they're the same tool utilized for different purposes* and my point here was to give an example of how strong ideologies can be dangerous in the hands of people who are convinced enough to disregard any sense of logic or humanity in the pursuit of their own satisfaction. You see morality is not so much what we know is right or wrong but more so what we feel. And when people like that try to enforce their views on the world every now and then it results in a huge mess. The better case is when it results in a forum argument ;)

* It's the same type of emotion-bound conviction.

[Campion]

Oh, so he didn't actually mean that war is ok compared to the loss of personal freedom - he wasn't going to like - go to war the next day - he sorta said that to make a point in a metaphorical argument about the loss of personal freedom in the American society? Yeah - that's awesome. That totally proves your point that we should be fighting for our rights because you know - it's even worse than war! Hilarious - that should be on a Sesame Street somewhere associated with the letter R for Retarded so little kiddies can learn to recognize a moronic exaggeration made by someone whose only virtue was that he wasn't around to see the real wars. So bless his soul - he didn't know what he was talking about.


Just for the sake of historical accuracy, can I point out that the following rather substantial wars occurred during JS Mills lifetime.

The Napoleonic Wars - 1803-1815.
The New Zealand Wars - 1843-1872.
The Crimean War - 1854-1856.
The American Civil War - 1861-1865.

Which of these was not (in your opinion) a 'real' war, and what do you think a war must have to elevate it to such a standard?


Campion.

[ミュー]

China is using the totalitarian edge of an authoritative socialist state while reaping the profits of a democratic nation. It really is "having you cake and eating it too" in my personal opinion. Human rights issue? yes. Cunning strategy to overtake nations with a more expecting populous? very yes. I don't condone the virtual enslavement of human beings for economic benefit, but it doesn't exactly take a Ouiji board to figure out what the government's motives are.

[Micah the Great]

One of Chaco sandals hardcore selling points has always been that they were made by American hands in America. Now they're moving production to China. This is very disappointing to me.

Ha, i remember watching a video on the Milgram experiment in high school. I totally forgot about that.

[Sublime]

Just for the sake of historical accuracy, can I point out that the following rather substantial wars occurred during JS Mills lifetime.

The Napoleonic Wars - 1803-1815.
The New Zealand Wars - 1843-1872.
The Crimean War - 1854-1856.
The American Civil War - 1861-1865.

Which of these was not (in your opinion) a 'real' war, and what do you think a war must have to elevate it to such a standard?


Campion.

Oh a real war is by far involving a lot more than two parties and a lot more interests than mere territorial or political disputes. It's like this - until you've seen a war waged purely for the sake of securing foreign petrol you haven't seen anything. You have to agree that the definition of war has changed gravely over the years especially in the context of wars waged by America. We no longer marvel at troops lined up in perfect formations arranged at the far sides of a field. We don't discus brilliant tactics performed by great leaders such as Napoleon since you've mentioned him.

A real war, my friend, is the foulest ugliest expenditure of human lives for monetary gain and political influence. A real war is when the invading party is actually holding away facts from the war keeping the public oblivious and when the scandals are revealed taped on some soldier's mobile phone the people responsible are so high up the ladder that nobody's willing to take any action at all. You must admit that at least to some extent those things and much more have been generously spared to earlier generations.

Or at least admit that the image of war and crime is shaped by the combined experience of all wars neither one too insignificant and so while many people in the past may have been great thinkers and responsible enough citizens to offer wise solutions to the world's problems the decades that separate us have rendered those solutions incompetent to our current situation.

A real war is also any war existing within the present day status quo and in spite of everything we already know from history. Simply because we can no longer afford to claim ignorance in defense of the atrocities we produce.

PP: I've even devised a quick game for the reader. It's called "Fill in The Blanks!".

HINT: [ , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ]

[Plekto]

I thought this was the most interesting part of that article:

***
Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority.
***
I think it's all too common for people to get in over their heads and lack the tools to extricate themselves lest they get ground under by the behemoth that they have helped to create.

