Hello.

In the "Was the Revolution Bad for the US" thread, Turnea and I began discussing potential rights violations that can occur in the private sector; this soon evolved into a more general discussion about the characteristics of the market vs. the government. So, my questions for debate are:

Can the private sector/free market result in the same kind of violation of rights as the government? Why, or why not?

If you answered yes to the first question: Does government involvement in the free market increase the odds of such violations, or decrease them?

CP

Can the private sector/free market result in the same kind of violation of rights as the government? Why, or why not?

As it stands right now- the single most anti-freedom entity in America IS "the private sector", pretty obviously. The very fact that a corporation can have equal rights with a human is the "master link" in the chain- needs to be done away with- the corporate entity must ALWAYS be subject to living citizen's rights. Businesses need to be held to the bill of rights equal to the scope that the goverment does. Business should not be able to stifle free speech off it's property (like the firing of the lady with the Dem Bumper sticker- that alone should force the company out of business immediately, and the board members should owe the lady all of thier income they have ever made in thier entire life- that may get tin-pot business gawds to settle down a bit ) - Business should not be allowed to circumvent the bill of rights in any manner, and should be inferior to the private citizen in any matter dealing with civil rights.

If you answered yes to the first question: Does government involvement in the free market increase the odds of such violations, or decrease them?

The goverment has been instrumental in decreasing basic rights violations, obviously. Look at the history of organized labor- CEOs of that day were allowed to murder women and children on a whim- there are a few massacres that NO ceo was held for murder, and never had to pay a dime.

Nowadays, we still have problems with CEOs murdering private citizens and facing NO personal consequences- say, Union Carbide Bhopal- not one American executive with held for murder as they should have been- however- they can't actually send armed thugs to machine gun down poeple wholesale like they used too

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_massacre

In fact- the Pinkerton agency still survives to this day- instead of being disbanded and the leaders jailed, as they should have been.

Money is power- and power corrupts, and that corrupt power is used against anyone that gets in the way of the powerful- that is the way of man, the way it has always been, and we should stamp out any entity that threatens freedom, or at the very least, remove it's teeth so it can't bite you in the butt when you aren't paying attention!

There are elements that make a free society

1) Equal justice for all- it is quite clear that this isn't true- Michael Milkin and Ken Lay would be excellent examples of justice denied- Milkin was still a billionare, and only recieved a sentence of five years- Ken Lay didn't serve a single day in jail. Whites get it easier than blacks- an example would be Andrea Yates in Texas- anyone think that a poor black man in Texas would be let off the hook as she is, no matter the circumstances? And so on- Corporate America gets to abuse justice however it seems fit, the poor have to deal with it in a complete disadvantage. the ability of corporations, like Exxon, to avoid paying for 20 years after a judgement is forced to be paid.

2) Protections from the powerful and rich. This means they shouldn't be able to prevent you from any outside work activities. Period.

3) No non-human entity, a non-individual entity, should EVER have rights equal to a living, breathing citizen.

It was just less than 100 years ago we had this:

Most miners also lived in "company towns," where homes, schools, doctors, clergy, and law enforcement were provided by the company, as well as stores offering a full range of goods that could be paid for in company currency, scrip. However, this became an oppressive environment in which law focused on enforcement of increasing prohibitions on speech or assembly by the miners to discourage union-building activity. Also, under pressure to maintain profitability, the mining companies steadily reduced their investment in the town and its amenities while increasing prices at the company store so that miners and their families experienced worsening conditions and higher costs.[citation needed] Colorado's legislature had passed laws to improve the condition of the mines and towns, including the outlawing of the use of scrip, but these laws were poorly enforced.

Let's see. How many tens of millions killed by governmet under Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pot, Amin, Hussein, Polk etc. etc., etc? The corporations the socialists blame for everything are a creation of government. Government basically forces larger businesses to incorporate. I can always work some where else, I can always buy a product somewhere else. It is more difficult to switch locales, particularly when changing countries. Ask someone living under a repressive regime if corporations are the big problem.

I worked for Union Carbide, a great company destroyed by an act of employee sabotage and socialists. They built the plant in the middle of nowhere. A city grew around it.

Ken Lay died. They don't dig up the poor and throw them in jail either.

Corporations of the size and scope we are seeing today are relatively new. Even the great robber barons of the late 1800s were pretty much US only- they didn't have the global scale or power we see today. Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it won't. And of course- how many millions have died due to "industrial illness" like, oh black lung? Etcetc.

ken lay never spent a day in jail, and had teams of lawyers to protect him against it. There are confiscation laws for about everything- except rich CEOs- why didn't we confiscate and freeze all of Ken Lay's assets similar to a crack house owner? Let Ken lay have one- just one- defense lawyer provided by the state, and take away all his means to make bail- and then, he would almost be equal to someone that got caught in a mugging.

Just because corporations HAVEN'T had the power until very recently- doesn't mean they WON'T use or obtain this power.

When you have corporations like Exxon, that is headquartered, in say, oh, Libya or some other country- that has more money than any country but the G-7, what is to stop them from basically doing anything they want to anyone?

