TaN: Contractualization of labor is not (per se) unethical or immoral. To reiterate ad nauseum, only many can be good or evil. Contractualization of labor has its place in business. It cannot be denied that there are particular jobs that are seasonal — seasonal in the sense that they either exist only during certain times of the year (like Christmas) or during certain times of temporary surges in demand (for additional manpower, like sale events and industry conventions). In these instances, it is not immoral to engage in contractualization of labor because it would not be practical for a business to keep people in the payroll who have no work to do.
Moreover, there should be a clear and unequivocal definition of what exactly constitutes contractualization. First, it must be clear that it is applicable only under or during certain specific situations or conditions. Anything outside will not be considered (acceptable) grounds for contractualization, no matter what the reason.
Second, any business entity desiring to engage in contractualization shall notify and apply for a permit with the Department of Labor (and Employment). Furthermore, after the approval of the contractualization, the business entity shall establish a resident ombudsman to oversee and ensure that the contracted labor are not disadvantaged and address grievances and complaints raised or filed.
Third, the resident ombudsman shall be appointed by the government and whose salary shall be taken from the annual fee paid to the government by the business entity for the privilege of contractualization. This will ensure to some degree the independence and impartiality of the resident ombudsman.
And fourth (but not necessarily the last, because there may be more things that I have not yet thought of yet), the government can issue a list of situations and conditions that qualify as contractualization scenarios.
TaN: Listening to a podcast live interview in Infowars.com hosted by Alex Jones last Jun 28 (Tuesday), I realized and understood the revelation that the traditional Principle of Supply and Demand in Economics is no longer the sole explanation for the rise and fall of prices. Ever since currency itself stopped being mere a medium or instrument of exchange or purchase and became a commodity also, most of the today’s rise and fall of prices, especially on prime commodities and essential goods, is the fluctuation of currency values (pitted against other currencies).
The commodification of currency is one of the principal reasons why prices of goods keep rising without any true cause or reason. People speculate on the price of currency which causes the exchange rates to fluctuate and thereby impacting the prices of (not just the more sensitive) commodities but is not supposed to be a commodity.
Speculating on currencies is just plain and simple greed. Speculation in or by itself is already bad (enough), but to extend it to currencies is deplorable and downright evil. And to make matters go from worse to worst, it becomes oppressive and vile when applied to or impact prime and basic commodities, putting such essentials beyond the (financial) capability and reach of the impoverished.
With today’s agricultural technology at production levels well above what we used to be able to produce some half a century or so ago, famine, hunger and food deprivation is no longer affected by the Supply and Demand but by distribution due to greed. Business move goods to where they will fetch the best prices, unhesitatingly not thinking of or giving due consideration for needs of those who may need it more or most.
In addition, another significant factor is government subsidies of farm products. There is no quarrel if the (government, i.e., taxpayers’ money) subsidies are used to lower prices for goods and commodities intended for the local or domestic consumers, but to do so in order to enable (unscrupulous) businessmen to sell cheaply to foreign consumers at the expense of or without first satisfying local or domestic consumers is outright despicable and cruel.
In conclusion, as I have consistently argued and maintained, export is one of, if not, THE most onerous and insidious form of business ever engaged by man. But I must clarify this statement because, as I have also argued, only man can be evil so export is not evil in itself. It is when man uses it to further injustice on others, such as serving others before satisfying the local or domestic consumers first — depriving our neighbors to satisfy others just for profit.
TaN: By virtue of being the only country — that developed and — known to be practicing the “tingi” type of commerce, this makes the Philippines among the top polluting nations in the world, in terms of the production of trash (due to disposable packaging). In most cases, it is not so much the large pieces of trash that makes up the bulk of our waste but the small items. Moreover, it is the tiny pieces of trash that cause blockages in drainage and sewage systems.
Just like in an experiment with a large jar involving tennis balls, ping pong balls, marbles, sand, and water, it is not the tennis balls, ping pong balls, and marbles but the sand that ultimately blocks the water flow because there will be significant spaces between large items. Even in streams and rivers and dams, it is not the rocks and boulders that cause blockages but the fine silt.
Therefore, it is paramount that a (truly) sustainable solution to the “tingi” packaging be developed to put a substantial dent on the garbage problem of (most) urban areas — including a great majority of rural centers that are reached by the commercialism and consumerism of “modern” living.
TaN: It would appear the issue of the national identification just will not die down. Although it would be a great help in reducing need for so many overlapping identification systems, there are just a few that cannot be so easily and simply integrated because of circumstances, like a driver’s license (because it is a privilege that must be earned and is not enjoyed by just anyone). Moreover, a single ID that will take the place of so many sounds very inviting and convenient but do we full realize what we have to trade for that convenience in return?
Remember that, in this world, one does not get something for nothing. There is always a trade-off. The problem is the national ID advocates may not be explaining the full impact on our lives. [At this point, I would like to make it clear what I mean by advocates. They are the ones who may or may not understand or comprehend the full extent, ramifications, or consequences involved and may likewise be those who habitually mindlessly and blindly support and parrot whatever the popular, novel, or snowballing thing currently in vogue.
Just as I have been reiterating ad nauseum regarding non-human concepts and things, they are all amoral and their benefit (goodness) or harm (evilness) depends entirely on how man uses them, along with the intentions behind them. The national ID system is good because it can streamline a great majority of the requirements of today’s bureaucracy and business system with respect to establishing one’s identify. But this is only the world continues to devolve, where deceit, deception, distrust, and doubt has become the norm.
Gone are the days when all one needs to establish one’s identity is to state merely one’s name and heritage or lineage — like, I am John Doe of the Doe clan of so-and-so place. In those days, people do not lie about their identity, among other things.
Returning to the national ID issue, the dark side of it is that it will need to include many supporting data of a person where most of it are supposed to be sacred and confidential. The problem lies both in the distrust of the people in authorities to keep certain information confidential as well as the tendency to keep everything digital which is becoming easier and easier to cracking — not hacking, because hacking is good done by good people while evil deeds of the same variety are done by crackers or those in black hats) — and cyber theft.
There will not be any problem if both of the aforementioned issues or concerns are or will be 100 percent guaranteed to be secure and inviolable.
The biggest problem is that most of law- and policymakers are ignorant of the true consequences of having a national identification system and do not (whether due to ego or ignorance), especially when they are not fully knowledgeable on the long-term effects and the fact that the Philippines is notoriously known to enact laws that they later have to repeal, amend, recall, replace, and/or otherwise take back because they did not think things through thoroughly and carefully and are always take the shortcut.