I'll have to agree with PLF(damn this is happening more and not less?) on this one as well. People are far too apathetic and "sheepified" these days to do anything other than move along like cattle. They got their job, their family, their little postage stamp of land, their TV... It's part of why I fear for the U.S. Because just like how everyone was initially for the war in Iraq, they could very well be for something equally as bad - because it's easier to wave a flag than ask the hard questions.(let alone actually DO anything)

[Sublime]

I thought this was the most interesting part of that article:

***
Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority.
***
I think it's all too common for people to get in over their heads and lack the tools to extricate themselves lest they get ground under by the behemoth that they have helped to create.

I'll have to agree with PLF(damn this is happening more and not less?) on this one as well. People are far too apathetic and "sheepified" these days to do anything other than move along like cattle. They got their job, their family, their little postage stamp of land, their TV... It's part of why I fear for the U.S. Because just like how everyone was initially for the war in Iraq, they could very well be for something equally as bad - because it's easier to wave a flag than ask the hard questions.(let alone actually DO anything)

Shush now, I'm watching GiTS: INNOCENCE... (sheep)_(ish)

PP: I'm all for the hard questions. I ask them all the time. Sometimes I even impersonate them in order to trigger a reaction. It's great fun.

[Pierrot le Fou]

You said you live in Japan - go save some whales - at least those could benefit from people like you because you're the only ones who won't be afraid of jail time when it comes to throwing a steel cable around a fishing ship's propellers. Talk about common sense.
This has nothing to do with what I consider an ideal. Dying to save the whales may appeal to some, but certainly not me, and it certainly isn't even in the ballpark of this discussion.

PP: Neither has to burst a coronary here you see we're merely exchanging ideas. I understand the internet and written words in general don't allow for things like body language or things that will generally make an argument less of a dog-fight and more of an enjoyable experience but still - neither of us needs to bite the other's head off to prove a point.
After the preceding paragraph, you really have the gall to say this?

.....PLF, for the most part I agree with you, but that was a cheap shot with the Milgram experiment. Intelligence and ethical fortitude were not part of the experiment's control factors -- have you spoken with all of the participants? Or even some of them? How did you determine that they are fundamentally different from the so-called "smarter men" you talk about? If you want to make a claim like that, post something more detailed than the wiki article, if in fact such detail exists.
I think you misunderstand. I am not saying smarter people cannot have the same attitude, or that they aren't fundamentally different, I am saying that smarter people believed that humans in general wouldn't do such cruel things when told to, and they were wrong. Sublime is showing the exact attitude that made the participants wrong -- a belief that morality is flexible when you have a chance to look good for someone you view as above you.

Statements about career tracks, and university educations are exactly the type of attitude that make people consider authority above their own personal morality, and it disturbs me, and it should disturb you.

[MNJetter]

Oh a real war is by far involving a lot more than two parties and a lot more interests than mere territorial or political disputes.
Shame on you. Who are you to re-define words? Just because the aforementioned wars don't fit your box of what a horrific experience it should be, doesn't mean that the word itself should be adjusted to match.

I think you misunderstand. I am not saying smarter people cannot have the same attitude, or that they aren't fundamentally different, I am saying that smarter people believed that humans in general wouldn't do such cruel things when told to, and they were wrong.
Ah. Yes, I did misunderstand. Sorry.

Sublime's message really doesn't disturb me. But not because I think he's right. I dunno.....something about his argument just strikes me as too stark and without exception, so I think he might have stretched it a little bit as you made assumptions about what he was trying to say and basically backed him into a corner where he had to either take an extreme or capitulate. I've seen (and experienced) you doing that too many times to assume Sublime really means every single thing he's been saying in the last couple posts.

[Pierrot le Fou]

So the solution is to capitulate to me early and save yourself the embarrassment?

[Sublime]

This has nothing to do with what I consider an ideal. Dying to save the whales may appeal to some, but certainly not me, and it certainly isn't even in the ballpark of this discussion.

