Prevention of Exploitation

Businesses based in a given country should not be permitted by the laws of its own country to exploit the labour and resources of another country where that other country's laws do not have the same labour and resource protection laws of the home country.



  • I object because it is a necessary evil for business to succeed

  • I object because its a decision for those in country hosting the work.

  • It's too easy for a wealthy UK company to bribe corrupt officials in poor, undeveloped countries and leave that country devastated.

  • One way of doing this would be the model proposed by Dr Joe McIvor, that import controls should prohibit bringing into a country products produced in violation of the standards applied in that country. Without such a law, it means that by regulating your own industry you are condemning it to unfair competition.

  • I believe this a sad and sick practice by alot of big businesses from many countries.It should be seriously looked at and questioned both morally and legally by all parties involved!

  • I totally agree with 000000001. Developed countries are believed to be the most civilized ones on the planet. Which means, their laws are stronger and better developd on each and every scope, including business. That's why I strongly believe that when faced with the opportunity to exploit someone else's resources in order to become even richer, they should be the ones to think about that other nation's rights and try and do everything they can to prevent shameless exploitation of defenceless peoples with corrupt governments. This would be fair and human. That's what all of us should do. We must restrain ourselves from doing to other people what we certainly wouldn't like them to do to us.

  • policeing the world dosent work. ex. U.S.A.change has to be individualy based

  • this would be a great first proposal of the President of the World to make a press conference about. Do we propose a separate motion to say that specifically?

  • The problem is that third world countries are trying to attract companies abroad to use their labor. They would be against this as its one of the best ways they see in developing, growth, and improving the lives of those whom before lived in poverty and gives opportunity for other to get out of poverty. However I see a need to stop multinational companies from bribing, polluting and funding such things as deforestation. However homeland government laws to protect loss of jobs should not be really something that the POW should be dabbling as being anti to this would cull the power of our voice on global issues. The point is countries in poverty need to strive to get out of poverty, developed countries need to increase their manufacturing base to re create new employment and decrease high unemployment. There needs to be a sensible balance.

  • @hentschel there is no such thing as a necessary evil, all that term means is that it's easier to allow it, then to do the right thing, it is far from a reason to allow anything to continue. Terming something as a "necessary evil" is impotence and inaction, who is the worse man? The man doing evil, or the man who watches him do it?

  • Absolutly true. We cannot live by this double standard.

  • I object because If there was only one country called EARTH, as there should be, this would not be an issue.

  • Way to go on this essay, hleped a ton.

  • 说:Beneficial info and excellent igdsen you got here! I want to thank you for sharing your ideas and putting the time into the stuff you publish! Great work!

  • I object because this is a bad idea considering the following:
    This is what the WTO is for. And it is very, very easy to employ as a trade embargo. There is no question that this idea is "just" but the implications and implementation is already there in international trade agreements such as governed by the WTO and the Vienna Sales Convention.

  • @1769 so what if it's already there - this idea promotes that. Stupid to object.

  • Baffles me to see objections to this idea.

  • I object because Exploit is often a opion not a set standard. I would agree if It was stated the smaller country must be protect human rights the same as the larger country.

  • Any company which is exploitive in a manner which would be illegal within the borders of its home nation, should be charged with crimes as if the actions were taking place within that nation.

  • scamonet

  • Poop idea


  • I object because this person is not taking into consideration who created and maintained these legal circumstances. He is expecting those who benefit from a thing to destroy that thing. That is irrational. : ) > -

  • I support it - in Eastern Europe lots of people pay recruitment agencies hundres of GBP ("administration fees") to get employment in the United Kingdom where it is illegal for anybody to charge fees for work-finding activities. The argument below about "the necessary evil" is true only for companies with NO WORK ETHICS!

  • And if we continue with an attitude of ignorance on the the ignorant will get ahead on the backs of those less fortunate.

  • This really should be a no brainer. Should a handful of capitalists be able to liquidate a countries innovation, patents and labor for their own gain? I think not. The people of the original country created the products, grew the company, maximized efficiency.. they people should reap the gains of their effort.

Similar Ideas: