Would you trust corporations to self-regulate?

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Dasher

 

Um, local officials are much more easily and cheaply bribed than federal officials, which is why free market advocates always cheer for state rights. The states are the ones who come down the hardest on small businesses, and dance like monkeys for the big corporations.

You are being naive.

I don't agree with that. The White House is on the other side of the continent. They are not accountable to people on this side. Meaning that they could never have a majority of Americans protesting there.

However, politicians in my state's capital are physically accountable to the entire population of my state.

If corporate regulations were decided upon in my state, I feel the citizens would have a true say in matters. My state takes our measures very seriously and it's a functioning system. I would love if that was simply what government was.

reply to post by poet1b


You are replying without comprehending. I did not say that free-market rules were not harsh. I said they were soft in regards to their application, meaning; one rule may apply one place, but not another. I even cited an example to illustrate my point. You are now distracting from the core idea. To return to the core idea and use your own words... free-market rules are very harsh. And if people had the guts, self-control, self-sacrifice, whatever, to enforce their beliefs, no corporation would ever be so large that it tramples on them. So again, you are missing the point entirely, although you are helping me point to and illuminate some very good concepts.

reply to post by Cuervo


Agreed. If the local mayor had the appropriate power to protect his constituents from corporations and instead sold me out, I'd be at his office the next day. Try to do that on a federal level. You will be labeled a terrorist and would be eligible for assassination without trial. Who the hell would be ok with that kind of regulation? Nevertheless, we are each entitled to our views.

The people should regulate corporations. If a company is doing something you don't like boycott it and protest them till they change and even sue. Once it becomes more profitable to do said regulation than ignore it they'll change.

For instance and this example is going to sound silly but the best I can think up right now.

So lets say I don't know Apple saves money by drowning puppies, because making Ipods somehow makes puppies as a bi-product from being produced. If people stop buying from Apple because of the Puppy drowning and it starts cutting into profits so much that it becomes cheaper to set up a adoption shelter then drown the puppies. It will obviously be in Apples best interest profit wise to do the nice thing. See you don't have to give a corporation money or buy their products.

We have the power to make or break them.

EDIT: Thats what Ron Paul means by how the free market will regulate itself. Nobody is going to buy the car ford makes if it breaks down often and ever time you hit the breaks it punches you in the face. People are going to buy the better and safer car.

Originally posted by Mcupobob
Apple saves money by drowning puppies

Those bastards!!


Suppose that, instead of i-pods, the company sold, say, oil.
Would you stop using every petroleum based product to save those puppies?
That's a lot of stuff to boycott.

The first thing which we should all remember is that Dr Paul is a libertarian.

Many of these people have an almost "utopian" view about man's ability to discern right from wrong. They often think people are inherently good and will do no wrong because it will be against their own best interests.

I may be the "king of sinics" but I believe I know people too well to ever feel this way.

I don't know if many here remember reading or hearing about a place named Love Canal,New York or not.

Read up on this topic and you will learn why we have an EPA. Look at the air in almost any major asian city and you will learn why they have passed the Clean Air Act.

I am not saying all regulations are perfect, many are truely non-sense, but there are reasons to keep people from causing the planet to self distruct. Mainly because if they are left to their own self regulation, they will not hold themselves responsible for their own actions.

As far as a corporation goes there is only one thing that comes close to accountability and that is the bottom line.

reply to post by subject x


I wish I could sadly government regulations prevents me from buying a car that runs off hemp Bio-fuels or any alternative source. Now in a free market I would have the choice, correct?

EDIT: And it is a lot of stuff to boycott, better to start working on it now instead of bitting us in the ass later.

reply to post by subject x



Yepper, that is exactly what is happening, after Newt's dereg plan got put into place.

The biggest problem is that people can hide behind the mask of the corporate entity, and practically do anything they want. If you punish the corporation, you don't punish the people who committed the crimes, and usually they walk away with the money.

reply to post by Cuervo


Are trying to say that the state government has never sided with big business?

They are closer to the people physically but they are still out of their reach.

Corporations have no possible hope of ever achieving a status of self regulation, or self government. By their very nature they are artifices, legal fictions, chartered entities granted permission to exist by the state where that corporation is chartered. The creation of a corporation requires a charter, that charter comes from the state. This fundamental relationship is founded upon regulation.

Free individuals, living breathing flesh and blood people who need no statutory definition of person in order to know they are a person, on the other hand, do not need any permission from the state to exist. Indeed, when it comes to We the People, the state exists by Our permission.

