disturbing ( to me )

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Mark Herschberg:
Well, here is where the details get tricky. Perhaps I feel the Chinese system is just. I think they have a right to surpress people who question them, because I don't think the freedom of speech derives from natural rights. So I don't think that is sufficent justification for a trade barrier. Of course, if they dump millions of tons of CO2 intot he air, maybe I think that is a good reason. All I'm saying is that I think we agree in principle, we just seem to disagree on where to draw the lines.

But you live in America and presumably believe that the American system is just. But even if you don't, the fact is that America does believe this. Therefore if America is going to force American corporations to abide by certain rules thus making it more difficult for American companies to compete, then America owes it to its workers to insure that they are protected from foreign nations that do not have these rules.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Michael Ernest:
Would you ask the US government to prevent other countries from "undermining" the local economy by offering cheaper goods of equal quality to us? If so, what set of balls are you going to use to accuse China and other countries of protectionism?

Yes, I would. In fact the US does protect certain industries from cheap imports. Unfortunately the IT workers industry doesn't have a strong lobbying organization. But our bosses do.

[Mark Herschberg]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
The fact is that America does believe this. Therefore if America is going to force American corporations to abide by certain rules thus making it more difficult for American companies to compete, then America owes it to its workers to insure that they are protected from foreign nations that do not have these rules.

America does not believe this. America believes what it's people say it should.* I am an American and will help define the America I want to live in.
Ok, to specifics. I oppose companies that do serious environmental damage, like Japanese whalers. However, if some third world nation pays their people $5 an hour to do what I do for 10 times that, and that's not a slave wage (yes, here's a potential point of disagreemtn), so what? If they do it because they don't offer health, or 401k, or unemployment, or because there's no such thing as OSHA and someone ends up in the hospital monthly, well, so be it. It's not my job to fight for their labor system.
Now granted, very few things in this world are strightforward, such that there are absolutes. Tarrifs and quotas are often linked to political values, as well. Economic aid we send overseas will impact not only straving families, but the economic conditions there, and the ripples will ultimately reach our shores. I can't say with an absolute that I am for or against overseas subcontracting, in a universal sense.
However, I do not know of any sweatshops for software, in the traditional sense (most of these workers are some of the best educated in their countries), and I'm also unaware of such companies doing serious environmental damage. The only advantage they seem to have on us is lower wages due to a lower cost and/or standard of living. I say to them, "go for it!"

--Mark

*You can try to argue that there are objective values, but I've noticed that terms like "equality for all" seems to have changed greatly in the last 200 years.

[Tony Alicea]

Mark:
"I think they have a right to suppress people who question them, because I don't think the freedom of speech derives from natural rights."
"For the love of god" you can't be serious!
I implicitly agree with you that nobody can prove what "natural rights" are. Do you know an objective way to determine them? I don't either. So "natural rights" don't exist. The right to breath? Not even that?
The rights that exist are granted by Man for Man.
What bothers me is that you don't (apparently) think that freedom of speech is of PARAMOUNT importance and that a dictatorial government has a right to suppress its people!

[Mark Herschberg]

Originally posted by Tony Alicea:
Mark:
"I think they have a right to suppress people who question them, because I don't think the freedom of speech derives from natural rights."
"For the love of god" you can't be serious!
...
What bothers me is that you don't (apparently) think that freedom of speech is of PARAMOUNT importance and that a dictatorial government has a right to suppress its people!

I am quite serious. I make no claim that the rights we cherish in the United States are universal and "right" (as in, "correct"). Who am I to tell others how to govern. Can you show me outright suppression?
In the case of the Chinese government, it was put in place by a populist revolution.
Consider the 4th amendment, another important right in the US. Israel isn't so trict, and understandly so. But perhaps Israel is a little extreme for you, how about the UK? There's no 4th amendment there. In fact, if the police illegally search your home, the evidence can be used against you. I think the British government is a good one, despite having different laws then we do.
Bottom line, many 3rd world nations have different laws then we do. In most cases, I do not feel a right to judge them for it.

--Mark

PS To answer the question I think you intended to ask... Would I want to live in a society like that? Of course not, but I must respect the rights of those who do.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Mark Herschberg:
PS To answer the question I think you intended to ask... Would I want to live in a society like that? Of course not, but I must respect the rights of those who do.

So the 8 year old child in India forced to work as a slave "wants" to live that way? The people in China who are arrested and forced to work as slave labor because they dared to object to the way they are treated "want to live that way"?

