How much power should government have over business? -

[Picklepower]

So I'm gonna start reading about various political philosophies to try to find what mine is, and in reading about Libertarianism, I hear it said, that gov should not interfere with business decisions, (the gay wedding cake example). But I dunno what I think, in the cake example, the business was acting in the interest of their religious beliefs, and I am for religious freedom, but what about the diners in the civil rights era that would not serve blacks? was it trampling on their rights to make them integrate?

 

[Tranhuviya]

Nationalize the banks, then the industrial production centers, and make usury illegal.

But I dunno what I think, in the cake example, the business was acting in the interest of their religious beliefs, and I am for religious freedom, but what about the diners in the civil rights era that would not serve blacks? was it trampling on their rights to make them integrate?

Freedom of Conscience.

 

[QI 541]

Aren't businesses pretty much the same as government these days?

 

[*Asterisk*]

Aren't businesses pretty much the same as government these days?

With certain businesses, government becomes the very friend they use to crush all competition. And vice versa.

These are the sunza bitches you should always trust least.

 

[Marvin]

So I'm gonna start reading about various political philosophies to try to find what mine is, and in reading about Libertarianism, I hear it said, that gov should not interfere with business decisions, (the gay wedding cake example). But I dunno what I think, in the cake example, the business was acting in the interest of their religious beliefs, and I am for religious freedom, but what about the diners in the civil rights era that would not serve blacks? was it trampling on their rights to make them integrate?

Some people would enthusiastically say that the government was indeed trampling on their rights to make them integrate.

But those are also the type of people who are cool living out in a trailer in the desert. Or in a cabin in the woods with no running water.

So take that as you will.

 

[Joan Nyan]

So I'm gonna start reading about various political philosophies to try to find what mine is, and in reading about Libertarianism, I hear it said, that gov should not interfere with business decisions, (the gay wedding cake example). But I dunno what I think, in the cake example, the business was acting in the interest of their religious beliefs, and I am for religious freedom, but what about the diners in the civil rights era that would not serve blacks? was it trampling on their rights to make them integrate?

You make it sound like all the businesses in the civil rights era wanted to discriminate. The Jim Crow laws were actual laws on the books that forced businesses to discriminate. In Alabama, you legally weren't allowed to serve both blacks and whites in a restaurant unless you had a 7 foot tall wall in the middle of the restaurant to separate them. If they had just struck down those laws and not made anti-discrimination laws, many businesses would have integrated on their own accord. The great thing about capitalism is that most people's greed outweighs their bigotry and that blacks' money is as good as whites'.

But yes, making them integrate was definitely trampling on their rights. If businesses are forced to involuntarily serve black people, that's involuntary servitude which is outlawed by the 13th Amendment.

 

[Picklepower]

But couldn't one argue that serving the customer is a public duty? If in an extreme example, a hospital turned people away for arbitrary reasons, I would want the government to step in. I think we can agree that there are times a government should step in for example, when a parent is abusing, or neglecting their children. But I guess that is another topic.

 

[Bassomatic]

But couldn't one argue that serving the customer is a public duty? If in an extreme example, a hospital turned people away for arbitrary reasons, I would want the government to step in. I think we can agree that there are times a government should step in for example, when a parent is abusing, or neglecting their children. But I guess that is another topic.

Company is a private entity.

Now the thing that gets me about if the laws are left open example of the gay wedding cake, the market would adjust if the laws aren't with the popular views. Would you eat at a resturant where they throw things at you? No. Now pretend for ease of examples sake this is legal and ok to do. Market would dry it out asap.

Now if people found the idea voting with a dollar the problem would be solved. If aside a vocal minorty spamming face book was activly saying, we are pro gay marraige and not going to shop here the place would have to alter or fade out. And as mentioned before if you really want to grow you'll serve anyone.

Any stance you take will put some people off. Now this is just one topic, you deal with so many things with goverment's tie into companies, Sherman anti trust laws in the US (about monopolies) Had Glass Steagall act in regards to stocks etc.

There's a shit load to look into with regards to how and what a goverment can do to effect companies. Then there are all the back door things, for example taxes on smoking drinking or laws forbidding products in some areas like how gun laws varry state to state. This applies also to cars.

This is before we even get into things like private important and the debates on things like if you want to claim our goverements trades effect companies enough to fall in this realm.

As we've seen with healthcare and prisons, and now charter schools the goverment pretty much screwed them up and sold them to private companies and now still claims they are in charge so you get into a grey area and imho you get the worst of both worlds. Some things are also allowed to break the rules for logistics sake for example many train companies you really don't have room for 5 sets more of tracks for competing train companies in NYC for example. But if someone some how could do it... why are they locked out?

