Re: Robert Reich on consumer interests vs. worker/citizen interests

["Devine, James" <jdevine@xxxxxxx>]

I think this misses Reich's point, i.e., that the citizen/worker inside
our heads would and should rebel against slavery even though the
consumer of sugar would favor its existence. 

Bill's point is more germane: the slave-owners had a lot of political
power -- enough to keep slavery going for much, much too long -- and,
similarly, it's not us citizen/workers but Wal-Mart and its ilk that
dominate politics. Typically, Reich is appealing to the liberal "public"
(specifically, the readers of the NYT), assuming that they have a lot of
political power -- and that they will transcend their narrow
"consumerist" greed. 

Nonetheless, I liked Reich's cleverness. 

Jim Devine, e-mail: jdevine@xxxxxxx
web: http://myweb.lmu.edu/jdevine/ 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: PEN-L list [mailto:PEN-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> Michael Perelman
> Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 1:52 PM
> To: PEN-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Robert Reich on consumer interests vs.
> worker/citizen interests
> 
> You could blame people who wore cotton clothing for slavery by the
> same logic.
> 
> Montesquieu wrote "It must be said that slavery is against nature,
> though in certain
> countries it is founded upon natural reason.  One may distinguish
> between such
> countries and those in which natural reasons reject it.  One must
> therefore limit
> slavery to certain portions of the earth."  He added, "Sugar would
> be too expensive
> if one did not use slave labor."
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Michael Perelman
> Economics Department
> California State University
> Chico, CA 95929
> 
> Tel. 530-898-5321
> E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu