Exactly. As Adam Smith said, "IT IS NOT FROM THE BENEVOLENCE OF THE BUTCHER, THE BREWER, OR THE BAKER THAT WE EXPECT OUR DINNER, BUT FROM THEIR REGARD TO THEIR OWN SELF-INTEREST"
These merchants weren't benefitting society because they were nice, but because their greed produced goods which benefit society.
Countries where it is difficult or impossible to reduce costs, headcount or do other "mean" things have much higher unemployment and much lower standards of living. But at least those lucky job holders can feel more "secure" than Havoc.
And that is an overgeneralization of the argument. We're dealing with specifics. Nobody's saying companies have to stay in America to provide service to outside countries and businesses. But when you're competing with the US market, you have an ethical responsibility not to undercut the us market with foreign labor in an effort to scuttle the market. That is an attack on business, on individual workers and on the market at large - devaluing the economy, depressing wages and devaluing products. That is why Dumping was made illegal - for those very reasons. And it's been stated over and over again.
Lynching is illegal because it's murder. And you're arguing essentially that if you stab a man that it's ethical because you didn't lynch them. I't still murder when the guy dies. It doesn't matter how you got there, the result is the issue you're being judged on. Dumping was illegal because it devalues wages and products and puts business at risk of failure. It is a subversion of the market. Competing with low cost foreign labor against the American market does the EXACT SAME THING - produces the EXACT SAME RESULT and is therefore EXACTLY the same issue. It's unethical because it was deemed illegal and for good reason. It's so clear it isn't even debateable, yet here we sit after how many days right back at the same point and not a one of you able to get around it.