Protecting the Exploited or Their Competition?

"It’s interesting to note that, according to the logic of Prof. Hill’s argument, Nike and other multinational corporations “exploit” workers in developing countries if these corporations give these workers employment options that are more attractive than these workers would otherwise have but nevertheless not as attractive as Prof. Hill feels they should be.  So, by implication, corporations that never enter developing countries – and, hence, never expand and improve, even in the slightest, the employment options of poor-country workers – are not guilty of “exploitation.”"  www.cafehayek.com

In an econ class, reference was made to what happened to workers after their plant was closed due an uproar that the factory was a 'sweat shop.'  The celebrity, who's name was associated with the garments made in this particular 'sweat shop', had to close down all sales of these garments.  Many of the workers had to go back to their former profession - prostitution - to make a living.

This brings to mind what Bastiat refers to in his classic work, (http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html) "What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen".  We may feel bad that workers in some factory have to live in conditions that we would not like to live in, but those workers may be working there because it is their best opportunity.  Foreclosing that opportunity to them does not improve their lot in life. 

However, this notion - that I know best what you should or should not do - is part and parcel of the Statist's view of things.

Frankly, I'd be glad to pay an American to make my shirts.  Still, I can't think of any reason why that American should be more entitled to make my shirts than a Bangladeshi, or Pakistani.  If the shirt can be made around the world and delivered to market for a value that is better than what it someone living down the street can deliver, it makes no sense for the person down the street to make shirts.