Corporate power on a global scale is relatively new, why wait to see how badly they can be before we anticipate this and fix it?

A few things here, CR. First, the woman you refer to who was fired as a result of a bumper sticker. 1. She has no right to the job she was fired from; her employment is based on mutual consent, as a result of her bumper sticker, mutual consent ceased to exist. 2. Why is firing anyone for sporting a bumper sticker wrong? Because you say it is? Because most people say it is? If you or most people have an issue with that company's hiring/firing processes, you are free not to buy their products/services, etc. etc. You have no right to enforce your moral judgement on other people; simply because you think the firing was unjust or immoral does not mean that you have any right to force or use government to force that business to change. Ironically, your reasoning regarding this issue is very similar to the Religious Right's reasoning regarding social issues; they do not think something is 'right', therfore it should be illegal. 3rd, and something we can agree upon is that when I call for a laissez-faire market, I mean just that. No government involvement one way or the other. Corporations who tend to do the most damage [in all different sorts of ways] are the ones that are being in some way propped up by the government.

No. Not a true free market. A true free market is based on peaceful mutual agreements between parties. Government involves a forced 'social contract' which you either adhere to or are jailed. Government leaves the individual with no choice.

CP

Can the private sector/free market result in the same kind of violation of rights as the government? Why, or why not?

Impossible. A true private sector/free market could not possibly result in the same kind of violation of rights as any government. Government by its nature is a coercive force. Its existence is predicated on the amount of coercion that it is allowed to carry out. Societies that deem themselves "free" recognize that a certain level of coercion is necessary in order to secure greater freedom. They minimize the amount of coercion that is allowed to that very degree and resist calls for more. Societies that would not be considered free welcome government coercion as it is a means to reach certain ends. This is because government coercion is the single greatest force that an individual or group could have at its disposal. They have the ability to force their will onto others, making those others commit to the will of those in power (the definition of coercion). Adherence to the state is the ultimate principle by which collectivists live by. This is because the state is a tool used to reach some greater goal. Opposition to the state equals opposition to this greater goal and vice-versa.

The private sector/free market in no way engages in such activity unless through government intervention:



If a restaurant requires a dress code and I do not adhere to their regulations, I may not be served. There is no coercive activity because the conditions of their service were not met by me. If a vendor is selling his car at a price higher than what I am willing to pay, and we are unable to reach an agreement, then I will either go somewhere else for my purchase or raise the price I am willing to pay. The only circumstance where there would be true coercion in this instance and ones similar to it is in the case of monopoly. Monopolies are the very opposite of a free market. Monopolies exist primarily through government protection for unprotected business would have opposing entrepreneurs compete for market share.

The free market is based on mutual and voluntary contracts by two or more parties. There is choice. If the two parties are unable to reach an agreement then the two go their separate ways. In the case of government, disagreement is not allowed. Adherence is the only option. If you fail to follow the state, then your life, your property, and your liberty would be threatened. As long as there are protections of individual rights, the private sector cannot commit to the same type of activity.

There are two main objections made/will be made in regards to the idea that the private sector can be just as coercive as the state. These assumptions are based on false premises. First, the corporations that are so powerful and looked at with such disdain, usually only have said power BECAUSE of government. Government regulation leads to lobbying which leads to legislation which leads to monopoly. It is because of the state's vast coercive power that corporations are able to violate rights. If put to the forces of competition and the free market, those very corporations would be driven by just one thing, satisfaction of customers. The state gives corporations another option, satisfaction of bureaucrats. If a corporation can influence the state, they can maintain their corner of the market. The second objection deals with choice. Difficult choices are sometimes misunderstood as no choice. For instance, a person with little formal education really does not have many available choices in the job market as opposed to someone who has had formal schooling. This is an objective and unavoidable circumstance. The lack of skills means that the jobs available to them are limited. So to continue the for instance, this low-skilled worked would have to work a job such as fast-food where the pay and the benefits are poor. They are unable to work jobs of more significance because their value to the labor market is low. Their job can be just as productive in the hands of the next person. Because of these circumstances, they are subject to limited job security. This circumstance is not the fault of the employer. If a given business takes a financial loss and needs to lay off workers, then this is done so that the company can continue to function period. If the employer were forced to run the business maintaining the same amount of laborers, then the business would go bankrupt. This would result in the unemployment of more people.

History has shown that the state is the apparatus of tyranny. When given too much power, it can have unintended consequences. Just look at one of the George W. Bush threads. One liberal poster (i forget who) asked the excellent question of why Bush and the GOP would allow the expansion of Executive power when the eventually a Democrat will take power and have the same power. This question captures the soul of what I have been arguing for months. When you expand the power of the federal government, even on good intentions, eventually someone will gain power who has different ideas and will put those ideas into practice using the tools already handed to him by previous administrations.

Ah- you are talking TRUE free market- not what we have now- then I would agree. In a true free market- competitors should, in most cases (but I believe not all- I don't think the free market works for medicine in all instances- though probably most)- be able to squash the multi-national corp through better efficiency at the local level- and there is some success for those that "niched" thier products better to compete with giants like wal-mart or Borders.

