Topic: Government's Responsibilities
Corporate Well-Being We have no right to penalize individuals for being successful, or for working hard. But what about when they begin to crush other people in their self-interest?by Kishi
(Centrist)
Thursday, March 6, 2008
One of the selling points of this wonderful country we call the United States is this: you can get anywhere with hard work. If you work hard and develop the habits of success that unsuccessful people don't build, you can't help but succeed. It's inevitable. This country has lots of rags-to-riches stories. Andrew Carnegie, Cornelius Vanderbilt, John Rockefeller, I could go on. This is the kind of land where anyone can achieve.
Now, with everyone striving for that peak, there comes a point where people get together and ally with each other to grow richer. This is the fundamental reason for starting a business. It is, essentially, a community founded for individual benefit. And each business is started with the eventual ambition of being the biggest, the richest.
I think it's reasonable to say that not all businesses can be the richest. They all strive to be, though, and they all compete with each other for our patronage. We naturally choose whoever matches our needs the best. And the businesses, being greedy for our patronage, change and attune themselves to match our greed for their product.
That's the driving power of the free market. It uses one of our most powerful motivators - greed - and turns it to the good of all. And theoretically, it's a fine system.
Theoretically.
I think we've all read our history text books enough to know that it didn't always end up for the better. Companies have a history of exploiting their workers. You've all heard the horror stories of child labor, insanely low wages, hellish working conditions in sweatshops, and let's not even go into the hours. Really, the only mitigating factor here was that the dollar was actually worth something in those days. So we basically were working our lives away to make a couple pennies that we couldn't really spend anyway.
This is the essential flaw of individuality that we don't like facing. In order for one individual to realize his dream, it often means taking it at the expense of someone else's. We can't all be the king or queen of our field. There can be only one. That's the reason we want it, so that we can be distinct from all others. What would be the point otherwise?
This is the individual perspective on success. It's your call on how much you trust it.
Look at the corporations of today. In this era of governmental regulation and enlightened self-interest, surely they play nice and fair, don't they?
Of course not. They outsource, sending our jobs overseas to India and Malaysia. The labor is cheaper and they don't have any of those pesky human rights violations that they'd worry about here in the States. And that's not just technology jobs. Our produce jobs are sent down south of the border where they can use pesticides that were banned in the US. Their workers get sick and die, but we get Dole's bananas, so we can be happy with that.
This is the true picture of the human pursuit of happiness. Individuals banding together to crush other individuals. Our Constitution guarantees us 'Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.' You'd think that the government, then, should have the right to restrict these individuals, so that the greater whole can enjoy these rights.
It's popular to think that the Constitution guarantees us unrestricted rights. But unrestricted rights leads to unrestricted action. Unrestricted action is the same as unaccountable action. We worry about the government stealing our rights, but in the end, don't we have the corporations to worry about as well? Don't we, as individuals, worry about other individuals taking our right to work and to better ourselves?
It just strikes me as relevant, with the liberals looking to the government to fix our problems and the conservatives looking to the market. I don't like trusting corporations to take care of us, given that they don't care about the little guy. Trusting the government isn't really any better, though. Lean on it too much, and you become another handout taker, and we don't need that.
Frankly, I think it would be best if they worked together to cancel out each other's evil. Some guy wants to start a business. The government funds him, gets him off the ground and working, then pulls itself out of the business' workings. The only string it keeps is this: any jobs it generates stay in America. If the business outsources beyond a reasonable amount - say, 25% of its employees or so - the government seizes its assets.
This way, we have secure jobs and independent businesses who will look out for our interests. If we're so in love with the rag-to-riches story, let's give ourselves a chance to tell it.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 1 thumb so far
2008 Kishi, all rights reserved.
Published: Thursday, March 6, 2008
Last modified: Thursday, March 6, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of Kishi only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Kishi is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2008-03-06 06:12:53
The question isn't whether we can all be the richest. That's irrelevant. The question is whether or not we can all keep the rewards we have earned. When we have to give half of what we earn to the government, and when we have the rest of what we earn eroded away over time via fiat currency, then clearly the answer is: no, we can't keep the rewards, because our government keeps taking them away. That's the true cause of poverty, the true cause of economic injustice, and the true cause of individual suffering.
It should also be noted that corporations are creatures of the state, not of the free market. They are designed to limit liability for damage they cause, so that the damage-causers can get away with their damage.
If we had a truly free market economy in this country, corporations would not exist. They would be replaced with joint-stock companies that have no special, legal liability limitations that are any different from what individuals have. Thus, the owners of those companies, the shareholders, would be responsible for any damage done to others by their companies. That would be true justice, and it would be true freedom.
The Constitution had nothing to do with people's rights between each other. That is what the original intent of common law was used for. the Constitution was written to determine the contract between citizens and their government.
