Recent discussions in a different topic have promoted the creation of this thread. A debate occurred where I argued that business has the right to do anything necessary to further the general welfare of American citizens. However I learned that my opinions are not shared with everyone, ergo: this topic. Corporations have been cited to have broken sanctions and done business with foreign countries that have been, in effect, isolated by sanctions. These companies have been charged with violating sanctions but are they at fault?



Questions for debate:


Are companies entitled to do business with whom they will to promote America’s general well-being? Why?

If it promotes welfare of American citizens, is business with sanctioned-against nations wrong? Why or why not?

Do imposed sanctions about dealing with foreign business place limits on free-enterprise? How?

In general, I'm an advocate of free international trade. However, sometimes the government places restrictions on such trade. (Had a Cuban cigar lately?) American businesses have to play by the rules. Those rules are not always wise, and efforts can be made to change them.

To answer your questions directly:

1. Well, clearly the government thinks that some kinds of international trade should not happen. It may be badly wrong, but businesses have to obey the law the same as individuals do. I'm not convinced that businesses worry a whole lot about "America's general well-being" anyway.

2. If it would genuinely promote the welfare of American citizens, then laws making certain types of international trade are wrong and should be changed. I'm still not convinced that this comes up a lot.

3. Well, by definition, they places limits on free enterprise. I doubt that anybody thinks that free enterprise should have no limits. (You can't sell tainted food, for example.) I still come back to the same thing: If the laws that businesses have to obey are wrong, then make every legal effort to change them.

I have to say I am more than a little bemused with your touching faith that any business takes into account the welfare of American citizens.

Since when did any business take care of any demographic constituency except:
1. Stockholders
2. Customers
a distant 3 Staff (though mostly management)?

Even in a US business, those constituencies may coincide with US citizenry in part, but they are just as likely not to in these days of international capitalism.

To illustrate, when was the last time you can remember a major business voluntarily (i.e. without government or other regulatory pressure) doing something that benefited the general public at the cost of negatively impacting on their stockholders?

But anyway...

Are companies entitled to do business with whom they will to promote America’s general well-being? Why?
No. Example: Imagine "Flightless Seabird" publishing want to pay Charles Manson $10,000,000.00 to publish his autobiography, focusing in detail on the grisly details of his crimes. All their sales projections predict they will sell many millions of copies, providing (somewhat grisly) entertainment to many for years to come. On the downside, a handful of relatives of Manson's victims will be put through the mill, one of whom is a Polish ex-patriot currently living in a non-extradition country to avoid child sex charges anyway.
A sound business case for Flightless Seabird, yes? But will they be allowed to pay Manson his millions? No, because we reasonably believe that convicted criminals still serving their sentences should not be allowed to profit directly from their crimes. (If Manson wanted to write a biography of someone else, it all might be fair game.)

If it promotes welfare of American citizens, is business with sanctioned-against nations wrong? Why or why not?
Well, it's legally wrong, and I believe that it is morally wrong to break the law unless the law in question is demonstrably unjust. I also believe that, as entities without the franchise, companies have no business (pun intended) taking a political stand on anything.

If the stockholders, staff, or customers feel strongly enough about an issue's moral rightness - that they should be permitted to trade with Iran, for example - then they should, as individuals, change their voting behaviour.

I do not believe that policy in a democracy should be determined by who can raise the most campaign contributions, but by who can command the most votes. I realise this is an idealistic position out of touch with the real world, but we are talking about abstract concepts of right and wrong here, and about how we think things should be, not really about how they are.

Do imposed sanctions about dealing with foreign business place limits on free-enterprise? How?
Yes, they put restraints on free trade, by saying that you can only trade in certain markets with certain countries. But then, what is freedom without some restraint?

We, as individuals, are free to do anything and everything. Except kill, steal, rape, park outside a fire station, drive faster than the limit, etc. Only the most rabid libertarian (for which read anarchist) would argue that we should have no laws at all to govern society.

And companies, despite their occasional protestations to the countrary, are just as much a part of society as individuals are, so they have to be held to account for their behaviour just as individuals are.

In fact, I believe that the special status of companies (the limited liability of stockholders, taxation only on profit, etc) means that they should either be held to higher standards of behaviour than individuals, or their special status should be revoked (i.e. no limits to stockholder liability, taxation on income/turnover, etc.)

Wait a minute, VDemosthenes, you are arguing that it's okay for an American business to deliberately break the law because the profit it makes from said violation is vaguely "good for the general welfare of Americans"? I don't think so....

First off, getting a link to the other debate might help me discuss this a little better, but, leaving that aside for a moment, let's take a real world example that I'm familiar with.

Haliburton was fined over $4 million dollars in the late 1990s for doing business with Iran and Libya, in direct contravention of US law. These were known "terrorist states", and US companies were specifically prohibited from doing business with them, because those products could be used to help build and/or finance weapons for regimes deemed dangerous to the American public.

Do you really want to try and tell us that Haliburton in this instance, had an overwhelming responsibility to violate the law to keep profits up for it's American shareholders and employees (the "general welfare" part, I assume)?

What if it were found that what they sold to Iran actually aided their ability to build the nuclear program they are working on now? Or that their dealings with Libya kept the oil money flowing into that country, and kept Quaddafi in power, and pursuing a nuclear option longer than was necessary.

Please tell me what is in the better interest of the American public - a few more dollars of profit for a private company, or making sure that dictators have a tougher time staying in power, and keeping them from obtaining the money and weapons they need to threaten our citizens?