Would you trust corporations to self-regulate?

reply to post by subject x


Is that question a joke?

reply to post by ARealandTrueAmerican


Yes, a lot of what poet is posting comes across as incomplete in rationale. As though certain portions of reality don't exist for certain moments.

It's the Feds who raid alternative food producers which are patronized by people by their own volition. It's the Feds who raid medical marijuana dispensaries which are within the state laws. Etc.

yes it would work, definitely a lot better than the current system. if the states had the power, one state could, let say require more extensive testing on drugs before they go to market. or require corporations to clean up their pollution. then the companies would have to listen to that states rules if they have interest in making money, because theyd be losing out on all potential profit from hat state

reply to post by lldd182


Unless, of course, the companies just played states off of each other, playing to the lowest common denominator.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Dasher

 

Properly and truly deregulating economics would necessitate that there would be no more corporations.

According to whom?

Do you have some link to where the Mises institute, or the Chicago school of economics, backs up this claim?

No link is necessary. Naturally, a business is not a human with rights. Government granted that right to corporations. Firstly, who the heck are they to endow such a power, and secondly, it was the government which granted that right. So then, not only is it unnatural and sickening, upon the removal of central government interference in economics, corporate laws would, in theory, vanish as well. However, it would take an interesting process to normalize such a thing in the court and legislative systems. Unfortunately, the facilitation of this will either take violent revolution (I oppose), or a self-implosion (the natural and coming end which could take many, many forms).

Originally posted by poet1b
I think your heart is in the right place, but you don't realize what the people who push the whole free market agenda support. From all I have read, they fully back the nameless, faceless corporate identities.

Doublespeak is common in the Empire.

Originally posted by poet1b
Making corporate entities illegal, would in fact be increasing regulations, in ways none of the current free market politicians would support.

AGAIN, corporations were endowed with power by regulation. Removal of that sort of government interference removes the potency and human rights of corporations and exposes them for what they are; Businesses run by men and women.

Do you see now that you are also thinking from the right place, but drawing conclusions which bring about the very things you don't want?

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
Where did he ever say self regulate?

Exactly, he did not say "self-regulate" anywhere. I don't know how you arrived at that conclusion. I'd help explain what he said, but if you don't understand it the way he put it... boy, I don't know what to tell ya.

Originally posted by lldd182
yes it would work, definitely a lot better than the current system. if the states had the power, one state could, let say require more extensive testing on drugs before they go to market. or require corporations to clean up their pollution. then the companies would have to listen to that states rules if they have interest in making money, because theyd be losing out on all potential profit from hat state

All that would do would be to drive business from states that over-regulate into states that don't, exactly how the federal government over-regulated big business out of the U.S. and into China and India and everywhere else. Between them and the Unions, you can hardly afford to make anything in the U.S. anymore.

reply to post by daskakik


Again, this is the very reason that we must pull the regulations which give potency to those who can organize such an entity.

Why does it seem that people think corporations have an inherent right to human rights? They don't. Regulations have issued that possibility. Remove regulations which give them power and allow citizens, competition, organized citizen's groups, lawyers representing offended citizens, etc., handle the disposal of corrupt business people.

As it is now, the corporations hide behind regulations which established and empowered them as much as they get around the regulations that are supposed to limit them (through good old boy strategies). Regulations are the problem in both cases. They give potency to the power that wealthy people already tend to have, and give a false sense of accomplishment to the people.

reply to post by Dasher


Your missing my point so let's try this...

OK I'm with you 100% let's remove the regulations that give corporations human rights. Where do we start?

reply to post by daskakik


For history and relevant "pressure points" of corporations

There is a particular ruling by the Supreme Court which "regulated" the powers of corporations. They are not constitutional, nor are they moral. In fact, it brings a horrendous disadvantage/marginalization to individuals when dealing with corporations. Certainly, a good lawyer in a justified case can go around the "corporate veil" to hold individuals accountable for their actions, but that is rarely the case when corporations can amass so much wealth, evade many taxes through "legal" means, buy any lawyer they want, etc.

Legitimate tax revenues would also increase because of this.

Next, taxes and political sovereignty should be lifted from national controllers and placed solely in the hands of local governments to facilitate the girding up of failing local infrastructure. "Higher levels" of government would need to be apportioned certain monies to facilitate appropriate "higher" systems.

From this, you would see a dramatic and immediate change. Like watering seeds that have been sitting just under the soil waiting for spring.

Thoughts?

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
Where did he ever say self regulate?

Exactly, he did not say "self-regulate" anywhere. I don't know how you arrived at that conclusion. I'd help explain what he said, but if you don't understand it the way he put it... boy, I don't know what to tell ya.

Its just another hit piece by the Democrats against Ron Paul, you know your a threat when both parties try to bring you down.

reply to post by AwakeinNM


And the right to print money allows the Feds to get away with such unwise conduct.
The states should not and do not have that right. Money should be a national issue, but deregulated and locked down so that it is not manipulated by The Corrupt Money Changers.

I find it interesting that people are not responding to the post I just linked to. It says a lot about the thoughts and subconscious of people.