So the secondary-oceanic bound mammals ain't good enough for you? :P I'm kidding of course but you've gotta admit - you're picky. I've seen people like you rambling on about how they'd make a difference. But you've got to keep the act, man say something to cover up the whale thing - save yourself the embarrassment. ;P

After the preceding paragraph, you really have the gall to say this?

That was for calling me a nazi. :grin: Generalizations are all the funniest shit when they're not pointed at you eh?

Statements about career tracks, and university educations are exactly the type of attitude that make people consider authority above their own personal morality, and it disturbs me, and it should disturb you.

Japan is killing a 1000 whales in 2008 as part of a so-called 'science' experiment. That bothers me on a very basic 'bullshit' level. It should bother you too but seen as how you're only prawn to ponder useless philosophical precedents... Admit it - you're just as useless as I am :D:D:D:...

Shame on you. Who are you to re-define words? Just because the aforementioned wars don't fit your box of what a horrific experience it should be, doesn't mean that the word itself should be adjusted to match.

Words are carriers of certain ideas - meanings and images which in my opinion should be adjusted for the needs of every political argument. When those meanings end up bringing two completely different things like the Napoleonic Wars and the World War 1 and 2 on the same level - that's fucking wrong because they're not! The definition of war is loose and unspecified as it is - there's no rules to war so we may assume that every war - whilst any war might be a heavy ordeal - is different. The war in Kosovo was very different from the Civil War in America - are you telling me I should mold those into a single barely meaningful word out of fear of not biasing the word?

Now here's the huge hypocrisy. I've written a whole wall of text to thoroughly explain why 19th century wars are different from 20th century. And you have the arrogance to tell me the word is more important than the idea it holds - that I'm in some form manipulating you because I've written a whole text of explanation? Just because we don't have a separate word for the shit we've laid upon the world during the last one hundred years we shouldn't even mention it because - "war is war"? For the last time - like it or not the definition of war has greatly changed with recent events. What was once predictable and at least to some point controllable is now obscure and fake and uncontrollable by any means of international sanctions. And those two things you insist calling war just for the sake of it. I seriously don't understand you.

And lastly - If I want to call the last five wars bullshit-wars I will and you'll be happy with it because it's historically correct! Look beyond the damned black and white pixels.

PP: UUhm... WARNING: MATURE CONTENT

PPP: In a calmer spirit I've formulated the following definition: Words are defined by the physical content they represent here on Earth and in history, not by the romantic idea we've got for them from the media and through our own experience with using those words.

Actually you should be quite used to that - politicians are using obscure meanings for words in a vague unspecified context every day. It's called lying by not mentioning the truth and rather using the generalized meaning of loose terms like war or freedom in order to create a delusion. And that's the real manipulation.

The word 'war' is like a German piano in Berlin during the bombings. It's definitely gonna need a re-tuning after all that shell-shock. And every now and then you're gonna need to build yourself a new piano when a nuke turns the old one into vapour.

Or at least admit that the image of war and crime is shaped by the combined experience of all wars neither one too insignificant and so while many people in the past may have been great thinkers and responsible enough citizens to offer wise solutions to the world's problems the decades that separate us have rendered those solutions incompetent to our current situation.

A real war is also any war existing within the present day status quo and in spite of everything we already know from history. Simply because we can no longer afford to claim ignorance in defense of the atrocities we produce.

That was my point by the way. Anyone who desires to discuss that instead of the linguistics of the word 'war' will make me very happy. MNJetter if you're quoting things out of context be sure to at least read that context first. It's a huge waste of my time and I'm not joking here to be explaining obvious things and it's a huge waste as a whole to try and write something that I consider meaningful and have somebody come and draw the attention in a completely different direction with nothing better on his side than a metaphysical affection for the meaning of the word 'war.'

[stsparky]

You might be looking at this the wrong way around. The horrible factory conditions may be several steps up from the farm accidents they could be having instead. I have to think that hooking up with folks like SplusC (http://www.splusc.com/index.htm) are the right way to affect positive change.

Just because someone is apathetic to outsourcing is not enough to earn them the appellate of sheep. It's just a POV.