As it stands now- corporations basically own our politicians, with very few independent from the corporate teat. They simply buy the politician (they call it "lobbying" I believe? )

So yeah, to the ideal of the free market- I agree and concede- problem is, no one has that system in the world today.

I think that we have addressed this in previous threads but I will reiterate. Lobbying is the result of government regulation. Corporations own politicians because the government decided to regulate/control economic industries. If the government did not venture into those industries, there would be no lobbyists. Look at the industries with the most lobbyists and most political contributions and you will find that they come from the most heavily regulated industries.

Can the private sector/free market result in the same kind of violation of rights as the government? Why, or why not?
Theoretically?

Without doubt. Nothing says that a government has by definition a "monopoly of force." Nor is the only force of consequence physical power. Economic power can be wielded to great harm.

Historically?

With frequent precedent.
This is a nation founded on a history of violence by private British "trading companies".

India and South Africa could tell you quickly what the private sector can accomplish.

The most obvious example is, of course, slavery.

I mean for Pete's sake you don't get much more of a violation of rights than that. Laissez-faire, indeed.

More modern examples include sharecropping in the aftermath of the Civil War and the wage slavery that characterized the early industrial revolution before regulations on safety and the like.

18 even 24 hour shifts under conditions that make a Chinese coal mine look like a walk in the park.

How about Blacklisting during the Red Scare?

Plainly, yes.
If you answered yes to the first question: Does government involvement in the free market increase the odds of such violations, or decrease them?
It depends. Overall it decreases, but early in the industrial revolution the force of law was often employed against strikers and the like.

We've gotten a bit more respectful of the rights of the worker since then, the modern age has worn away at our vestigial feudal mind-set.

You mean state sponsored monopolies like the East Indian Trading Company...That is a fantastic example of how government force and power can corrupt a free market. LINK




A practice that was legal according to government law, promoted with government money and protected with government force.


You mean the blacklisting that resulted directly from investigations directed by the House Un-American Activity Committee? Another great example of the government's negative effect on the marketplace, and society in general.

Turnea, every one of your examples is a damning criticism of government action, not the action of any kind of laissez-faire economic market.

No, nothing says it. It is an inherent quality of government. The government's might makes right, any other might is subservient to the government.

CP

Well, yes and no. They were state-run when the state decided to but in, they did enough damage on their own however.

Are you arguing this was impossible without state sponsorship?

The Belgian Congo was privately owned by King Leopold... until he sold it



The first means nothing, the practice was unregulated, correct. Lasseiz-faire by definition.

The second is doubtful, promoted with government money how?

The third was true only rarely, the "fugitive slave act" came hundreds of years into slavery.

Again government allowed slavery, the private sector practiced it.

You mean the blacklisting that resulted directly from investigations directed by the House Un-American Activity Committee?
Not always, could just be a rumor, a newspaper report, an angry ex-wife blabbing to the tabloids.

Anything.


Not inherent at all.

We're just used to it in modern America but around the world governments often have forces divided against them, Mahdi army anyone?

No, just yes. The company was run and owned by the government, period.

No, monopoly is theoretically possible in a laissez faire market...Unlikely, but possible.

One wonders where he got the money to 'purchase' it in the first place...Hmmm

LINK

Yet another example of a private entity being propped up by the government and allowed to do what it pleases while being protected by government law.


No. A laissez-faire market, by definition, does not allow for a practice which individuals are forced to work without contractual consent. If the market was truly laissez-faire, slavary would not have existed. Because the government protected the practice of slavary by way of deciding that black people were subhuman, they prevented them from taking part anyway in the market.

Tarriffs protected industries that utilized slave labor.

Right. The government allowed and protected the practice of slavary, while the private sector practiced it. As I've mentioned, the private sector was not a free market, if it were, black people would have been allowed to participate in it.

The blacklisting and the resulting hysteria began when the Hollywood Ten were held in contempt of Congress while being questioned regarding any 'subversive' or 'communist' activities. The Red Scare would not have occured if not for the government's action.

Name one government on God's Earth who's coercive means are not the supreme way of the land in their given country.

CP

Are we now going to argue that all of those people getting SBA loans aren't part of the the private sector? He got a government loan to help finance the start-up business. It was still an example of private sector violation of the most basic rights was it not?


Not really, there have been free blacks in America since before Crispus Attucks. All the government really did was step out of the way and allowed private actors to do what they did best, maximize profits. In this case by literally minimizing wages.


Grasping at straws a bit. Not only was this not always the case, it really made no critical difference in the existance of the practice.


Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Western Sahara, Somalia.

That's off the top of my head.

CP= is it your contention that no market can be free with any goverment regulation at all?

I don't see any goverment regulation at all possible in your definition.

Turnea- SBA loans ARE goverment investment in business- to some degree, it can be argued that this influx of money from goverment is in fact, NOT a free market economy.

I am just wondering how far this experiment will be allowed to go.