 

[Joan Nyan]

But couldn't one argue that serving the customer is a public duty?

I don't see how one could.

If in an extreme example, a hospital turned people away for arbitrary reasons,

They would be extremely unlikely to do that considering they want your money.

I would want the government to step in.

What you have to understand is that any time the government steps in and demands that someone do something, it is always compelled at the point of a gun. If you don't follow the law, you'll be arrested, if you resist arrest you'll be shot. Saying that you want the government to "step in" is saying that you want someone to put a gun to a doctor's head and force them to accept patients.

I think we can agree that there are times a government should step in for example, when a parent is abusing, or neglecting their children. But I guess that is another topic.

Of course, because they're actually directly hurting someone here. I'm okay with putting a gun to someone's head to stop them from abusing their children, but not for turning people away from their business.

 

[Enclave Supremacy]

Brexit, more than anything, really did a lot to solidify the continued trust I have in the nation-state as the supreme entity for organising human-beings. I knew a lot of other Leave-voters that moaned endlessly, claiming that it would be rigged and that it wouldn't matter anyway. I reminded them that this is not China or North Korea and that things weren't done that way.

And Leave did win, against all the wishes of the largest corporations, financial entities and veiled threats from President Obama. Within 24 hours the ballots were opened and the results concretely announced. It won narrowly and it wouldn't be political suicide to suggest a do-over (as indeed some odious forces did), but the Tories - the party of business and wealthy concerns - said they'd stick to it. Within a month we've swapped out political leaders for new ones with no fuss or bloodshead or dragging of feet. No amount of "being a Jew" (as some members of my family think) did Cameron or Osborn any favours as they are assigned to the political waste-bin.

Private corporations have neither loyalty, nor morality, they largely responsible for the funding of regimes of pure-evil - like China - through-out the world (which repays them by committing $5 billion in industrial espionage alone against America each-year). They are callous entities that need to be tempered by a force in-order to work towards a general increase in human happiness and freedom. A proper balance, between the drive of business and the apparatus of the civil order, will lead towards that goal - not extremes like letting businesses have their way.

Since when has basing your entire stability on mercenaries been a good idea after-all?

 

[AnOminous]

The government should have no more power over businesses than businesses already have over the government.

 

[Innocuous Banter]

Well first you have to be able to distinguish a government from a business

 

[Charles Morgenstern]

Businesses are legal entities, nothing more. Paper constructs created to establish clear responsibility and reward for those which comprise them. They should be subject to the authority of the citizenry, as bestowed in trust upon those which comprise the duly-elected governments which oversee them. Businesses are protected by laws, decided by the representatives entrusted to protect the best interests of their constituents.

People have rights, some of which are (theoretically) inalienable. Businesses are not and should not be afforded the same protections as people, as we already see far too many examples of the best interests of paper constructs being held above that of humans. People that seek to limit their exposure to liability by forming a legal entity are subject to the costs of such convenience, mainly that said entities are to be run according to the laws passed by the people.

Individuals are different, as citizenry has responsibilities to match the protections they receive. Being a part of the societal network and all the benefits that entails come with a price, such as respecting public health codes and taxes being paid. Civic duty has been on a massive decline inversely proportionate to the rise of corporate exceptionalism.

 

[Yaoi Huntress Earth]

There needs to be some regulations and checks and balances with businesses. Otherwise, you run into the abuses like unsafe work areas (workers getting killed in fires due to there being no fire escapes and shoddy buildings), people getting shit wages and forced to work second or third jobs that could've went to someone else or just look at the Radium Girls incident (they thought they could get away with letting those women die when throwing some extra money for safety gear and warning them would've solved things).

 

[polonium]

The less the better. The more power government has to intervene and fiddle with things, the more likely you are to get corrupt politicians taking bribes to suppress competition and generally make life miserable for everyone who doesn't have a politician in their pocket.

 

[Chinaman]

Government priorities are different than profit motive companies, and you have to ask yourself how do those priorities fit in with you?

How does a company making a bottom line profit help YOU? It doesn't. You're not a business owner... even if you were there are many instances a government funding you, even if regulating you would be more beneficiary. Government is about production, efficiency, and keeping it's populace content enough to work and pay their taxes. Therefore I see no reason government should not own everything to some extent.

I mean hell, look at the internet. The internet IS anarcho-capitalist and it's shit. The internet was far superior in the 90s and early 2000s when everyone at least thought the government could contain it and control it's direction.