[Sublime]

You might be looking at this the wrong way around. The horrible factory conditions may be several steps up from the farm accidents they could be having instead. I have to think that hooking up with folks like SplusC (http://www.splusc.com/index.htm) are the right way to affect positive change.

Just because someone is apathetic to outsourcing is not enough to earn them the appellate of sheep. It's just a POV.

Still - I'm not saying it's ok to do that. Eventually when the economy stabilizes the country will grow out of the practice - and while that is still in the future there's very little you can do about it. Ban it and the children will end up doing even more horrible jobs like begging or prostitution.

My thoughts on the topic. It's not going to happen tomorrow but it seems the whole thing is part of an economic practice that nobody's willing to give up just cause they're violating human rights standards. And for me the problem stems among other things from the lacking application of sanctions. Because the least that can be done is sanctioning those companies in their own countries. That's if China is so evil that it prefers to get a huge income off of it's people's backs and completely ignore the problem. It only goes to show that those countries exploiting the situation are no good either.

The notion that the whole situation is giving is that if it's not China it's gonna be another poor country. Foreign investors will simply pour a few tons of bills in the direction of another third world nation build a huge production sector and make their profits just the same. I can't help but think that the UN should be against these things but I don't see anybody doing anything either.

[Campion]

IRT: Sublime

I suppose if you were arguing this from an ontological position you could claim that only warfare that is known independent of history (IE: war that is experienced in ones own lifetime) can be real. Had you done so in fact I would have quite admired your determination. Unfortunately however you have not done so and instead you appear, to me at least, to be making up an arbitrary definition of what is ‘real’ simply to ensure that your argument cannot be inviolate.

As a conclusion to your argument you stipulate that a ‘real war is also any war existing within the present day status quo and in spite of everything we already know from history.’ Given this, I find it fair to compare your previous postulations based on the concept of ‘modernity’.

You suggest that a ‘real war is when the invading party is actually holding away facts from the war keeping the public oblivious…’ If you think that is anything new then I invite you to read Philip M. Taylor’s ‘Munitions of the Mind’, which gives an interesting insight into historical propoganda used both in the theatre of war and indeed on the general public at home in warring countries throughout history, I assure you such considerations are not a modern invention and have played their part in warfare for some considerable time.

You then suggest also that in atrocities of war ‘the people responsible are so high up the ladder that nobody's willing to take any action at all.’ I’m sorry, but when was this an aspect of only modern warfare? Historically (moral anomoly of the Victorian era in Britain not withstanding) the winners don’t tend to face censure, only the losers do. Pick up a copy of ‘The Rise and Fall of the British Empire’ by Lawrence James and you tell me who in power was held truly accountable for some of the risible things that Britain did to maintain its power base throughout the history of the empire even when those atrocities became known to the public.

I shall ignore the aspect of mobile telephony for obvious reasons. If mobile telephony is a requirement for a ‘real war’ then any war that occurred prior to its invention yet still in our own lifetimes is somehow not real, and in arguing such I do not see how your position can be anything but inherently flawed.


Campion.

[Sublime]

I'm only suggesting that whatever nobility there has been in 19th century warfare it's all gone now. Whatever meaning and purpose there was in giving your life for you're country there's none today. I may have not used the best examples and I agree that ambiguity is not entirely limited to the present day although it's much more obvious in our time how much of an exploitable charade war is, indeed.

So in the argument of idealism VS practicality my position makes perfect sense. You'll have to agree that in that train of thoughts arguing that nobility never really existed in the first place isn't going to do much to disprove me.

So yes - maybe the same traits of human mentality were present in those wars much like in the world of today. Maybe the difference is in the quantity more than quality. I don't want to resort to counting victims here but you'll have to agree that whatever form of chaos tortured the people of the 19th century the 20th century has much much more horrors to offer.

The real question here is why the 19th century people didn't oppose war as strongly as we do? Why such a drastic change of opinion after World War one and two and hence the strong opposition on the War in Vietnam for instance? What has changed in a hundred years? Has the light-bulb or the telephone or the airplane taught us how to be peaceful? Answer that question yourself and you'll see my point.

