This thread is getting long so I will shorten it.
It is obvious that the general consumer (free market force) in this great
nation of the United States is willing to accept the conditions in which
these multinational companies operate. There is a great article in the Wall
Street Journal speaking directly to this. I will try to dig it up and put
the link on my next response. In general I believe that it argues that what
is morally acceptable in our country can be viewed differently by the very
people that the multi-nationals are accused of enslaving. To the "enslaved"
a job that pays is a job that pays. They do not necessarily see it as
enslaving.
The only instance in history that has been universally condemmed and is not
tollerated even by the free market force is child forced labor. Thus giving
rise to the unions.
The law that multinational companies fear is the law of supply and demmand.
If a given society says we are going to shut off your supply of raw
materials until you clean up your act you will do it. If a society stops
buying goods made by these "evil" multinationals, these "evil" companys will
change.
Morality is a personnal decision. That is exactly what I am arguing. The
basis of free market force is personnal decision. Not based upon what
somebody else tells me what to do, what to buy, how to buy, from whom to
buy, etc...
Your response is convuleted in one respect. You speak of corporate morality
and goverment morality and also of individual morality. There is only one
and that is individual morality. Governments and corporations bow to
individual morality. Morality has nothing to do with economic
circumstances. Morality is a concept of the human mind. Individually there
are billions of different views on morality. As a society you cannot
legislate, regulate, or impose morality. You can only speak with your voice
and ability to consume products you consider appropriate.
I will make a specific example. The Rainbow Coalition who is not wealthy
just made a demand on Toyota USA to spend $1 billion dollars to enforce that
coalitiois' morality on a mutinational company. The fact that Toyota did
this has made me decide not to buy a Toyota product. I have made my own
"moral" choice not one based on the Rainbow Coalition or Toyota.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jim <
farli@unitywave.com>
To: <
plug-discuss@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us>
Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2001 10:28 AM
Subject: Re: anonymous services
> The so-called "free market forces" evolved into multinational corporations
> who operate outside any law without fear of restriction by any government.
I
> need not cite a prime example of such a corporation. According to your
> concept, it is "right" for a certain company to continue to violate any
> general concept of morality it deems necessary in the interest of profit
and
> because it has had the financial resources to convince governments that it
is
> morally right to guarantee those profits at the expense of personal
freedoms.
>
> Corporations have shown no inclination that general morality affects the
> least of their decisions. You disbelieve? Look at the virtual slavery of
> "employees" in the far east condoned by even U.S. corporations. Look at
the
> lobbying efforts by many companies right here in our country to restrict
> freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution.
>
> The inherent reaction you speak to is not made by individuals who promote
> themselves as morally superior, but by individuals who respect the
freedoms
> guaranteed in our Constitution. Laws bought and paid for by corporations
> that infringe on those freedoms deserve to be recoiled from, contested,
and
> overturned. This is the "land of the free" not the "land of the wealthy
> corporations".
>
> Morality is not and should not be either a corporate or a governmental
> decision. Morality is a personal decision. Here in the U.S. we expect to
be
> able to make our own moral decisions, not have them forcefed from the
wealthy
> corporations. We choose to live here (or at least choose not to move out)
> and enjoy the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. Anyone who chooses
> corporate morality over freedom will end up with neither.
>
> On Saturday 15 September 2001 09:23, you wrote:
> > I feel that if we allowed free market forces dictate what is "right" and
> > "wrong" we will end up with a much better definition of what is morally
> > acceptable than if individuals are allowed to dictate the definition of
> > morallity. I also believe that the United States of America has the
best
> > foundation to this end, the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
> >
> > There is an inherent reaction from individuals to recoil at laws, rules
or
> > regulations that come from individuals promoting themselves as morally
> > superior.
> >
(text/plain)