[Tony Alicea]

Thomas: the only real reason anyone would want to go to MIT like a good friend of mine did (PhD, Chem), is to study Physics, Chemistry or Math and/or Engineering.
All other can go to Harvard. Or Yale. Or Amherst
CalTech is a heavyweight in those disciplines, BTW. Ever heard of Feynman?
But I respect Mark's view from the point of view of trying to get rich quick with the least possible effort.
Which could be argued, is the so-called "American" way.
So who are we to argue!?

[Anonymous]

{{What bothers me is that you don't (apparently) think that freedom of speech is of PARAMOUNT importance and that a dictatorial government has a right to suppress its people!}}
Yeah. Yeah .. Freedom of speech is important when it suits you. On other occasions just delete the offending post so that the discussion is influenced your way.
It must be great being a sheriff.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by <slacker>:
{{What bothers me is that you don't (apparently) think that freedom of speech is of PARAMOUNT importance and that a dictatorial government has a right to suppress its people!}}
Yeah. Yeah .. Freedom of speech is important when it suits you. On other occasions just delete the offending post so that the discussion is influenced your way.
It must be great being a sheriff.

Freedom of speech does not mean that the owners of JavaRanch have to supply you with a megaphone. Freedom of speech means that you will not be arrested because of what you say. However, if you feel that JavaRanch is depriving you of your right to free speech then I would suggest that you find some other place to post.

[Tony Alicea]

Hey SLACKER:
We are not a gubernatorial agency, in case you hadn't noticed.

[Mark Herschberg]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Talk about revisionism! If this is the kind of crap they teach at MIT it makes me wonder why anyone would want to attend there. But I am glad that I have learned about your "values".

This is exactly what MIT taught me and I'm proud of it. It taught me to base my opinions on facts and logic, and not emotion. See below...

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
So the 8 year old child in India forced to work as a slave "wants" to live that way? The people in China who are arrested and forced to work as slave labor because they dared to object to the way they are treated "want to live that way"?

Um, where are there 8 year old children chained to computers turning out code?
Ok, more generally... what people in china who are arrested and forced into labor camps? Are there some? Undoubtedly, I'm certainly familiar with Falun Gong, etc. Was China right to do that? From what I know, I don't think China has violated natural law (which I accept as a basis for government), not in any way I can see proven, on a mssive scale. Sure there's plenty of speculation, but that's it.
Do they have political prisoners we think are unjustly held? Sure. So do other countries, but we're not putting up barriers against them; why not? Heck, by some standards the US has political prisoners.
What about Germany? Those nasty people outlawed Scientologists. The Scientologists are claiming this is Nazi-style tactics and demanding the US, which recognized them as a religion, pressure Germany to reverse this decison. Should we throw up some tariffs against Germany?
Am I skeptical of China's human rights record? Very much so. But I have not seen the large scale disenfranchisement, which is feel is necessary for the justification of our nation to place economic sanctions against a country for political reasons.

--Mark

[Axel Janssen]

I admit that the line is dificult to draw. Am not a big friend of trade sanctions either. I see Scientologist as dangerous brain-washers, so its o.k. that my Government protects our society against them.
BUT: To say freedom of speech is not a "natural right" is very radical.
Is it natural right of the executive power to torture people, because they stand up for democratic values?
Is the work of organizations like Amnesty International imperialism?
I don't think so.
Some international pressure on countries which are heading into anti-democratic dirrection is o.k., I think. For example I am boycoting italian pasta and wine, because Berlusconi is monopolizing the italian media. Or the italian people elect better Government or they won't earn money with me.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Mark Herschberg:
Ok, more generally... what people in china who are arrested and forced into labor camps? Are there some?

http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2001.nsf/webasacountries/CHINA?OpenDocument
[ July 20, 2002: Message edited by: Thomas Paul ]

[Anonymous]

AI is harsh on almost every country. Look at their report on USA.Pretty bad if you ask me.
http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2001.nsf/webamrcountries/UNITED+STATES+OF+AMERICA?OpenDocument

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by <slacker>:
AI is harsh on almost every country. Look at their report on USA.Pretty bad if you ask me.
http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2001.nsf/webamrcountries/UNITED+STATES+OF+AMERICA?OpenDocument

Actually, the report isn't bad at all. The violations were by individuals and were not supported by the government. It also shows an active attempt by the government to end the abuses listed.

[Mark Herschberg]

Originally posted by Axel Janssen:
I admit that the line is dificult to draw. Am not a big friend of trade sanctions either. I see Scientologist as dangerous brain-washers, so its o.k. that my Government protects our society against them.

Now you get my point. It's a fine line. (For the record, I'm not a fan of the Scientologists either.)