This argument started with that quote of John Stuart Mill comparing war to the loss of personal freedom. I think I've made my point that his way of reasoning weather he meant what he said or if it was simply an exaggeration is inapplicable to the present day society based on the historical events that happened after that man's time.

PP: In that respect the 'real' war reference was a metaphor more than anything else. I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear enough the first time.

[Micah the Great]

So your argument is the that is present isn't the past, therefore war and freedom mean different things. Possibly somewhat, but definitely not to the degree you are insinuating.

As PLF said, i think you're missing the whole point of the quote. Fighting for beliefs/ideals/change isn't impractical... it's necessary to humanity. I don't see this becoming untrue no matter how many hundreds of years you go back or forward in time, nor what your definition of war or freedom is.

[Sublime]

So your argument is the that is present isn't the past, therefore war and freedom mean different things. Possibly somewhat, but definitely not to the degree you are insinuating.

As PLF said, i think you're missing the whole point of the quote. Fighting for beliefs/ideals/change isn't impractical... it's necessary to humanity. I don't see this becoming untrue no matter how many hundreds of years you go back or forward in time, nor what your definition of war or freedom is.

Well that's what you believe and you'll always believe it no matter what I say until a point in your life where some kind of event triggers an emotional reaction in you that contradicts that belief. Then if the event is strong enough you are likely to change your views or simply adapt them so they better explains your reality.

Until then there's the ongoing argument of which is more useful to society - the idealist or the practical but often devoid of sympathy person. Saying that history or the way society is today has nothing to do with that argument is simply avoiding an important factor. To some extent avoiding that factor is supporting your thesis - so be it your way. We might as well skip every event in history that inflicted any damage on the idealist point of view but that wouldn't be fare now would it?

PP: I proved that his quote was irrelevant to the argument. And you proved it by generalizing the topic of the argument so you can avoid that part altogether. 1/0 for me for calling bullshit on John Mill whoever. With that speed we may be done arguing by Christmas of the year 2063 and I bet I'll have even more historical proof then that comparing war to the alleged loss of personal freedom in the boundaries of society is baseless and deceitful.

You see - you're selling me your views on life morality freedom what matters most etc. Suppose you're here to sell me a car or a revolutionary toothbrush. You're not closing deal by using quotations of sources long expired and irrelevant. Tell me something I haven't heard before. Impress me god damned it!

Create an argument so strong that it will both appeal to me and show me how your idealism will help me be a better more productive and dedicated person. How it will change the world for better. Or can you claim to know what's better for the World in the first place? I think I addressed that same problem in an earlier post.

Or live with my opinion alongside yours as another version of reality and a valid credo for an equally gratifying life.*

* Or check out the (not so) new Nine Inch Nails album Another Version of The Truth http://www.anotherversionofthetruth.com - these guys are big on freedom fighting. And yeah - Blackest Fucking Joke Ever :D:D:D You'll see it on the forum.

[Silverhawk]

Sublime, I'm sure you're aware of the boiling frog story. Where a frog when placed into a boiling pot of water will jump out, but placed in a pot of warm water and then slowly put to boil will remain there and die.

You fail to see the practicality of fighting for freedom because you've taken freedom for granted. You've gotten complacent and apathetic as others have mentioned. You don't see the effects of its gradual erosion, you think you get to live your life as usual, so why fight? It doesn't affect anything right? Wrong. You won't care/notice until its too late, and by that time you're screwed, because your freedom has been eroded so much you no longer have any power to fight back.

Its like giving protection money to bullies/mafia/etc. They "protect" you and give you "security" but at the price of your freedom. Do you think society is better with such a structure? As much as they protect you, they can screw you over, since you gave away the power of security to them. Then in the name of "security" they will take away your freedom, and then you become totally powerless, you have to do as you're told.

