zlacker

[parent] [thread] 5 comments
1. mmooss+(OP)[view] [source] 2025-04-03 20:45:58
Could you apply your hypothetical? What countries are you talking about? How do you balance the benefits and the costs? If you wanted to improve human rights, what would be the best strategy?

Do you think Trump and the GOP are doing it because of labor rights?

replies(2): >>tourma+TF >>teddyh+AF4
2. tourma+TF[view] [source] 2025-04-04 02:35:55
>>mmooss+(OP)
China, for one, has state-enforced labor of Uyghurs and other minorities: https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/against-their-will-the-sit...

And, while Mexico is trying to limit forced labor, they’re still one of our bigger exporters of forced labor: https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/resources/reports/child-la...

So it’s hardly a hypothetical. As for balancing benefits and costs, slave labor intrinsically weakens the value of labor to any country that imports, so ideally the US would tariff goods that are labor intensive from countries that practice slave labor. In general, taking China off of the UN Human Rights Council would be a good show (for what little the UN does), and countries that oppose slavery should tariff the countries that do it as well. I don’t want a blood diamond on my wife‘s finger, why would I want a blood apple in my mouth?

As for Trump, I believe he does so in part, not from an ethics perspective however. I imagine he views slave labor as undercutting US labor value, just as illegal immigration does, and that it plays some part in wrestling manufacturing away from China.

replies(1): >>mmooss+fL
◧◩
3. mmooss+fL[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-04-04 03:39:37
>>tourma+TF
> taking China off of the UN Human Rights Council would be a good show

That's not how legislatures work. It's like saying, 'take Senator Jones off the HHS committee because they are anti-vaccine' - the people in Senator Jones' state are entitled to representation with complete disregard for whether others like their Senator. Legislatures work with power as it is, not as how we want it to be.

> for what little the UN does

People on the right repeat it, but repetition doesn't make it fact. What do you know, specifically, about what the UN does (about human rights, if that's what you mean). The foundations for international law, which is powerful and effective though imperfect - like domestic law, but lacking the same enforcement mechanisms.

> [China and Mexico]

If everyone stopped doing all business with anyone in a country that does bad things, there would be no business or trade. Trade enriches the US, and has lifted billions out of poverty - including in China and Mexico.

Putting them back into poverty is just reckless. You need to come up with a better solution to your leaky roof than burning down the house.

4. teddyh+AF4[view] [source] 2025-04-05 13:00:12
>>mmooss+(OP)
> What countries are you talking about?

I did not have any specific countries in mind; I’m just pretty sure that there are such countries. I’d have to look it up to get any references.

> Do you think Trump and the GOP are doing it because of labor rights?

Nobody knows why they are doing it, since nobody can read their minds. But I was not talking about them, I was addressing your implied argument that all tariffs are bad and abolishing them will lead to global prosperity. I would think that abolishing tariffs would at least give other countries huge incentives to exploit their own populations (including children) in order to get money from countries where such exploitation is illegal.

replies(1): >>mmooss+6n8
◧◩
5. mmooss+6n8[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-04-07 03:30:20
>>teddyh+AF4
> all tariffs are bad and abolishing them will lead to global prosperity

I think when you get into the realm of extremes, you are no longer debating another human but a strawperson in your mind.

replies(1): >>teddyh+wY9
◧◩◪
6. teddyh+wY9[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-04-07 16:57:19
>>mmooss+6n8
Then, pray tell, how should your original comment be interpreted?
[go to top]