Originally posted by Axel Janssen:

BUT: To say freedom of speech is not a "natural right" is very radical.

I think people are unclear on what natural rights mean. Natural rights were defined by the philopsher, John Locke. They include the rights to: life, health, and property. (Some texts define the latter as liberty of possessions, but it's been accepted that the latter refered to land and material items.)
Many western nations base their legal system upon these rights. You should be protected from attacks, for exmaple, because that interferes with tour life and health. You should be protected from theft, because that interferes with your right to property, and so forth.
Some would argue that the US Bill of Rights also dervies from natural rights. By dervies, we mean that philosophers and legal experts can draw a clear line of reasoning why the former is implied by the latter. Of course, as with any legal and philosophical issue, people tend to disagree. Not every society argues that freedom of speech derives from natural rights. Even countries which support freedom of speech don't always claim natural rights as the motivation for the law.
This view may be radical to Americans who accept freedom of speech as a right, but to those who study natural rights, in a philosophical sense, this view is not as radical.

Originally posted by Axel Janssen:

Is it natural right of the executive power to torture people, because they stand up for democratic values?

Of course not. This statement makes me think you're misunderstanding what I meant by natural rights. In fact, many American laws, especially economic ones, don't derive from natural rights, but are simply in place for practical reasons.

See the following links for more information on natural rights:
http://www.bartleby.com/65/na/natrlrig.html
http://www.libertocracy.com/Librademia/Essays/Government/%5B7-univerdefinlaw.htm
http://history.hanover.edu/texts/adamss.html
Other good references are: John Locke, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and The Federalist Papers.

--Mark

[Jim Yingst]

Ah... perhaps a little cooling off here would be a good idea? We do try to maintain "a friendly place for Java greenhorns" after all. And even for bartenders and sheriffs, if possible. At the moment I'm not sure exactly how far back in the posts a line was crossed, but the tone of recent posts has definitely crossed into "unfriendly" territory. Any chance we could try setting an example for other posters here?

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Mark Herschberg:
If they do it because they don't offer health, or 401k, or unemployment, or because there's no such thing as OSHA and someone ends up in the hospital monthly, well, so be it. It's not my job to fight for their labor system.

Well, actually, it is. But that is an argument for the religion thread.

[Anonymous]

{{Actually, the report isn't bad at all. The violations were by individuals and were not supported by the government. It also shows an active attempt by the government to end the abuses listed.
}}
Let me quote from the AI report
"Police brutality, disputed shootings and ill-treatment in prisons and jails were reported. In May the UN Committee against Torture considered the initial report of the USA on implementation of the UN Convention against Torture. Eighty-five prisoners were executed in 14 states bringing to 683 the total number of people executed since 1976. Those executed included individuals who were children under 18 at the time of their crimes, and the mentally impaired."
Isnt the judiciary part of the government.
Isnt the judiciary part of the

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by <slacker>:
Isnt the judiciary part of the government.

AI is opposed to all executions so we can ignore that for the moment. The question becomes about what defines "children" and what defines mentally imparied. The "children" were 17 at time their crime was committed so one can question how much a few months means. The states didn't execute 9 year olds.
The other issue has to do with ill treatment in prisons. Guards are routinely attacked by prisoners and it costs prisoners nothing to bring up charges against guards. But it is not the policy of the US to brutalize prisoners. In fact, where I live, two guards were recently arrested and charged in the death of a prisoner. The issue isn't, do these things happen. The issue is, what is the states response when they happen.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by <slacker>:
Let me quote from the AI report
"Police brutality, disputed shootings and ill-treatment in prisons and jails were reported.

Key word being reported. No information given about frequency of supposed abuses and no mention if these abuses are systemic or the results of actions taken by individuals.
Amnesty International is an organization largely comprised of radical anti-American leftists. Here are a few relevant articles on the subject if any are interested:

• Communist Sympathies of Amnesty International
• Amnesty leftists put the democracies on trial
• The Left and the Death Penalty
• Amnesty International Travesty
• Nations United against Rights


I won't go into specifics since it would be deviating from the topic too much, but feel free to check out AI's site and read their articles and reports for yourself. Pay attention to the one-sidedness of the criticisms, who they direct most of their criticisms at, and even more telling, who they give very little attention to.
[ July 20, 2002: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Tony Alicea]

"and even more telling, who they give very little attention to."
Finally!
Somebody said it! If one is really interested in human rights, the USA should left for last! There are plenty of real bad guys to keep one occupied if one is sincere. You may never get to criticize the USA if you concentrate on the real bad guys!
You may not have any time left!