The state has every right to regulate the corporations they charter. Even a state that shows great restraint in light of that right, and limits their regulatory schemes to the absolute minimum, the People who make up that state, at all times, hold the inherent political power and have the political authority to revoke corporate charters. Of course, over 50% of publicly traded corporations and at least 60% of Fortune 500 companies are chartered in the state of Delaware. It is the attorney general for the State of Delaware who has the legal authority and power to revoke a corporate charter. Without the pressure from the People from the Great State of Delaware, that attorney general is unlikely to pursue charter revocation due to corporate malfeasance if he doesn't have to.

Currently, it is the son of the Vice President Joseph Biden, Beau Biden, who is the current attorney general for the State of Delaware. Delaware is considered a corporate haven because of all the advantages, including tax advantages, corporations get by being chartered in Delaware. In other words, Delaware is offering laxer regulatory schemes than other states in order to attract a corporations desire to be chartered in that state over other states:

Pursuant to the "internal affairs doctrine" rule, corporations which act in more than one state are subject only to the laws of their state of incorporation with regard to the regulation of the internal affairs of the corporation. As a result, Delaware corporations are subject almost exclusively to Delaware law, even when they do business in other states. Among other reasons, this contributes to Delaware's attractiveness as a state of incorporation

en.wikipedia.org...

Monsanto is a corporation chartered in Delaware, but one that wreaks havoc across the world, including the several states within the United States. While they are not immune from other state laws, when it comes to charter revocation, if Monsanto has destroyed prime agricultural land in the State of California, this does not give the attorney general in that state the power to destroy Monsanto. Only the attorney general in Delaware can do this.

Here's the deal. I have spent some time addressing how corporation cannot escape regulation, but also demonstrating how they can influence how that regulation is practiced. It has been since the rise of corporatism that governments, local,, state, and federal have usurped the government belonging to the People and expanded the scope of their power to regulate free non chartered Persons. Today booksellers, shoemakers, tailors, hairstylists, and all sorts of innocuous retailers are licensed to do business. Why anyone would need permission from the state to sell books is beyond me, but this is the case. All businesses are expected to "apply" for a business license.

It has become common practice, and so much so that few people are cognizant of the fact that a license, legally speaking, is the grant of permission to do something that would otherwise be illegal. Why would it ever be illegal to sell books? Why would it ever be illegal to make and sell shoes? One is not required to incorporate, and without this incorporation, a sole proprietor accepts full liability for their product and actions, as opposed to the corporation who gains limited liability, so why would they need any permission to do what is their fundamental and unalienable right to do?

Living, breathing, flesh and blood People are more than capable of self government, and in a free market self regulation, corporations - by their nature -- are not. For this reason, charters of incorporation should be limited and created with great caution and consideration. This requires that the People of every state pay strict attention to how their legislatures are playing this game of incorporation, and if they ever hope to gain their rightful freedom and get out of government what they have been mandated to do, to unite in ways that exert the necessary political authority to regulate the government. Regulate the government first, restrict their actions first.

Originally posted by hdutton
Many of these people have an almost "utopian" view about man's ability to discern right from wrong. They often think people are inherently good and will do no wrong because it will be against their own best interests.

I may be the "king of sinics" but I believe I know people too well to ever feel this way.

And the people you know are the fruit of a regulated system. That speaks against your basic premise.

Originally posted by hdutton
I don't know if many here remember reading or hearing about a place named Love Canal,New York or not.

Read up on this topic and you will learn why we have an EPA. Look at the air in almost any major asian city and you will learn why they have passed the Clean Air Act.

The primary implication of libertarian thinking is not anarchy. This confusion and disparaging inference is absolutely wrong. The regulations of local governing entities should be sovereign. More so, in the example you cited, government corporate regulations empowered a business with the rights of a person without mortality and such power should not be granted to a concept. Had government regulations not empowered the corporations with such abilities, and had government structure not stripped local governments of their sovereignty, your example would actually support your view. However, this example perfectly exposes the impotence of government regulation, and when further regulation was imposed, it's impotence was further brought to light in it's strangulation of small/ local businesses.

I have no understanding of why people are continually using a federalized and regulated system's failures to attack a free-market system. The free-market system was mostly dismantled through the civil war and it death was in the 1930s. To truly shed light on the history of the free-market, remember that this country would not have manifested itself as a "powerhouse" so quickly without having been founded on libertarian values.

Originally posted by hdutton
I am not saying all regulations are perfect, many are truely non-sense, but there are reasons to keep people from causing the planet to self distruct. Mainly because if they are left to their own self regulation, they will not hold themselves responsible for their own actions.

As far as a corporation goes there is only one thing that comes close to accountability and that is the bottom line.

So long as people buy and use plastic bags, people will sell them. The point is, the fault is not entirely, or even primarily with government and corporations. The fault, even in a regulated system is with the consumer.