Goverment regulation and labor unions and even communism don't grow in a vacuum. There had to be abuses, and a disaffected population going against some sort of abuse.

How do you protect the weak from the strong, maintain justice, in a no regulation setting?

Doubtless...but they are still private entities.

I mean if we're going to count every industry protected by tarriffs or helped by SBA loans and not part of the private sector... we don't have one. No one ever has.

My point is the private sector can and has violated rights as bad as any governmental entity.

Um, well Turnea- prior to Teddy Roosevelt, and the anti-trust legislation, we were pretty close to a complete free market- probably as close as you can get in world history- considering there was also futures trading then- so it was probably as true free market capitalism as you can get- but there was also nearly 0 regulation of business- and the abuses were rampant. Robber barons were literally allowed to work poeple to death. Frequently there was no other choice for work- it was either starve or work for the "man".

That is why I asked CP what level of regulation is appropriate, if any at all.

From:

Bright Promises, Dismal Performance: An Economist's Protest
Milton Friedman (1978)


Economic Myths and Public Opinion - January 1976






It is time you stop believing the lies your unionized teachers taught you.

I had no unionized teachers. I went to ultra right wing christian schools. They taught us that Ronald Reagan was the second coming of Christ, that unions are evil, and that the earth is 6 thousand years old, and that there is no evidence of evolution.

I have learned quite well to always be doubfull of my own belief system since a very early age.

I like Milton Friedman, but he had a very, very myopic view of the businesman as a force for nothing but good and enlightened self interest. He never really accounted for the Ken Lay's and Michael Milkens of our time. That will always be the achillies heel of all Milton Friedman's mostly brilliant work. Staglation and all that.

Milton Friedman never really had a good equation for the system savvy CEO who spend thier entire life getting around rules and laws to line thier own pockets with other poeple's money.

Milton Friedman simply relied too much on the positive morality of big business in too many of his equations.

And the robber baron was quite real, he just took a very rose colored glasses look towards them.

The "company town" is real as well- or do you dispute that as well?

Please, business is amoral. The corporation is amoral. Friedman recognized that. There are corrupt businessmen, politicians, school teachers, policeman, bar owners, farmers, nuns, etc. Laws need to be in place to protect people from internal and external aggressors. This includes punishing individuals, such as Ken Lay, under fraud statues. The fact the wealthy often get away with crime (i.e. O.J) shows problems with our justice system, it is a classic example of how government tends to fail at even the things it is required to do. Why give it more power? The modern liberal always finds in government failures a reason for more government. I suggest a more rational approach. Let the free market work.

Those who use the ole robber baron argument put the cart before the horse. Only after capitalism had increased the total wealth could that wealth be divided among the parasites who leech off of big government (the taxpayer: you and me). Only after capitalism made child labor unneccesary could government abolish child labor.

When was this magical era you speak of deng? Lest I remind you that child labor didn't end until the goverment made a law against it?

I would agree that business and commerce and capitalism are amoral as entities- but those entities are owned by men, they don't exist without man (meaning humankind, not to dis the sistahs here ) - and men can be moral or immoral, so that means capitalism takes on the character of the men that run it.

And I don't know what fantasy land you live in- but child labor existed right up until the point goverment made it illegal- and we still have a problem with poeple trying to use that immoral practise. If "capitalism" had made it unneccsary- why are there still fines and arrests for child labor infranctions today?

Quick google search revealed this:

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/ti...20&s=oldest

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.htm...2fChild%20Labor

I mean, why does it still exist in the US deng?

Learn to read. Capitalism made child labor unneccesary. Government did not eliminate child labor either. It still exists today. Capitalism created such wealth that few need to depend on their child's labor to supplement the family income. Who is the evil capitalist equal of Hitler? Lay, Gould, Walton? I think even the greatest haters of the free market have a problem equating Ken Lay with Adolf Hitler.

It appears that not only can I read, I can write quite a bit better than you - that being said- there was no dramatic drop off of child labor before the laws came into effect. How in the world could it be even profitable in the time it came about? At the time labor laws came into being- most jobs were unskilled, or the workforce was mostly illiterate. What is the supposed economic advantage of NOT exploiting children?

I don't know where you are from Deng, but I have travelled enough to know the realities of the world- and one is, humans will do bad things for money to others until someone steps up with some force and says "oh no you won't".

I like freedom- made it a hobby of mine after throwing off the lies of the religious right and thier various beliefs.

but I am not starry eyed dreamer that buys into one single philosophy of the universe as some panacea for all woes in the world.

Sometimes the goverment does a better job at some things, sometimes the private sector does a better job. It is called 'reality" vs "ideology"- perhaps you should use a dictionary on that one?

The purpose of teachers’ unions is to secure benefits for its members. This accusation about “lies” in the process of disseminating information is over the top.



That's not necessary. Like most of us here, CR seems to have good literary skills.



That’s quite a stretch. Progress has at times been like pulling teeth. Child labor in the United States was finally declared illegal in 1941 by the U. S. Supreme Court decision U. S. v. Darby.