[Anonymous]

I was responsing to Pauls's post.
{{So the 8 year old child in India forced to work as a slave "wants" to live that way? The people in China who are arrested and forced to work as slave labor because they dared to object to the way they are treated "want to live that way"?
}}
Child labour is officially banned in India too.Since He quoted AI to prove his point, I just pointed out to him that the US is not an angel when it comes to human rights, and that AI is harsh on most countries when it comes to human rights.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by <slacker>:
I just pointed out to him that the US is not an angel when it comes to human rights, and that AI is harsh on most countries when it comes to human rights.

Or more appropriately, AI's stance of what constitutes human rights.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by <slacker>:
Child labour is officially banned in India too.Since He quoted AI to prove his point, I just pointed out to him that the US is not an angel when it comes to human rights, and that AI is harsh on most countries when it comes to human rights.

Officially banned maybe but it is widely practiced, so much so that it must be accepted by the government for it to occur. In fact, one of the major news networks (MSNBC) just had a special about the practice of parents selling their children to factories. It seems that this is very common in the silk industry.

[Anonymous]

{{
Officially banned maybe but it is widely practiced, so much so that it must be accepted by the government for it to occur.
}}
Yeah just like police brutality and racial profiling is widely practiced in the United States.
At least in India, you can blame it on poverty.

[Tony Alicea]

"Yeah just like police brutality and racial profiling is widely practiced in the United States."
I think not. I think it's sporadically practiced. And when the police is caught, the victim gets rich and doesn't have to work for the rest of his or her life. And the taxpayers pay. So the taxpayers don't want this to happen.
[ July 20, 2002: Message edited by: Tony Alicea ]

[Tony Alicea]

Now, after Sept 11 I want my government to profile as much as they want. It has my approval as a taxpaying citizen.

[Anonymous]

This is my last post on the topic.
My intention is not to bash the US. Personally I like the country( maybe not its foreign policies).
My problem is with Paul's ridiculous statement that work should not be outsourced to India, because the govt. condones child labour.
Why cant people just be honest and say that they dont want work to be outsourced bcoz they might lose their jobs.

[Tony Alicea]

I am that honest!

[Axel Janssen]

Originally posted by <slacker>:

Why cant people just be honest and say that they dont want work to be outsourced bcoz they might lose their jobs.

We can't change that. That's our risk. I come from western europe and I am against import bans for indian or whatever software.
Last week a customer has told me: "we do that in Poland now, because its cheaper". Well. My company has lost a job and I don't like it.
BUT: We can't stop that.
I have friends in a not-that-poor-developing country (Chile). I will probably visit them in september. They earn less money than me, they have more risk (german state helps if you are in trouble, chilean state has no money for that), they have less holidays than me.
They should have a chance to catch up. Same for India.
At the beginning of the 19th century Germany was an agrarian country. We started to develop some industry, and we exported industrial goods to U.K. U.K. demanded that we put "Made in Germany" on the products. At the beginning the products were of lesser quality. After some time "Made in Germany" turned into a quality-brand. India should be given the same opportunities.
Imagine. We put import ban on indian software. We all earn lots of money. We make holidays in India to watch that nice back-to-basic, pintoresq country.
My real problem with the IT-crisis is that I see all those greedy and often not very eficient guys in management, who has earned much more money than me and who don't get laid off because of bad results, because their compensation is too high.
Axel

[Mapraputa Is]

Originally posted by NobodyKnowsWho:
My problem is with Paul's ridiculous statement that work should not be outsourced to India, because the govt. condones child labour.
Why cant people just be honest and say that they dont want work to be outsourced bcoz they might lose their jobs.

I do not see anything wrong with people saying they dont want work to be outsourced because they might lose their jobs.
I do not see anything wrong with people concerned about child labour in India or elsewhere.
I would never believe "Paul" needs to "cover" his "true" motives by concern about child labour in India!
You are trying to solve non-existent problem.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by <slacker>:
My problem is with Paul's ridiculous statement that work should not be outsourced to India, because the govt. condones child labour.
Why cant people just be honest and say that they dont want work to be outsourced bcoz they might lose their jobs.

You have been missing the point. I will not speak for Thomas, but I did not take that as his meaning. The whole problem is that first-world labor cannot compete with third-world labor for a host of reasons which we have already covered. One such reason, which Thomas hinted at, and which sent you off on another tangent, was the various labor practices in some countries.
I am not against American companies using cheap foreign labor because of the fact that I am afraid I might lose my job, I am against the whole concept of American companies sending American jobs out of the country period. Labor is not a commodity that can be fairly traded on the world market, therefore protectionist measures are required for the greater welfare of the nation when employers choose to act in this manner.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Axel Janssen:

BUT: We can't stop that.
I have friends in a not-that-poor-developing country (Chile). I will probably visit them in september. They earn less money than me, they have more risk (german state helps if you are in trouble, chilean state has no money for that), they have less holidays than me.
They should have a chance to catch up. Same for India.

