That's potentially a very valuable point politically: Those complaining about unfair competition from China and those concerned about human rights can find common cause, and maybe enough support to pass such a bill.

'American workers should not have to compete with slave labor!'

That's a powerful point! This is a big issue that will affect our lives & the lives of generations to come.

Not to mention National Security issues & living in safe/strong neighborhoods. There are many reasons to promote ethical behavior & transparency with suppliers, on par with US standards. Ensuring that suppliers are ethical also disincentives industry/labor from leaving the US, as labor & compliance costs will be equalized.

We want lower-paying jobs to leave, to be replaced by higher paying jobs. I think the focus should be on the latter: improve people's skill and productivity, and make sure that people can make the transition from the old jobs to the new, including a proper social safety net to see them through.

There's probably effective & ineffective ways of promoting citizens' interests with local, national, & international business; however if we care about our neighbors & our values as a country, we should invest in our neighbors who share these values.

For me to be free, someone else must lose their freedom? There's a finite amount of freedom?

For me to be wealthy, someone else must be poor? There's a finite amount of economic output?

Both completely reject reality and well-established theory (such as economics). Both freedom and wealth per capita have expanded enormously.

Your freedom to kill people is limited to zero to ensure their right to live.

Our freedom to pollute the environment is limited by nature's ability to compensate.

My freedom to watch the latest shows for free is limited by e.g. Netflix to earn some money.

You are free to by e.g. Apple stuff. But you know... seems to limite quite some people's freedom.

I'm not free to live by the sea. To expensive.

I say therfore freedom of choice does not translate to freedom bit it is often confused to be the latter

The other thing is simply inflation. Too much money around and you have it. Kind of offer and demand out of balance. For any given state of the earth's economy there is a perfect amount of money to keep everthing going. That means the amount of money is finite. If the economy growth the amount of money can grow as well (what you described). But is is still finite unless you want to have inflation. But if this money is disproportinally distributed you have the rich and the poor. Being rich requires poverty somewhere else.

In the late 1800s, a number of slave families traveled down-river from Georgia after being emancipated and homesteaded in my area on the St. Johns River. As property values increased and they started being taxed more heavily on their (mostly waterfront) land, many of these families (whose patriarchs were mostly illiterate and not at all business-savvy) ended up selling to (i.e. getting taken advantage of by) housing developers, basically losing their identity and heritage.

The story isn't necessarily a direct parallel, but the pattern reminds me of the "milkshake" scene from the movie There Will Be Blood. People shouldn't have to worry about their basic livelihood and property being stripped away by anything other than perhaps a natural disaster of some kind.

This is a very interesting point. I'm not sure what to think of it. Maybe it needs a bit more complexity. After all the exploitation of disadvantaged minority owners is seen as hopefully almost universally bad, whereas using eminent domain to create a park/hospital/bus-stop/townhouse might be a good thing. Yet tyranny of the majority is also problem. (And of course it's hyperdimensional interlocking turtles in every direction philosophically.)

NIMBY-ism that happens in growing cities - so basically in all of them, since urbanization and migration to urban areas, and urban revival is going on - is seen as usually bad. Yet usually the problem is that any new development puts additional burden on the incumbents. (Eg. as population and population density grows there will be more people, more traffic, more big houses blocking out the sun, god forbid even more diversity too.) Which is a very similar in certain aspects. (A community trying to set themselves and their circumstances in stone. And we know people pretty much prefer stability.)

Land Value Tax comes up a lot to fight NIMBY-ism, but that's again a kind of tyranny of the majority. (If you have a small plot of land, let's say a garden, or a small grocery store in the middle of the city, LVT would probably force you to sell or develop it.)

However, at the same time we see that - for example in California - raising taxes on property is very much frowned upon. Sure, we know they have a very big financial interest in keeping housing prices going up and keeping taxes down.

...

So after all this rambling, probably what I'm trying to say is that the right to self-determination is important on many levels, but it naturally implies the conflict between those levels. Individual vs. group interests.