That wasn’t that long ago.



http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units...04.01.08.x.html

Consider protective tarriffs, the homestead act, etc.

The "free market" has not existed in the history of America. Possibly not in the history of the world since mercantilism and the invention of capitalism.


As a relative measure sure.

Let's me try and state my point succinctly since I think we're arguing basically the same thing.

The only thing that distinguishes government in its typically unique abilities in the Modern rich world is its monopoly of physical force.

Wherever that is not the case, the answer to the first question is such an obvious yes, it's not worth considering. Put a gun to someone's head and you can violated whatever rights you want.

Here's a second point more salient to modern America that CR, BoF and I have all made.

In mathematics there are many ways to approximate functions using "lesser" methods. It's simpler and faster, just has a few rough edges of error.

I think of the way the private sector uses its economic power to violate rights despite the much vaunted piece of paper we call a contract.

There are rights one cannot sign away, anyone who does so is likely under such clear duress that anyone can tell something is amiss.

Such is the case with company towns, 24-hr shifts, pay in scrip, child labor, usury, etc.

A difficult choice can become so difficult as to be practically no choice.

"You money or your life."

"Your obedience or your livelihood"

Such a choice is known as a Hobson's choice (an occasional legal term that has shown up in Supreme Court Cases) and can be used by the private sector to closely approximate the ultimate rights violations.

The essence of law is to protect us from each other, the private sector.

Conservatives seem tend to trust the people over the government.

Liberals don't tend to trust anyone, check and balances keep them all on their toes. Social, not just civil, justice.

I don't believe that corporations/private sector is any worse than government when it comes to abuse. I believe the sensible idea is to hold that both government and the private sector are equally capable of abuses against rights. I don't believe that anyone is arguing that government doesn't coerce or do bad things, I'm rather surprised that you believe it is "impossible" for the private sector to do anything bad to the same degree as government. Here's why I feel that way-In regards to discrimination, private business is just as guilty as government when it comes to discriminating on the basis of race, gender, age, and other categories. The government through "free speech zones" and the like discrminates against the right to free speech. A woman fired for a bumper sticker is the private sector example of this. A person's employment should only be contingent upon the work that they do. If they unnecessarily bring politics, religion, or other distracting things unrelated to their job into the work environment, then by all means, they should be fired. When people are fired for a bumper sticker that has nothing to do with their job, then that is discrmiination, just as equal as any government act of coercion against speech. Voluntary contract or not, the only important matter is whether or not a person can do the job at hand. Any other factor is coercive and abusive.

Friedman, like many libertarians, recognized that individuals will break the law, with CEOs being no different. His view was to prosecute fraud and illegal business practices such as lying to stockholders to the fullest extent of the law. The examples that you espouse are the exceptions, not the rule. And as many predict, look at where Lay and Milkens are today. Its not as if they got away with it unnoticed. Eventually their deception is discovered and they face the music. To group all CEOs with those few people is as irresponsible as any over-generalization one can make. There are hundreds of large corporations and thousands of smaller businesses. There is no systematic pattern of deception as you would make it seem. The purpose of a business is to make a profit. They make a profit through customer satisfaction.


n
Robber barons were real, but they were not the boogeymen that many are led to believe. What is never mentioned is the amount of important progress that was only made possible through their efforts. Morgan, Rockefeller, Carnegie, they all contributed a great deal of money to charity and services that benefited the poor and working classes. I expect many to disregard this fact, but it is important to put it out there. Furthermore, those who are traditionally considered "robber barons" need to be distinguished by their true forms.

The Truth About the "Robber Barons"





This is intellectually dishonest. Difficult choices are made all the time. I have not known many people who can say that most of the choices they have had to make in life were easy. You are framing the answers in such a way that it suites your narrow view of the consequences of each choice. If an employer and an employee cannot come to an agreement on the opening of a job, then they can both go their separate ways. You are arguing that the potential employee cannot go somewhere else, there is nowhere else. How truthful is this really? Your alternative is to have the employer keep the employee? Even at the peril of his business?

Let me paint a picture. A factory employs 1,000 workers. The workers live in a factory town that was created by the corporation in order to house its workers. Tough economic times cause financial losses (due to anything: competition, new technology, etc). Due to those economic losses, they must cut back on labor or at least lower wages. Now if you had your way under your social justice morality, the manager should not be able to fire them or change their salary. Well what would this mean? It means that eventually the factory would have to close down. Do you agree that this situation would force the factory to function at a loss? So instead of a few workers laid off or a wages lowered, you have everyone with no job.



Shenanigans. The modern liberal wants to use the coercive powers of government in order to impose its own morality and ideas of justice on the populace. "Social justice" as you call it has nothing to do with justice. It is a populist word that means nothing more than using government to impose a certain viewpoint. Progressives (modern liberals do not deserve the label "liberal") like to claim they do not trust government, meanwhile it is the essential tool they use in bringing about their utopia.