 

[polonium]

Government priorities are different than profit motive companies, and you have to ask yourself how do those priorities fit in with you?

How does a company making a bottom line profit help YOU? It doesn't. You're not a business owner... even if you were there are many instances a government funding you, even if regulating you would be more beneficiary. Government is about production, efficiency, and keeping it's populace content enough to work and pay their taxes. Therefore I see no reason government should not own everything to some extent.

I mean hell, look at the internet. The internet IS anarcho-capitalist and it's shit. The internet was far superior in the 90s and early 2000s when everyone at least thought the government could contain it and control it's direction.

I hope every company makes a good bottom line. Why? Because the only real way they can do this is by providing a product or service that people want, and do it efficiently enough that they can make money at it.
You want an example of an organisation that does things that nobody wants, and has no incentive to perform efficiently because they can always extort more money at the point of a gun, then you need to look no further than your local government office. If governments were about production and efficiency then they wouldn't be bloated, unproductive and inefficient. Governments owning everything worked out absolutely terribly for every country that tried it. I can't see how anyone could have even a basic understanding of geopolitical history and not think socialism in all it's forms was the worst evil to ever blight the planet.

 

[Chinaman]

I hope every company makes a good bottom line. Why? Because the only real way they can do this is by providing a product or service that people want, and do it efficiently enough that they can make money at it.
You want an example of an organisation that does things that nobody wants, and has no incentive to perform efficiently because they can always extort more money at the point of a gun, then you need to look no further than your local government office. If governments were about production and efficiency then they wouldn't be bloated, unproductive and inefficient. Governments owning everything worked out absolutely terribly for every country that tried it. I can't see how anyone could have even a basic understanding of geopolitical history and not think socialism in all it's forms was the worst evil to ever blight the planet.

Actually you talk to anyone older than eighteen and it's the older people who long for socialism again. Look at Cuba, sure the dumb kids who don't know better are like "we want Starbucks and cuckold porn!" or whatever... but the older people are like "for the first time in my life, there is a homeless crisis."

Or like look at Russia where all the young brats are neo-Nazis and it's the old people longing for the USSR. It'd be one thing to say there was problems, of course there was... but acting like the market does anything efficient is fictitious shit that proves right away you're American education. And I don't mean that as a personal insult, you really just don't know anything better. Your country sucks man. You treat tobacco like devil worship while your women whore around, alcohol is expensive, drugs are illegal, and your idea of a good job is mid-manager at Burger King. What the fuck do you have to call freedom over there? But you do... vehemently. Far louder and with more conviction than anyone in North Korea is forced to do.

Take the post office. The post office is cheaper than UPS, it's faster, and uses more environmentally friendly packaging. But meanwhile your country primarily uses UPS and Fed-Ex to deliver packages do to contracting. So no, it's not about efficiency. I'd rather be taxed to all hell and have a couple hundred zoning laws over letting shitty ass UPS be responsible for my mail.

 

[KingGeedorah]

If businesses are forced to involuntarily serve black people, that's involuntary servitude which is outlawed by the 13th Amendment.

Man this statement is hilarious.

Fucking big government freeing the slaves then EXPECTING us to treat them like not property?

And I doubt any businesses, except maybe banks, schools and hospitals, were FORCED to serve blacks for at least 75 years after the Civil War.
If you find any examples of government trampling on small business due to segregation back from 1865-1950, please share some links I am generally interested in knowing.
Again I'm asking for links where the Government is literally sending troops to shut down bakers who refused to sell blacks bread during the 1930's.

 

[Joan Nyan]

Man this statement is hilarious.

Fucking big government freeing the slaves then EXPECTING us to treat them like not property?

And I doubt any businesses, except maybe banks, schools and hospitals, were FORCED to serve blacks for at least 75 years after the Civil War.
If you find any examples of government trampling on small business due to segregation back from 1865-1950, please share some links I am generally interested in knowing.
Again I'm asking for links where the Government is literally sending troops to shut down bakers who refused to sell blacks bread during the 1930's.

What? Of course the government wasn't forcing desegregation in the 30's, I have no idea where you got that from. They were forcing segregation.

The law in Georgia stated "All persons licensed to conduct a restaurant, shall serve either white people exclusively or colored people exclusively and shall not sell to the two races within the same room or serve the two races anywhere under the same license."

When I talk about forced desegregation I'm of course talking about the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was right in striking down these state forced discrimination laws but went too far by mandating that private businesses can't choose who they want to serve.