Some people who understand that take that logic to the point of arming themselves and readying to "take back the country," but that boils down to the same mindset which establishes any empire. The free-market is truly the default. Regardless of regulations, I am free to not pay federal taxes. How many people can be imprisoned before the free-market shrivels up an already self-destructive national system? I am free to not buy certain products. If I don't like a company, but love it's product, then it's up to me to determine if I am willing to make a sacrifice for the betterment of our society, or see that the product is worth the detriment caused by the company.

So the point is, we don't need to vote in a free-market system. It is already in place. What needs to occur is a movement, en masse, away from the fear of ungodly men. However, I don't expect this for a while yet. I am hoping to be surprised by this, but for now I will do my best to "fit in" and push for goodness very gently. There should be no call to arms unless individuals begin to be assassinated. I understand that is within the scope of our regulated system, but I don't think that it will be commonly exercised as it would mean the rapid death of our nation, and I hope no one would want that.

reply to post by poet1b


The principles I have been speaking of are a packaged issue. You cannot deregulate regulations intended to preserve good from the spoilage of the inconsiderate acts of a monster (corporation) while leaving regulations which preserves the false powers of that same monster. This is basic logic. I appreciate that you have a different view, but I do encourage you to think, think, think about this issue from more perspectives than you are doing so currently. What I am advocating is not idealistic. It is the way things are apart from interference and our choice is to continue denying it until we have burdened ourselves into reasonable conduct, or we willfully marry ourselves to the responsibilities which are inherent to civilized conduct.

reply to post by Dasher


It's creepy, and 1984esque, but I'll say it:
True liberty is slavery.
Why do I say this? In my most free choices, I am not free. I am not free to stop needing water, or dirt, or the sun. We may put makeup on our needs, weaknesses, and enslavement, but the fact remains that we are limited creatures. We can either deny our enslavement and become more of a slave than even our fears could cause us to imagine, or we can accept our natural enslavement so that we can cast of the false and perverted freedoms of the ungodly slave masters who do so many wretched things in their seats of power.

Politicians should be the servants of all.
Those who run banks should never exploit the process of trading value.
The Servants Of All and The Corrupt Money Changers

paul is a libertarian and what some use to call liberalism

meaning the states and the person should and has the power to self govern i guess people have forgotten what true liberalism looks like.

which is why they mock paul and his ideals but the bottom line is i dont trust:

people to self regulate and apparently most people think that hence the push for larger government also dont trust government to self regulate which has time and time agian shown itself to be incapable of.

and here is the flip side of the arguement people sit here and say corporations should not have the right to self regulate but put people in charge of them who are incapable of self regulating themselves.

hmmm what to do what to do.........oh i know lets put people who cant in charge.

which is what paul stands agianst.

reply to post by daskakik


Something to note, because obviously you are pointing to a true fact, is that states are far larger and more estranged from their constituents than was the scope of the libertarian idea of sovereign state principles upon which our country was founded. So, the solution is simply to break down the states into smaller, sovereign states (not under a larger state, but besides other states in terms of power. 50 states are simply to few to properly manage and shepherd so many different flocks/cultures/locales).

I would imagine that what we think of as a county would often be large enough to be recognized as a sovereign state. There are many place in which counties would be very large physically as it's population is low enough per square mile to warrant that, but in highly populated areas, the dividing lines should highly populate the maps as well. Certainly there would still be a use for certain regional and national systems, but in terms of sovereignty, the power should be primarily with local state governments.

Extended and highly limited powers passed to larger organizations is necessary in modern times, but to think of our national or international government as the primary system instead of local systems is so awkward and impotent, I'm not surprised so many modern countries who have bought into the imperial structure have failed.

We send representatives to go to higher systems to represent our sovereign will. Laws, taxes, etc., should be done the same.

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by Cuervo

 

Are trying to say that the state government has never sided with big business?

They are closer to the people physically but they are still out of their reach.

edit on 1-10-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

What I'm saying is that they would be more accountable. Especially if it were generally understood that your state capital had the final word on any laws regarding your personal life. There's exception to everything but I feel this would improve accountability and lessen corruption but by no means eliminate it completely.

reply to post by Cuervo


Yes, you both have good points, but do not forget the underlying issue that you are both handling and not addressing; that smaller governments equal more accountability.

Consider citizens as sheep for a moment.
Consider leaders as shepherds.

Whether in churches or politics, a shepherd that is a stranger to the sheep often abuses, takes advantage or abandons of the sheep. By knowing the shepherd and being near them, there is a lot more accountability. It really is that simple.

Jhn 10:11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
Jhn 10:12 But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep.

And often times, the shepherd is a wolf.

reply to post by Dasher


No matter how well the shepard treats his sheep he always ends up fleecing them. That is the whole point of looking out for them.

Local politicians are accountable to who? The voters. I'm sure a good sized company offers a politician a big enough bribe and he will have no problem being a one term (insert public office here).

I am so glad to have a simple immediate answer for you.

No.