The private sector is not a neutral entity. In a free society, it cannot be so. A free society allows the responsibility of its citizens to make choices based on their own self-interest. Discrimination is a part of this maxim. I choose coca-cola over pepsi and I choose burger king over mcdonalds. That is discriminatin made by the private individual in order to satisfy their economic or social conditions. The government is supposed to be a neutral entity that treats everyone equally under the law.


One has no right to a job. If I am offered a job, it is because it is believed that the abilities and skills I would bring to a given profession would benefit that business. If someone else comes along who has more skills and more abilities than I, it would be common sense to try to get the best man for the job. The private sector can in no way systematically infringe on the rights of a populace in the same manner as government. People in this thread are nitpicking one or two minor instances that prove nothing about the the private sector. If we look at the Abuse Scoreboard throughout history (even since the early 20th century), the score isnt even close.

nebraska29 noted, germane to the job.

I'll add that demands cannot engender limitless dependency, such as usury, sharecropping or scrip pay.

The fact of history speak for themselves. Workers can and were often put into untenable positrons prior to labor regulation.


Which shows how bad the factory town model is and why it never should have been allowed. It was a super-monopoly, the business had vertically integrated right down into the employees homes. Scrip took it even further, they printed their own money (again practically, approximately).

That's too much power concentrated in too few hands. A divided, competitive, market is better.

Sometimes regulation is needed to ensure competition.

When a worker has few options to sell his labor (because that is what work really is) he faces a monopoly situation many don't recognize as such.

When I said practically no choice, I meant it.

No choice worth having. Choices no human being should have to make.

And it is your contention that the positions were tenable following labor regulation?



Ill agree that the factory town model was not preferable. But lets attempt to look at this objectively. Which came first, the town or the factory? In most cases, the factory came first. This means that people came from all over in order to attain a job in this factory. People chose to be a part of this infrastructure. At the time, the prospects of a job superseded other factors. And in the same manner that they chose to be a part of the system, they can choose to not be a part of it. Moving to another town or into a city is a difficult decision, absolutely. But it is hardly a decision that nobody should have to make.



There are instances where this is true, but I think we would both disagree on the extent.

The discrimination of which I speak dealt with employees who were discriminated against on the basis of their gender, race, and age. "Discrimination" in regards to choosing a Pepsi over Coke is inconsequential to this discussion.



Yes, I agree with you here, the private sector is also to act neutrally in regards to promoting people and to judge people based on their work, not on the content of their race, age, or gender.



You are ignoring the larger point-that people dismissed over a bumer sticker does constitute coercion. One's livelihood very much affects a person's position in society and work does play a huge role in our lives. Yes, you are correct in noting that your work and ability to keep that given job should be rleated to your abilities and skills. My hyper-links are evidence that some private sector businesses do not abide by that standard, and thus, they are coercive. Would you not agree that being dismissed over a non-work related reason constitutes coercion? Does a bumper sticker some how effect her productivity or the boss's sales margin?



I'm not certain how some folks would definte "systematically." I took issue with the notion that the private sector is pristine and can never("impossible" was the precise word) discriminate against people. More than a few examples have been given to highlight how that isn't the case.

Black Denny's employee faced with hostile work atmosphere.

Denny's pays up for racist behavior towards customers

Nike pays out for discmination against employees

Wal-Mart nailed over sexual harassment, discrmination in pay against women

It's impossible for the private sector to discriminate? I don't buy it and proof exists that it does. Once again, the private sector is no more virtuous than the government. Both are run by human beings and as such, are prone to flaws.

I don't know where you are from but I know that sometimes government officials will imprison, maim, rape and kill those under their yoke. I think Hitler was a bit worse than Ken Lay. In fact Hitler was worse than John Gacy. Both were immoral expletives one's actions resulted in 33 deaths the other's actions resulted in millions. Humans will do very bad things for a lot of reasons. It is best diffuse power; that is something the classical liberal understood. Yes, we need laws preventing people from positively harming others. We do not need laws preventing 15 year olds from working. The Fugitive Slave Law was enacted because slavery would have had a hard time existing without government aid. People can be pretty terrible, when they have control of government the number of potential victims increases dramatically.

Of course, even when the government tries to do good they usually fail, One example http://www.fdareview.org/harm.shtml



False, the job of a corporate officer is to increase shareholder wealth. This usually, but not always, means not acting on a racist or sexist agenda. If you own your own business it means increasing your happiness. You may choose not to hire women simply because the wife nags you too much over possible sexual liasons.


I have never been fired from a job. I have quit at least a dozen times. Does anyone think an employer should be protected from having his iemployees quit. In fact, people can quit a job because they don't like the color of their employer. Why should employers have less rights than employees?



If you have ever talked to restaurant employees you would not want to eat at a place where you are disliked.

Slavery was a practise of commerce before there were laws enforcing the practise. Almost every law or regulation we have today is a product of some sort of abuse in the private sector, creating a need for a law.

I won't quibble with you rather they are knee jerk bad solutions to problems, or if goverment does it's job badly- you won't get me defending that

But these regulations and laws restricting business are a REACTION- NOT a Pro-active movement by goverment- as far as American history is concerned- different countries, different issues.