Stop taking your freedom for granted, your forefathers fought hard for that freedom, do not let it get taken away from you. If you've lived in a country where freedom has been taken away in the name of security, then you'll see how easy it is for corruption to take place, for injustice to happen and there's often nothing you can do about it. Short of a revolution or some sort, which is something you want to avoid if possible.

[Sublime]

I agree completely but what are you suggesting. We needs something better than 'our freedom is secretly taken way from us' to start a revolution of any sort. The system is clever in that respect - they'll never go as far as boiling us because we're the consumer base of the society. And as long as no one or a dismiss-able few are actually boiled there's no challenge to rise and act up against. We've got to in a way wait for them to trip so we can have a base on which to call the fraud.

PP: You're right about the bully analogy although it's still not that one-sided. Most people think they sound convincing when they talk about extreme ideas and solutions but truth is they don't sound a least bit credible. We've still got Supreme Court and the Hague Court of International Rights and if people actually knew how to use that power everything would be a lot better. Or maybe most people think that it's better to just leave it be rather than invest time and effort into a heavy lawsuit against the government.

PPP: Also if you leave a frog in ice and let it freeze it will come to life once it melts - amazing isn't it :) - I guess it's the same mechanism that allows them to withstand gradual heating and gradual freezing to the point they're encased in a solid block of ice.

[Silverhawk]

I agree completely but what are you suggesting. We needs something better than 'our freedom is secretly taken way from us' to start a revolution of any sort. The system is clever in that respect - they'll never go as far as boiling us because we're the consumer base of the society. And as long as no one or a dismiss-able few are actually boiled there's no challenge to rise and act up against. We've got to in a way wait for them to trip so we can have a base on which to call the fraud.
You got this the wrong way. The beauty of your situation is that you already HAVE the freedom. You just have to make sure it doesn't get eroded, which by the way.. is slowly happening. If you keep shrugging it off, and waiting for them to make a major trip, you're screwed. It would be too late then.

Or maybe most people think that it's better to just leave it be rather than invest time and effort into a heavy lawsuit against the government.
You don't think that this is a problem?

[Sublime]

You got this the wrong way. The beauty of your situation is that you already HAVE the freedom. You just have to make sure it doesn't get eroded, which by the way.. is slowly happening. If you keep shrugging it off, and waiting for them to make a major trip, you're screwed. It would be too late then.


You don't think that this is a problem?

Well it's more than reasonable and it's explained somewhere else in the thread. ;) People have always preferred to endure the wrong while it is still endurable rather than try and make a change of any sort. I don't have any specific feelings towards that mentality since it's both wrong in the long term and practical in short term. It's a dilemma that'd be burning throngs of semi-conductors had I happened to be created a computer instead of human but in my current state of existence my only solution is to shrug it off...

PP: I've just printed out an e-book copy of John Milton's Paradise Lost. :) Seems like an interesting thing to read since I'm also a huge fan of GiTS Innocence and fond of exploring all the little references and quotations in the movie. That's totally off the topic but I just felt like sharing it.

[trckstr]

I don't think it's really a surprise that work conditions in a factory are shitty, especially in a developing country. But the truth is, their shitty factory jobs earn more than their shitty farm jobs where EVERYTHING is still done by hand. I find it funny that people, who probably have never been to China, have all these opinions about the factory conditions in China just because they've read a news article or two about how awful and backward it all is. Have you all forgotten it's exactly what every industrialized nation in the world went through when they were developing? You can't exactly pretend like these labor practices never happened in the US.

Yes, it's shocking and outrageous to us westerners that people are earning 7 dollars a day for 12 hours shifts of hard labor. Yes, it's unfortunate that the worker safety laws are laxly enforced (they actually exist!). But the workers aren't being forced to work there(most of them anyways). They work in harsh conditions because it offers them a chance to increase their monthly earnings and provide better for their families. While they shouldn't have to choose to work in a dangerous environment to increase their wages, that's just the way things are in an industrializing economy. Things will get better, it just needs some time. International political pressure is a good way to cajole them. Refusing to buy their goods does nothing but assuage your conscience, reduce your buying power, and cost some peasant his job and dreams for a better life.