[QUOTE=Spherical Cow;407892]Guess I am just not jaded enough- seems unbelievable that all the people in DuPont who suspected or knew about those problems would just keep pumping that stuff out.

Norm[/QUOTE]
I suspect that most of the people involved were not being consciously negligent but were exhibiting a herd mentality. This would manifest itself as an unwillingness to be the first to "cry wolf", the thinking being that if none of their colleagues seem to be concerned about the implications for public health, then it must be alright, and as individuals they would look silly if they said anything when no-one else was doing that.

You see this phenomenon sometimes when a fire alarm goes off in a building. There might be some nervous glances from some people, but none of them want to be the first to say "hadn't we better get out?", and sometimes that results in everyone just staying where they are and ignoring the bell.

[url=http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2015/08/sweet-deals-and-cookie-crumbles-sugar.html]Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis: Sweet Deals and Cookie Crumbles; Sugar, Sugar[/url]

Mish's simplistic 'consumers have to pay more for steel (or whatever)-containing goods' argument ignores the fact that offshored manufacturing jobs are almost without exception either not replaced at all or 'replaced' by crapified Walmart-greeter-style McJobs. Thus the affected workers suffer a massive loss of purchasing power, which is likely far more detrimental to society as a whole than folks having to pay a few dollars more for a car, or putting off purchasing cheap imported CrapGoods they didn't really need to begin with. Obviously one should promote efficiency to a point, but offshoring good jobs to places with quasi-slave labor and nonexistent environmental regulations does not accomplish that, in fact it invariably leads to less efficient manufacturing in an overall sense which includes sustainability. Typical myopic 'pay no attention to the supply chain upstream of your bargain-priced consumer product' neoliberal claptrap.

And for more on the corrosive ideology of so-called 'free trade', see here:

[url=www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/08/picking-apart-one-of-the-biggest-lies-in-american-politics-free-trade.html]Picking Apart One of the Biggest Lies in American Politics: "Free Trade"[/url] | naked capitalism

[QUOTE=ewmayer;408634].....

And for more on the corrosive ideology of so-called 'free trade', see here:

[URL="http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/08/picking-apart-one-of-the-biggest-lies-in-american-politics-free-trade.html"]Picking Apart One of the Biggest Lies in American Politics: "Free Trade"[/URL] | naked capitalism[/QUOTE]

That is a very illuminating article. I do have to say, if it was ever contemplated to call this corporate takeover the "Southern Hemisphere Asian Free Trade Agreement (SHAFTA, now called the Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP).", the resulting acronym stands tall with such wonders as "Operation Iraqi Liberation." :max:

"Free trade" is a catastrophy for Africa : agricultural goods are produced in developed countries and subsidised to be able to export them. This means that in Burkina Faso for instance the frozen chickens from Europe or the USA cost less than the grain necessary for feeding chicken locally. After that we can provide ideological discourses about free trade and a bit of pocket money under the denomination of development aid. Others hypocritically use the argument that since the imported food is cheaper it is better for the people, just choosing to forget that to buy that "cheap" food you need money and the imports make it very difficult to earn any money.

All "developed" countries started by protecting their agricultural production, but the current "ideal" economy denies that to the poor countries.

Jacob

[QUOTE=S485122;408656]"Free trade" is a catastrophy for Africa : agricultural goods are produced in developed countries and subsidised to be able to export them. This means that in Burkina Faso for instance the frozen chickens from Europe or the USA cost less than the grain necessary for feeding chicken locally. After that we can provide ideological discourses about free trade and a bit of pocket money under the denomination of development aid. Others hypocritically use the argument that since the imported food is cheaper it is better for the people, just choosing to forget that to buy that "cheap" food you need money and the imports make it very difficult to earn any money.

All "developed" countries started by protecting their agricultural production, but the current "ideal" economy denies that to the poor countries.

Jacob[/QUOTE]
Well, there is still bush meat:
[URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/08/05/why-west-africans-keep-hunting-and-eating-bush-meat-despite-ebola-concerns/"]Why West Africans keep hunting and eating bush meat despite Ebola concerns[/URL]
And if that is a problem, maybe a [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_legs"]Jeb[/URL] trade deal will help.

[QUOTE=davar55;407547]Free markets does not include in poisons, or nuclear bombs, or in body parts, or etc.
Such materials have a basis by which free purchase and sales must be interdicted.
This is of course their extreme relationship to the generation of death.
We mustn't assail the basic principles of life-giving free markets because of the
abuse of trafficking in death (or violence). This is not to say that a free country
lacks the right to defend itself against those who act to harm it.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=xilman;407556]Yet again you have your own definition of "free" which differs in several important respects from the commonly accepted definition.
Arguing with you has close similarities to arguing with Humpty Dumpty.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=kladner;407550]Did you read the article? Can you really call a market "free" which is established at gunpoint? Is it a "free" market which strips enslaved countries of food, creating surpluses in the empire's capital, while millions starve to death in the fiefdoms? Rapine and pillage are "freedom"?
You are welcome to your contortions of language and your paucity of compassion and ethical sense. Don't tell others what we must or mustn't assail. Some people have other perceptions than those commanded by your religion of "Free" markets.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps you both are reading me wrong?
If so, it's my fault for not being perfectly clear.

My definition of freeedom and freee markets is probably not much different from yours.
A "free" market is not established at gunpoint, and rape and pillage is not freedom.
It is via freedom and free markets and their protection by legitimate governments that
such horrors can be prevented, avoided, or halted.