Oh, and nothing is wrong with competition. If one state can offer a product cheaper than another, then there is probably a good reason, so stop whining (not you personally, AwakeInNM).

reply to post by subject x


Instead of speculating, consider what Ron Paul has said himself about self-regulation:

Even Greenspan has said now that he had made a serious mistake, that he thought the markets would self regulate. So therefore he has given up entirely all his inclinations to believe in the marketplace and say, "Gosh, if I had only known." In a way he was apologetic. "If we would've only known we could've regulated the derivatives market." But he had nothing to do with it.

The fact that he created the artificial credit, created the bubble. But I work under the assumption that once you have an artificial bubble coming from an inflated money supply, regulations can't solve that. I mean, it isn't a lack of regulations because if, the market has regulations. Sometimes we get accused that if you don't believe in a lot of regulators coming and modifying every transaction, you believe in chaos. But there are regulations in the market. (emphasis added)

Source: www.forbes.com...

I'm disappointed that this thread is spreading complete nonsense that Ron Paul has said "corporations should self-regulate". Perhaps the hoax bin is the best place for it, along with any thread claiming Paul's solution to Social Security is to end the program.

By doing a web-search for

"ron paul" self-regulate

One can easily see that liberals and socialists shove that sentence down Paul's throat and pretend he said it so they have something to attack him with.

While there are there are a few newbie libertarians who might say such a silly thing, the vast majority of libertarians absolutely do not believe corporations should self-regulate.

"Self-regulation in a corporate state does not constitute the free market."
Source: www.thefreemanonline.org...#

Free-market enthusiasts generally count on the civil court systems to handle corporate misbehavior. Anarcho-capitalists count primarily on ethical shopping practices. Both are very effective methods of keeping corporations operating in ethical ways. Criminal law regulations such as decreeing certain things can or cannot be done by a business accomplish only one thing better than anything else: the destruction of small businesses. And the reason small business is dying in the USA is because of the vast and increasing number of criminal business regulations. As for corporations, as Jean Paul pointed out in this thread, corporations don't even exist in a free market, so to hell with the corporations.

Why do people think Ron Paul supporters are at the Occupy Wall Street rallies? To root for the corporations? No, to root for the end of violent corporate monopolies that are destroying the USA.

Originally posted by Dasher
Next, taxes and political sovereignty should be lifted from national controllers and placed solely in the hands of local governments to facilitate the girding up of failing local infrastructure.

They tried this 150 years ago. It ended up with more than half a million dead americans, the 14th amendment which grants corporations the same rights as people and reduced state powers.

Maybe this time it will turn out different. Now who is going to do this or how is this going to happen?

reply to post by daskakik

It ended in war and federal-minded laws because the federal government was led by federalists who refused to allow state sovereignty. It was not "tried," it was quashed and buried.

Would it lead to war again? It depends on the course that is taken from the position we are in. I would hope there is more likelihood of a peaceful rejection of the excessive power of the federal government which they will be unable to facilitate much longer if regulations were not in place to prop up their powers. This is also a good time to point out that Ron Paul does receive the overwhelming support of politically active troops.

Despite your stated lack of enthusiasm for government, you actually seem to have a highly inaccurate and inflated view of regulation. The truth is that nearly all actual moral and ethical regulation is self regulatory, even and especially, from the global corporations that you disdain.

The first and primary rule of free market enterprise is, "first create value". No business entity can exist without first creating value for someone else. It is the creation of value that opens the door to profits and since profit is the purpose of business then value creation is the reason that business exists.

While there are innumerable moral hazards in the value creation equation (production, pricing, advertising, sales practices etc.) any business that chooses to completely disregard ethics and fair play in the context of it's business model will quickly be overtaken by companies more focused on showing respect and consideration for it's customers and community.

Long story short, businesses ultimately self regulate because it is in their best interest to do so, government regulators in my experience kind of exist around the periphery of this process, typically projecting arbitrary and inefficient ethical proxies for true ethics, and once in a while using the tool of the law to correct wrongs that are so blatant that even an incompetent bureaucrat can't ignore them.

corporations rely on the consumer base to thrive.

if there is something that you feel needs regulating, then alert the consumer base to dictate the future of that issue.

no consumer support = no thriving corporations.

its as simple as that.

reply to post by Dasher


It was "tried" by the Confederate States after seeing that the federal government did not have their best interest in mind. They failed and the Fed flexed it's new found power.

You talk about taking power from the fed but they are not just going to hand it over. The Civil war is proof of that so again, how are they going to be stripped of this power?

Originally posted by seachange


Why do people think Ron Paul supporters are at the Occupy Wall Street rallies? To root for the corporations? No, to root for the end of violent corporate monopolies that are destroying the USA.

edit on 2-10-2011 by seachange because: (no reason given)

No offense to Dr. Paul, but I have met some of his supporters who havent a clue as to why they support the guy beyond his anti-war stance.

Just because someone claims to support Dr Paul does not mean they understand these issues very well.

In regards to the OP...um...no.