The reason the free market works without government intervention is you as a consumer have a right to purchase or not purchase a businesses services. You and many like minded citizens can change how business works without government intervention.
I have indeed read a lot of the history of mfg. It's no more fair to compare shops from the 1800's to today than it would be to compare a horse to a car. People weren't forced to work in them. They flocked to them because they provided a better life than they'd had before. It was so much better that landed gentry in Germany for instance, passed acts such as the lundfluct act [land flight] to subsidize the wealthy because they wanted taxes to help them compete for labor.
As far as gov't subsidizing biz start ups, there's dough all over the place. SBA loans, IRB tax exemptions, all sorts of stuff.
If you want to stop jobs flight to China, don't reinvent the wheel w/ yet another beaurocracy to drain US taxpayers.
How about reinstituting a simple rule of not trading with Communist nations? Worked for decades. From Nixon on the presidents passed the baton of so called free trade to try to get to China's slaves to make stuff for us.
There's not a dime's worth of dif between the dems and repubs.
Dumb crooks break laws, smart ones make 'em. Whoever wins the presidency will continue to expand trade w/ China. Easy to predict, we've got 40 year consistent track record of same from the White House.
Walt: Thanks for taking the time to read and comment. I actually don't see anything I disagree with in particular. I've worked with joint-stock companies before, and though I fared badly for it, I have no complaints about the system itself. To be honest, I'd really like to see all companies follow that example.
The company I worked for, however, was the exception. And I think that the reason for that is that people in general just aren't comfortable with the personal responsibility that comes with joint-stock companies. Oh sure, they say they are, but when it comes time to follow through, they aren't interested.
Take the company I worked for. It was a program where we worked as door-to-door salesmen, selling educational materials. Each of us was responsible for running our end of the business. We passed or failed on our own merits, and the profits we generated were ours and ours alone. The company would go to college campuses all year, talking to tens, even hundreds of thousands of students.
When it came time to actually do the work, the number we were left with was in the three thousands range.
People are comfortable with this corporate arrangement because, in the end, it gives them something to blame. I'll freely admit that my idea isn't the ideal way, but I do believe it's workable, at least for the time being.
J. Thomas: Oh goodness, you're absolutely right about the Constitution! That was my mistake. Thank you for catching that.
My problem with the free market is that, without some kind of intervention, companies are free to produce their products in any way they see fit. That means that they can find the people who will do it the cheapest. Cheapest means: lowest pay, lowest company investment in safety, etc. Sure, people are free to not buy from those companies, but the companies are putting out the cheapest brands. Consumer fetishism insures that the consumer will buy from them.
I mean, everybody buys Nestle Quik, even though it's made with child labor in Africa. Everybody buys Dole's bananas even though they're grown with unsafe pesticides. Those are cases where the government can't intervene, and the company is free to do what it likes. And people just keep on buying this stuff.
AB: I agree with you for the most part, except that trade with Communist nations isn't the problem. The problem is that our jobs are going overseas because the current bureaucracy doesn't know how to properly regulate the companies. The companies send the jobs overseas because the government insists on such tyranical measures as minimum wage and minimum sanitation.
Rather than inventing another bureaucracy, I think the current one needs a modification. Just give it the power to keep jobs over here by letting it start businesses. Businesses can cut their ties with the government when the business decides to. Just keep the one that makes the labor American, and you're good to go.
Greed is the desire for the unearned, and as such is a negative character trait. Rational self-interest is action defined within ethical constraints and is positive in nature. The pursuit of happiness is either positive or negative depending on a person's moral framework and subsequent actions.
While many businesses are motivated by greed, others are accepting personal and social responsibility for their actions.
Another term of ambiguous use is "exploitation", which is nullified as soon as volition enters the equation. As long as a worker freely chooses to work in a factory, this only reflects a step-up to him from his other choices and should be respected as such.
Please consider that ultimately, the consumer has the responsibility to purchase from producers that do not violate his sense of ethics, so avoid "blood diamonds", food from banned pesticide users and dealing with products made from governments that violate human rights et al.
What you say is true about businesses, both those who are greedy and those who take responsibility. Now, out of curiosity, how many companies actually do take responsibility? Is there a proportion one way or the other?
Regarding "exploitation:" I agree with what you're saying, when I think about it. Even so, there is still such a thing as giving your employees a raw deal. How is working on a farm with exposure to DBCP better than being unemployed? When does sterility become preferable to being poor?
Ultimately, you are right. The consumer has the biggest responsibility to take care of this. If only they would. But even with the facts out there, people simply aren't willing to face up and take that responsibility.
Right now, where I live, we're under heavy water-restrictions due to drought. But I haven't observed any change in our consumptive behavior, no matter what we're told. I honestly don't think consumers care.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2008 Kishi, all rights reserved.