This has been a question ringing in my ears for awhile.
Consider the fact that most consumer goods sold in this country are made with the misery of millions around the world. Some of the metals used in your computer and cell-phone are mined with slave and child labor. The fabrication of the computer chips is highly polluting. The process of lithography used to fabricate the chips uses highly toxic organic chemicals to lay down the circuits. Most computers are sold through direct consumer sales at places like Wal-Mart or Best Buy, which consistently mistreat labor, or through companies like Dell, which again has a poor labor record. These companies also distort the tax base of the communities that they have stores or call-centers, usually highly advantageous TIFFs that force property owners and renters to bear more of the tax burden for their communities while destroying smaller businesses in the communities. Finally, internet access is only possible due to energy gobbling server farms all across the country. Every part of the life-cycle of a computer has negative consequences.
How does one opt-out of this system? That is my question.
A computer is just one example of the multitude of consumer goods that come with a serious quotient of human misery. I read an article once about how soccer balls are made by Pakistani children. Though, it appears there has been some change in this practice.
Or, all the misery that is a part of modern food production. Petro-fertilizers and pesticides, made with oil that compounds the suffering in the ME, the migrant workers who pick lettuce for '$50 an hour.' The workers in food production facilities who systematically abused and used up due to physically damaging production demands. All so we can have cheap hamburgers and fries.
I think one way we can opt-out of this system of exploitation is to work on getting tax laws changed locally, at the state level, and federally, so that there is a premium added to cheap goods that would create disincentives to create products at the expense of humanity. It would also level the marketplace so products made ethically could compete on their production process or methods rather than price. But then I realize that is mostly a fool's errand as the large majority of people will easily be swayed by the corporatist arguments that raising taxes will cost consumers in the end.
Of course, an issue with taxes is that variations in the tax code by location could cause damage by causing 'jobs-creating' industries to move to cities and states that are more corporate friendly or more willing to shell out taxpayer money to pay for the privilege of having a Super-Center or a non-union auto factory.
And it is the ideology of price, the illusion that the true value or worth of a material object (and even human being) can be given a numerical value, that distorts our perceptions regarding the economy and consumer goods. And there are legions of economists who will defend this ideology, and with it, that price stability is the best measure of economic health for our country, state, or city.
How do we communicate the true costs of the economy to people who are ignorant of these issues? the people who choose not to care? the people too tired and overworked to care? How do we overcome the power of the marketing industry pumping the 'need' to consume? and the need to keep our ie corporate taxes (and by extension) low?
Maybe it would be as simple as changing accounting standards to actually account for externalities of production (things like pollution, labor practices, etc.). But is that really simple in a globalized economy that is directed by the likes of the Bank of International Settlements, the IMF, the World Bank, etc. Organizations that have outsize influence on creating standards across the globe.
I don't really know, but I would like to hear people's ideas and thoughts. I think this is a discussion worth having, because economic justice should be a cornerstone of any progressive movement (that was where MLK was going when he was unfortunately killed -- will it take another MLK? and what does that say about people leading themselves, the health of our democracy? is it necessary to have a strong and charismatic leader to effect change in people's hearts and minds?). And I think that if we listen to each other, we might find larger or systemic solutions and ideas for effective action.