But let me ask this: should German companies fire German workers and send their jobs to India (for example) so that the Indians can have a chance to catch up economically? Why should Germany in effect provide welfare for India?
[ July 21, 2002: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by <slacker>:
Yeah just like police brutality and racial profiling is widely practiced in the United States.At least in India, you can blame it on poverty.

Widel practiced? Now that is simply not true. With millions of people in US prisons we have a few cases of alledged police brutality. That hardly sounds widespread. Meanwhile, the MSNBC special showed that every silk factory they visited had children under 10 working there who had been sold to the factory owner by their parents.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by <slacker>:
My intention is not to bash the US. Personally I like the country( maybe not its foreign policies).

And the reason I should care what you think about the USA is...

Originally posted by <slacker>:
My problem is with Paul's ridiculous statement that work should not be outsourced to India, because the govt. condones child labour.
Why cant people just be honest and say that they dont want work to be outsourced bcoz they might lose their jobs.

I would be more than willing to compete against any society that wishes to compete on a level playing field. But I don't think I should be forced to compete against countries like India and Pakistan that unfairly compete.

[Thomas Paul]

Oh, and I see nothing wrong with racial profiling at our airports. I think it is much more likely that an Arab is going to hijack a plane than an 80 year old African-American woman. If that makes me racist then so be it. But some racial profiling may have prevented the tragedy that occurred on Sept 11th.

[Rob Ross]

It doesn't make you racist, it makes you practical.
If someone just robbed a bank, and they put out an APB, and say the suspect is a hispanic male with a mustache, 25-35, 5'8, wearing a blue baseball cap, and you're a cop, and you're driving down an alley in the same neighborhood as the bank, and you see a hispanic male that matches that description, you're going to stop him and question him. That's profiling, based on current information.
Like you said, you're NOT going to pull over and question every person you meet in the city near the bank to be "fair" and avoid "profiling", because
1) 80 year old women don't rob banks
2) you don't have enough manpower to have to search *everyone* to eliminate them as a possibility. You focus your efforts on the people that might have potentially robbed this bank, based on the evidence you currently have.
I see nothing wrong with this, and the people that call this kind of thing racism are confused, and have watched way too much Oprah.

[Anonymous]

Ok this is my last post .. unless I decide to change my mind again
{Oh, and I see nothing wrong with racial profiling at our airports. I think it is much more likely that an Arab is going to hijack a plane than an 80 year old African-American woman..}
I dont care about your views on Arabs either.
{But I don't think I should be forced to compete against countries like India and Pakistan ..}
Outsourcing is here to stay. Thank God, US policies are not decided by keyboard sheriffs. If you cant compete against other countries...
my sympathies are with you.

[Axel Janssen]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

But let me ask this: should German companies fire German workers and send their jobs to India (for example) so that the Indians can have a chance to catch up economically? Why should Germany in effect provide welfare for India?
[ July 21, 2002: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

Because they must earn a lot of money to pay the compensation for their CEO.
Why some americans buy BMW or Mercedes cars instead of GM or Chrysler?
Why I eat oranges and not sour german aples?
Why I buy Kellogs and sometimes american peanut butter?
Why this monitor is assembled in East Asia?
Because its cheaper and not prohibited. And I think to pass a law to prohibit buying software in India wouldn't be a good idea.
Developing through import substitution never has worked. All countries which catched up economically did that through a steep rise in exports (Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Singapoore, Malaysia and to a lesser extend Chile and Mexico).
Actually, the stuff we are discussing has been discussed a 1.000 times. Here is one article http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/berries.html
Here is another:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jb38/papers/East_asian_miracle.pdf
There was a b.i.g. debate in the USA when Mexico entered the NAFTA in, I think, 1994. As we all know, the following years where marked by lots of unemployment in the USA.
Yes. The labor market in IT changed a lot. For me, the problem is not India. A lot of consulting intense jobs can't never been done in India, anyway. And great part of the work is actually this.
I hope that this new crisis leads to
- less companys believing in their own marketing lies
- more people in management who are able to think about the future of the company. And not only their own future.
- companies with better internal communication environments.
Perhaps in 3 years or so there will be books that point out that the success of the indian software industry is based on capable management and well trained designers and programmers, not on low wages.
People who write software needs hope of a better future or a good present.