Corporations or government–which is a greater threat to personal well-being?
The great debate of our age seems to be based on where the main threat to personal well-being rests–in corporations or government.
One side (the Left) would claim that the main threat lies in corporate America, the businesses, the sprawling conglomerates that allegedly monopolize resources and pollute the earth. The other side (the Right) doesn’t really worry about businesses, and rather sees government, with its taxation, regulation, and skewing of the money supply, as the prime threat to well-being.
Which, if either, is correct? Where do these standards come from? Is there any way that the two sides can agree on what poses a threat to personal well-being?
The only harm corporations can legally do to people is by the dictate of their cronies in Washington. Corporations may not have the best intentions for the individual, but they are harmless without corruption in government.
Couldn’t a corporation, say, pollute the environment and harm others without the government being involved at all?
I would agree with Mel that corporations have the power to hinder and harm bystanders (through pollution for instance), but J also has a point that they can’t do this legally unless it is by means of state endorsement.
In a free system, the people can set rules as to what individuals and companies can and cannot do, and when anyone breaks those rules (say, when a company pollutes), the people can punish them. Only when the companies are so powerful as to be able to sway the government to ‘look the other way’ or actually support their activities can it be said that corporations are really harmful to the people’s well-being.
If corporations are only harmful when they’re able to sway the government to support their activities, as stated above, isn’t the ultimate source of harm still the corporations themselves since they’re the ones exercising power over the government? With that power, wouldn’t they just do whatever they pleased without the government there to at least try to keep them in check?
For another example, take the Four-Loko alcoholic/caffeinated beverage that college kids were drinking and getting sick from. Without the recent government bans on it, wouldn’t the company keep making it and selling it to kids who don’t know any better? In that case, it seems like the corporation is doing the harm and the government is doing good by putting a stop to it.
In response to Mel’s questions, it’s probably best to break down the examples. When it comes to harm, isn’t the main issue whether the people have a say in their actions or not?
With Four-Loko, for instance, yes, the corporation is theoretically doing harm to its consumers, but it could be that there is no real harm being perpetrated because the consumers willfully consumed the product. They did so under the assumption that it wouldn’t make them sick, but that assumption was only possible under the current highly-regulated conditions. In other words, wouldn’t the consumers have been more cautious in their choice of alcohol/energy drinks if they hadn’t been so sure that the government would protect them from harm?
I see your point, but I don’t know that a bunch of college kids would look at it like that. In an ideal world, maybe, but we obviously don’t live in an ideal world. I get that the government often ends up doing as much harm as any corporation could, but at least the government tries to look out for the people’s best interests. What corporation does that?
All corporations that work under the profit and loss motive inherent in a free market should look out for the best interests of its customers. The corporation will only be successful if it provides something that the consumers want. The only way it can make money is if its customers are satisfied.
To a large degree, that formula has been disrupted so that a corporation can make money even when its customers are not being satisfied. And though that change is complex, it must be admitted that government interference has something to do with it, mustn’t it?
Meaning that government regulations sometimes prop up corporations that wouldn’t survive otherwise? I would have to agree with that–just look at all the financial institutions that stayed afloat longer than they should have as a result of the government. So yes, government regulation can clearly do more harm than good at times.
I also agree that, regardless of regulations, corporations should look out for the best interests of their customers, and I think we should only be customers of the corporations that actually do this. But unfortunately, not everyone knows what’s in their best interest (i.e., college kids chugging Four-Loko). Doesn’t it seem like, at least in these cases, a little government regulation is a good thing?
I think everyone would admit that there are at least some who are incapable of taking care of themselves. But the problem is that government action tends to force everyone in a society–even those who can take care of themselves. Regard Social Security, for example. It was designed for a small minority of people who were incapable of sustaining their own retirement savings. But everyone must be involved in it. And so everyone is now enrolled in a failing, bankrupt program.
As Milton Friedman said, governments tend to force conformity without unanimity. On the other hand, the free market tends to allow for unanimity without conformity.
I like the Friedman quote, and Social Security is a great example of that. I suppose it is true that corporations can’t force us to do things the way the government can. Those college kids don’t have to drink Four-Loko, for example, but because of the new law, the rest of us now have to avoid it even if we didn’t plan to abuse it in the same way. And we don’t have to give our money to failing banks, but we do have to pay into Social Security. So I guess I have to admit that the government might be more of a threat after all–very interesting!
Along this line of reasoning, yes, it appears that is the case.