American goverment is actually pretty slow to pass laws to restrict anything but "sins" by individuals. -

Each law regarding business regulation has some basis in bad behavior by business, someone harmed, usually a large group of someones, and no justice being served, so a law is passed to make sure it doesn't happen again.

To suggest one doesn't create the other, and a vicious circle that continues, shows a fundamental blindness to what each roles are in our society- they are symbiotic or parasitic, depending if you are a pessimist or an optimist.

We have a new situation that has neve been seen in human history- corporations that can achieve goverment sized power through thier sheer size. They don't have to be patriotic to a country, they can simply move, and have no real punishment or check on thier power, EXCEPT the threat that thier biggest revenue markets may pass laws to confiscate thier power.

So goverment is THE only check to corporate power- and many goverments don't even have the power to withstand the power of strong multi nationals.

Have they commited atrocities like dictators o recent history? No- not even close.

But these are major power centers, and can manipulate goverment, or vice versa, dependng on the level of corruption.

We can see that point in Haliburton and this administration, an administration that has caused 650k deaths + in Iraq- so was it corporate America driving public policy or American policy helping connected corporate insiders get plum no bid contracts ? Let's not forget it was Ken Lay's jet GW was running back and forth to during the 2000 selection.

Where do you seperate goverment and business today? No one really can-

soo, what to do? I would say citizen driven reform to limit the power of big business is the best course of action- because both of them acting together the last few years has eroded civil liberties and checks and balances like no one in our history.

Winston Churchill once said, "Democracy is the very worst form of government. Except for all of the others that have been tried." That's the way I view Capitalism. The free market is preferable, but yes, damn straight it could result in an inhumanly cruel, exploitive situation. Indentured servitude anyone?

The problem with your argument in general, CP, is that you seem to believe that the free market cannot be exploitive. In your words, on other threads, everything is based on a voluntary exchange of goods and services that leaves no room for exploitation. The government, on the other hand, does business at the point of the gun. That assumes that there are no other ways possible to exploit and everything short of a gun in "voluntary", but this is clearly not the case. Take this to an extreme example and it's pretty clear. Your child needs medicine to live and the person who makes the medicine will not sell it to you and/or demands one hundred thousand dollars for it. Is the exchange now voluntary or exploitive? In any setting other than economics, that would qualify as extortion. As I said, an extreme example merely to make the point.

There are clearly very direct ways to exploit in a strictly free market system, and your solution seems to be it will all "come out in the wash" because the laborers will get tired of being used and few or no one will work for company A that treats its employees badly...Have you read 'the Jungle'? How about 'The Grapes of Wrath'? Heard about the imported Chinese laborers who laid out our railway lines?

The system can be very cold. If that wasn't the case unions would have never formed in the first place.

Edited to add: Just to finish my thoughts, on the bright side, it doesn't have to be all-or-nothing. We can (and often do) strike a balance that is capable of both keeping our economy humming and protecting the rights of workers to an extent.

While on a smaller scale, business does kill/injury people. In 1992, there were 6,371 workplace deaths and 13.3 million injuries. Yes, Alaskan crab fishing and the like are dangerous, some jobs just aren't "safe" and no one can change that. However, when it comes to ergonomic standards, that is a completely different story. Unfortunately, the private sector shows little understanding, let alone ability, to want to decrease the number of ergonomic related injuries.


Confined Space blog entry.



As a society, the majority of people have concluded that it is o.k. for fifteen year olds to work jobs suitable for their age. Delivering the paper, stocking goods, and doing some manual labor is to their ability and is not dangerous. We have child labor laws because it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that young people doing certain jobs will lead to death/injury. Hence, why we fine companies for allowing children to operate heavy machinery at Sears, a chainsaw at Wal-Mart that led to the kid being injured, working excessive hours during the school year, not to mention young 'uns operating a powered meat slicer. Government has to act like a referee because these provisions are asked for by the people. More than a few members have pointed out that unions and the reform movement wouldn't have gained any political traction had the leaders of industry been ahead of the curve in regards to the eight hour day, overtime pay, workplace injury prevention, not to mention health care. Yes, Adolph Hitler has killed more people than Wal-Mart has injured, however, that does not mean that business can't harm-it's been shown that it does. Jacob Riis, Ida Tarbell, the muckrackers, and the overall reform movement only had enough ammunition against business as business allowed it through their disregard for workers.

The curmudgeonly, perpetual coffee drinking, cigar smoking, cranky, Nebraska 29


deng


Increasing your business occurs through promoting people based on merit. The bottom line is never enhanced through cronyism, nepotism, and the blunting of merit. You are definitely mistaken on the bolded part that I created in your comment line. Discrimination based on race, age, or gender is never appropriate. The right to own a business and operate it as you see fit is an important value that we share in this nation. However, it has to be comported with the greater values that we cherish-values such as equality, merit, and fairness. Society can and does have the right to force business owners to comply to those standards.