The point I was making is that this protection of freedom, of our rights, IS the proper,
and only proper, purpose of governments. This is why there is no such thing as a
free market in death or the instruments of death. This is why I advocate freedom,
but not license. Same issue as the intellectual rights issue, same issue as the
hate crime is definable issue. These two concepts (intellectual rights and incitement
to violence) are not meaningless abstractions but must be addressed in the full
context of defining rights.
And those governments which violate rights repeatedly are NOT legitimate,
and in such cases it is the Right of their people to form new government.
But it's not Freedom that should take the blame.

[QUOTE=davar55;411644]Perhaps you both are reading me wrong?
If so, it's my fault for not being perfectly clear.

My definition of freeedom and freee markets is probably not much different from yours.
A "free" market is not established at gunpoint, and rape and pillage is not freedom.
It is via freedom and free markets and their protection by legitimate governments that
such horrors can be prevented, avoided, or halted.
[/QUOTE]It is, however, very much different from the definition used by economists.

If you are going to discuss a specialised field (here economics, elsewhere intellectual property or cosmology) with a population which understands the the technical meaning of terms commonly used in that field, you should use the common vocabulary. Otherwise you are almost certainly going to be misunderstood. You have demonstrated that on a number of occasions now.

[QUOTE=davar55;411644]The point I was making is that this protection of freedom, of our rights, IS the proper,
and only proper, purpose of governments. This is why there is no such thing as a
free market in death or the instruments of death. This is why I advocate freedom,
but not license. Same issue as the intellectual rights issue, same issue as the
hate crime is definable issue. These two concepts (intellectual rights and incitement
to violence) are not meaningless abstractions but must be addressed in the full
context of defining rights.
And those governments which violate rights repeatedly are NOT legitimate,
and in such cases it is the Right of their people to form new government.
But it's not Freedom that should take the blame.[/QUOTE]
So,
0. A [STRIKE]robot[/STRIKE] Right may not harm Freedom, or, by inaction, allow Freedom to take the blame.

[QUOTE=xilman;411652]It is, however, very much different from the definition used by economists.
If you are going to discuss a specialised field (here economics, elsewhere intellectual property or cosmology) with a population which understands the the technical meaning of terms commonly used in that field, you should use the common vocabulary. Otherwise you are almost certainly going to be misunderstood. You have demonstrated that on a number of occasions now.[/QUOTE]

Which economists? Not all economists agree, even on basics. I'm sure pro-socialist economists claim
they're in favor of freedom or economic freedom, but their philosophical basis makes them wrong.
If you're asking me to accept invalid economists' fundamental definitions, then I can't. They're wrong.
They're incompatible with nature, human nature, and practical functions as well.

If you START with the philosophical base, which for rights begins with ethics (itself based on deeper
philosophical fundamentals), then socialism gets ethics wrong. That's the point.

I think we could agree on what we mean by freedom, rights, political freedom, and economic freedom,
(and there's nothing far afield about my definitions or understanding),
if we could agree on ethics, both ideally and practically. Your secular humanism is, in my view, on
the right path but falls short, because it doesn't emphasize that rights are rights of individuals, NOT
of groups. But discussion is possible.

On the other side, the pro-capitalism economists DO stress the individualistic nature of ethics,
and there is where I look for proper definitions of freedom, political and economic.

I, like you, respect and try to follow the golden rule, as an ethical principle. I think we agree on that.

[QUOTE=davar55;411667]Which economists? Not all economists agree, even on basics. I'm sure pro-socialist economists claim they're in favor of freedom or economic freedom, but their philosophical basis makes them wrong.
If you're asking me to accept invalid economists' fundamental definitions, then I can't. They're wrong.
They're incompatible with nature, human nature, and practical functions as well.
[/QUOTE]A rather good definition is given by
[quote=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market]
A free market is a market economy system in which the prices for goods and services are set freely by consent between vendors and consumers, in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other authority. A free market contrasts with a regulated market, in which government intervenes in supply and demand through non-market methods such as laws creating barriers to market entry or price fixing. In a free-market economy, prices for goods and services are set freely by the forces of supply and demand and are allowed to reach their point of equilibrium without intervention by government policy, and it typically entails support for highly competitive markets and private ownership of productive enterprises.[/quote]

Note: consent between vendors and consumers; supply and demand free from intervention by authority.

This definition, part of the common parlance of economists, is significantly different from yours. A free market by the common definition would allow for the unregulated transfer of fissile material (which is just one example given earlier in the thread) by consenting traders. In your definition as given earlier, a free market would constrain transactions of that nature and so becomes a regulated market in common parlance. Your free market is a regulated market as the concept is conventionally termed. Spotted the reason why readers here misunderstand you?

As I've said earlier, you are free to use your own definitions but please do not be surprised if people who use the standards fail to understand you properly. If you want to be understood, define your own terms where they differ significantly from the common usage.

[QUOTE=only_human;411655]So,
0. A [STRIKE]robot[/STRIKE] Right may not harm Freedom, or, by inaction, allow Freedom to take the blame.[/QUOTE]

THERE are of course several Rights, such as Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness, then Freedoms such as
of Speech, of Press, of and from Religion, and others.

Rights of individuals should not conflict. And one's rights are hierarchical. If my Freedom of Speech would
in and of itself cause your loss of life or genuinely threaten it, your right to your life takes preference, or should
under the law. Similarly in other potential conflicts.

My right to my life or liberty or pursuit of happiness may very well "harm" someone else's freedom if they
act to "harm" me (or the reverse case, which of course has never occurred) in that their action against me
and my rights would have to be stopped (prevented) or punished (presumably legally).

Freedom is not license, and as such, freedoms are not absolutes. Speech inciting violence is a good example
of the legal restricting of speech. Libelous press is another. Religious freedom is restricted by the
caveat '"believe what you want so long as you don't initiate harm to others."

You do not have freedom to the extent that your rights are violated or not protected.