Thanks for your measured reply. Looking back, my response was a bit harsh, at least in tone. I used to support minimum wage and other “worker protection” policies, so I should be more patient with those who still do.

> In this situation, would you agree that the Chinese people are essentially slaves to their government and leaders?

I would say that in any country, to various extents. But I’m not sure how that is relevant to your post, which is suggesting that the workers are slaves to the corporations like Apple/Nike/etc.
Does Apple use force (directly or through government) over those workers? Not to my knowledge.

> my first hand experience tells me that situations like this are avoidable.

I’ve been trying to learn more economics (for the second time in my life) and I would recommend it. It is often the case that some effects are visible, while some others are harder to see or require imagination. The built bridge is seen, but the things that could been built (had that money not been taxed) are unseen. See “Economics in One Lesson” or Bastiat’s essay on the topic (http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html).
So you can avoid people working in sweatshops or getting paid a meager salary (the visible improvement), but it is often harder to see the other effects (people moving back to worse conditions).

The power of libertarianism is that it understands the moral evil and logical inconsistency of using aggression. I fail to see how this is less true in the short-term.
Also, economics is really useful to see how things can (and do) improve without relying on or waiting for hearts becoming more pure (although that’s laudable). Peaceful and cooperative relationships work, even if people don’t have the best intentions. The best intentions are optional.

Pete, you are so right. While “slavery” is not exactly the right word, Apple’s exploitation of Chinese workers is being justified by playing to our desire to have that great new iPhone or iPad at a bargain price. I have no doubt that consumers (of cotton) before the Civil War were making the same argument about actual slavery.

@Julien,

Thank you for your comment.

I suppose “slavery” is less accurate than the more accurate “indentured servant”, except with indentured servants, there’s a time limit. In this situation, would you agree that the Chinese people are essentially slaves to their government and leaders?

You comment on the next best alternative is fair. I’m not a politician or an economist. But for someone who grew up and lived in a 3rd world country, my first hand experience tells me that situations like this are avoidable.

I’m a libertarian. I’m not an advocate for almost any government legislation. Yet, some make sense to me, at least in the short term, until our hearts become more pure, which is a hopeful and diminishing vanishing point.

Thank you for your comment.

While I certainly don’t rejoice of the working conditions of sweatshops, I find your recommendation rather inhumane. Since when are people made better off by removing their best available alternative?

Finally, your reasoning suggests that child labor is gone because of legislation, likewise for US sweatshops, poor working conditions, etc. This is counter to facts. All those conditions had been improving dramatically prior to intervention, which highlights that economic development is the real cure, not legislation.

There is plenty of reading on sweatshops in the economics literature. It’s better to educate oneself to avoid harming others by using forceful policies.
http://econlib.org/library/Columns/y2008/Powellsweatshops.html