0 votes

Operation Rescue Japanese Homeless People

I propose a project to expatriate and relocate homeless or other socially undesirable people in Japan being recruited for dangerous work on the Fukishima plant.

All the fine upstanding Japanese folks got themselves into the mess and those same fine upstanding folks ought to be the ones who die from radiation exposure getting themselves out of it.

I refuse to condone fine upstanding folks passing their problems off to people they have chosen to exclude from society. Let some bankers, social workers, politicians, and other fine upstanding folks from middle and upper classes dawn some white suits and go fix it.

I invite you to join me in a campaign to rescue Japanese homeless people from being pooped on more than they already are and help get them out of Japan. I invite you to join me in a campaign to boldly state money can not buy the labor of homeless people so they can be exposed to radiation. Middle or upper class, fine, upstanding, Japanese folks dawning white suits and being exposed to radiation ... priceless!

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Thank you for the links

Do you think it is wrong?

Welcome my son, to The Machine | Lest there be any doubt, The Second Machine Age is upon us.

Get machines to do it!

The work, that is, not your project. Maybe Google can put its new robots to work:



BTW, where did you see that the Japanese are recruiting homeless to do this work?

Anyway, it is a fine idea for a project, and your heart is in the right place. But libertarians will never go for it, I'm afraid. They're all about reducing everything to market relationships, and unfortunately, the homeless are probably the cheapest labor around.

Welcome my son, to The Machine | Lest there be any doubt, The Second Machine Age is upon us.

RE: where did you see that the Japanese are recruiting homeless

I was reading a DP Fukushima thread and comments. I then started Googling for additional Fukushima news to get current since I haven't been religiously following it and it turns out recruiting homeless people just happened to comprise several stories for recent Fukushima news.

Do I believe they will get full and honest disclosures of the work? Adequate compensation for the risk? Provided the most advanced technology and tools to detect or work in radiation? Etc. No, no, no, no ... my heart does cry out for them as it does for any people who are not treated fairly.

" ... the homeless are probably the cheapest labor around."

What is libertarian about high risk work, which may include death, demanding the cheapest labor around? Do libertarians believe in risk/reward?

Thanks - any links?

I'd like to check it out as well.

I hear where you're coming from on the workers not getting full disclosure, or adequate pay with regards to the risk they'll no doubt endure. I'm not disagreeing with you at all. Nor do I endorse the libertarian position that every relationship should be reduced to a market relationship.

But to answer your question - "What is libertarian about high risk work, which may include death, demanding the cheapest labor around?"

What is 'libertarian' about it is that it is voluntary. No one is forcing them to take the job. No one is putting a gun to their head. It's not like they're in a Siberian labor camp, or on some other government chain gang.

Obviously, they probably don't have other options which may make it seem to them, and clearly to you, that they "have no choice." But that is not true. As long as they're not being forced, they do have another choice, and that is not to take the job.

Libertarians believe in risk reward, but it is up to each individual to make that decision on their own subjective preferences and situation. We cannot judge why others make the choices that they do.

Welcome my son, to The Machine | Lest there be any doubt, The Second Machine Age is upon us.

RE: What is 'libertarian' about it is that it is voluntary

First I was some kind of free spirit.
Then I was some kind of rebel whose creativity was crushed by the indoctrination machine.
Then I was some kind of hypocrite conservative with liberal social leanings who might have been found listening to some turd like Rush Limbaugh and ranting about a few brown people the US ought to bomb.
Then I was some kind of constitutionalist proselytizing original intent.
Then I was some kind of libertarian/voluntarist/anarcho-capitalist/anarchist or whatever you want to call it who rejected the state and embraced competition in currency and justice.
Nowadays I just am and the only thing I know is that I do not really know much of anything.
In some ways I have come full circle.

If man is going to appoint any rulers, including the rule of law, to govern him other than God or any other invisible, omnipotent, all knowing, all powerful entity or entities ... that system is going to be going to be thought up by men, administered by men, and subject to the ethical flaws of men. For this reason some people say any ideal is utopian and unsustainable. The world fundamentally operates on a system of anarchy and spontaneous order yet people fear the unpredictability of nature and no one advocates for it.

I am pretty darn happy I was not created a slave. My will can be applied to work against my own self interest because I am free to define my own self interest as it suits or pleases me at any given moment.

I do not have a problem with the Non-Aggression Principle. I advocate it. I do not think it is an end all be all. Some people say given there is no utopian option free markets are the only option which can achieve the most good. Some people say resources are finite and the only known way to allocate them without resorting to force is the price mechanism. Some people say there must be a predictable institution of property so the price mechanism can be utilized. Some people say these things can come about without any violence by people simply believing in them. It all sounds great.

One flaw of free markets denying it utopian status is that free market competition requires zero cost to enter the market. Zero cost to enter the market sounds great and fair because when one enters the world they begin a journey of life with no wealth. However what is the natural result of a capitalistic world where everything can be owned? The result is that everything is eventually owned and there is a cost to enter the market. Property is a friend of those who have and enemy of those who have not. Some people say property can be homesteaded but in my opinion that is more of a token novelty idea than any viable solution for many who have not.

I am fascinated by childhood but it can hardly be said I am a lover of children. What fascinates me is that when one looks at a young person they are generally good. Kids do not start out lying, etc. Those things are acquired. They are not forced to lie the first time they do it, they choose to. It is something about the world which leads a child to believe lying can be better than telling the truth. They tell a lie and then feel bad for not being true to themselves. I think children have a great deal to teach adults about the world.

It may very well be true 'voluntary' is libertarian but I say that in itself is not enough to believe in. I am not interested in a free market system supplying capital owners who are only interested in receiving a return on their risk a steady supply of economically disadvantaged people they can solicit who have not. I am not interested in a free market system where owners are morally free to exclude those who have not from nature because everything is property and owned.

I am not interested in forcing people to believe any one who has not should have zero cost access to nature or its owned fruit but I am equally uninterested in peddling any ideology which asserts it is moral and perfectly ok to exclude people who have not from nature and its owned fruit because everything is owned voluntarily.

How many fine, upstanding, middle or upper class folks are making a decision to work for minimum wage cleaning up Fukushima? Why aren't more of them making such a decision? Presidents including Obama say someone like Snowden is not a patriot and talk about duty and honor. Can we expect such upstanding, righteous, and honorable men to be leading the charge and first on the scene to help clean up their own messes? By advocating for the expatriation and relocation of homeless Japanese people I am simply asking good people to help correct a market distortion by removing economically disadvantaged people from the potential labor supply before they make a decision they might not make if they were not excluded from a society which now wants them to perform some of the worst work on the planet for minimum wage or less.

RE: links