Would you expound on this please?, I'm not getting how conversing with restaurant employees would lead me to not want to eat at a given place due to me not being "liked." Quite frankly, if you operate a business in public, you are operating courtesy of public roads, infrastructure systems, not to mention protection through the police force. Therefore, if anyone is discriminated against in a private business(obviously, not wearing a t-shirt or shoes is different, no one argues against minimal standards in order to obtain a given service) then the said company should be taken to the woodshed through the people's democratic recourse-the courts. A business is not an island unto itself. It operates as a guest of society through the benefits afforded to it through every taxpayer. As such, everyone's dollar is equally good at Denny's.

No it is essential to this discussion. Discrimination is a necessary aspect of the marketplace. Who I work for or who works for me is based on my ability to discriminate. If I own a business and I choose an inexperienced white candidate over a highly qualified black candidate, who is harmed? My business is. If that same highly qualified black candidate goes to my competitor who is not a bigot, then again who is harmed? The market makes it so that those with the best qualifications will succeed while those who put non-economic factors into their decision making fail.



The private sector is not supposed to be neutral, its supposed to be free to make its own decisions on the relationships in which they voluntarily enter into.



No it does not constitute coercion because the employee has a choice. An employer offers one a job under the prospects that the new employee will abide by the rules and regulations he sets forth. If a person violates those rules, then he has the right as the employer to terminate the relationship in the same manner as the employee does. Just because the employers rules seem wrong, unfair, or just plain silly is irrelevant to the fact that it is his business and he can manage it the way he sees fit. If a manager only wants Bush supporters working for him, then that is his prerogative. Who is harmed by such a decision? He is. He is closing himself off to all qualified candidates who may not support Bush. Those people go to his competitor and out-compete his business. What if his business is still able to thrive you ask? Well if that is the case, did he really make a bad decision in terms of his business management?



The question was, "Can the private sector/free market result in the same kind of violation of rights as the government?" The answer to that question is definately impossible. Your few examples of discrimination in no way compare to the gross violation of rights possible by government. You show links to instances where people were fired for a bumper sticker or yelled at with racial slurs. But a government can systematically take away your rights. Warrantless searches, secret wiretaps, suspension of habeas corpus and imprisonment...the list goes on and on. To suggest that a corporation, even the strongest of them, has this kind of power is fallacious. None of them have a limitless supply of resources and the full power of the mightiest military in the world. Even having this discussion boggles the mind.



It was a practice of commerce well before there were even codified laws. But it was a practice sanctioned and in most times perpetrated by the government. I mean lets look at the Constitution. Originally it had provisions that dealt specifically with slavery. Both the representation of a slave in the population and the time when the slave trade would end. Without government help, the private slaveowners wouldnt have been able to continue their trade.



Many times it is an overreaction. And an envious one at that.



Unbelievably false. In no way do corporations have government size power. The profits that corporations take in measure in the tens of billions. The United States spends more money on single aircraft carriers and b-2 bombers than a majority of corporations make in a year. Unless a corporation starts raising an army, this point is completely off the wall.



So government is the only check on corporate power, except when the government is corrupt. The consumers are the check on corporate power. The market is a check on corporate power. It is a check because as long as small and medium-sized businesses are allowed to compete, they will be able to fight for market share. Regulations hurt small and medium sized business....regulations BENEFIT corporations.

No. His 'business' was financed by the government, it was an entity of the government and was in no way a reflection of any kind of free market. If the market was free, if you can't afford something, you don't buy it...Unless the Congo takes credit.

Again, a free market does not exist if black Americans are barred from taking part in it by the government.

You asked me how gov't money protected slavary...I answered you, whether or not you like the answer is out of my hands.

Iraq is in the middle of a civil war, Somalia by all objective measures is a failed state, I fail to see how Lebanon qualifies and finally, Western Sahara, by all objective measures [not to mention a UN report listing it as a "non-self-governing states"] is a failed state.
Nope, none.

You are making the mistake Turnea made. What you're faced with in your example is a difficult choice, do not construe that with "exploitation". Your example is a voluntary exchange. Neither you nor your child have the right to the medication, and the entity who makes it reserves the right to set a price, if you agree to that condition, you aquire the medicine. If not, you look for it at a lower price elsewhere. The situation you have described contains no coercive authority.

CP

Here's an interesting article suggesting that the Private Sector is better equipped to build our bridges and roads:

From here.

QUOTE

The tragic bridge collapse in Minneapolis is a stark reminder that too much of our transportation infrastructure is not well-maintained and requires extensive, costly investments to be fixed or even, in some cases, completely replaced.

Nearly a fifth of America's roads are now considered in poor shape and about 1 in 4 bridges is rated "structurally deficient." The U.S. Department of Transportation estimates that the cost to fix these problems is a staggering $460 billion. The tab grows far larger when you add in the hundreds of billions to build the new transportation infrastructure that's needed to handle the country's growth.

Part of the problem is that big increases in state and local spending for politically popular programs, especially Medicaid and education, as well costly public employee pensions and benefits, have crowded out infrastructure--even as some traditional sources of financing for roads and bridges, such as the proceeds from gas taxes, haven't kept pace with demand.