Suppose the U.S. passed a law that forbid the importation of any goods produced by foreigners working in conditions that do not meet American standards of fairness. Furthermore, it would forbid aid to any regime which does not actively work towards improving working conditions to meet American standards.
Would this effort to fight sweatshop labor be an imposition of American cultural and economic values on others, constituting a form of imperialism? Would you fight this form of imperialism, or would you accept it as "benign" imperialism...a sort of new form of the "white man's burden"?
2006-07-27 12:50:55 · 5 answers · asked by timm1776 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Imperialism usually refers to getting some benefit out of the relationship at the expense of the other country. If a nation is pushing for change that it believes are in the benefit of the target country, then I wouldn't call that imperialism. It would just be pushing a political / economic agenda.
Personally I would support improving working conditions around the world, to reverse the race-to-the-bottom effect that seems to be happening these days. Then again, I don't really think the U.S. has done such a great job with its own labor standards (even if it is better than many). There are many nations in Europe, for example, that I wish would impose their employee protections on the U.S.
2006-07-27 13:01:45 · answer #1 · answered by cyu 5 · 6⤊ 0⤋
That's a good question. Is that a real law project or just a theory?
Because it doesn't make any sense to me.
If americans forbid the importation of "cheap" products, then they'd had to produce them themselves. And since american standards are high (or i think they are, I'm not one) these products would not be cheap anymore (because of higher salaries and more expensive infrastructure). I don't think americans would prefer to buy a 10$ toy or whatever when the chinese produce the same toy for 1$.
I don't think the american government would do such a dumb thing.
Besides that, how could the USA impose their economic values when more than half the world is poor?
How do you believe the USA could forbid any regime that doesn't meet american standards when more than half of the world population is poor?
Poor countries don't meet american (or the first world) standards not because they don't want to. They don't because they just can't. That's why they sell cheap products.
That sort of effort would not be any "bening". It would just hurt developing countries, which would probably find someone else to sell their products to.
2006-07-27 13:25:56 · answer #2 · answered by LG 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Imposing such protectionist measures would only exacerbate the low standards of living in such countries. Although it sounds good and feels good to impose such policies, they would not solve the problem.
It is up to the people of such countries to enact their policies relative to work conditions and wages. Imposing our view may not necessarily be perceived well by those who benefit from the jobs created by trade. The best comparison is the working conditions of the industrial revolution and the changes that occured as a result, to those conditions we have today.
2006-07-27 13:31:46 · answer #3 · answered by Tom Clark 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think that it in fact is a way that we are imposing ourselves upon the people. These people depend on others to buy the products that they make in order to stay a float. I think that it is a form of imperialism. I would fight it because it is not right but I think that we have enough laws passed that it would not pass and many people would fight it.
2006-07-27 12:56:43 · answer #4 · answered by crazylittleperson 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
1. military take over 2. political dynasty 3. capitalism 4.class system
2016-03-27 02:41:05 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