No you can’t avoid the schema of “every man for himself” but not every man at his core is designed to put himself first. A man can be about “himself” by donating every waking moment in the service of others. Look at how ants thrive as a community. Not all of the members cater to the queen or build the tunnels or for that matter, are welcomed to enter the inner chambers where a collective society thrives, and yet, I don’t believe the ants who are responsible for foraging and protecting the hill are any less valued because they live a selfish self-serving existence. They do eat first before they feed the colony.The colony could not survive without them. Society standards do not take into consideration the value and necessity of members who are hardwired to put themselves first. Without an attempt to elevate the status of the individual man, we often have the goo you describe in the form of mob-rule. And in the internet age, where a mob can be formed in hours and opinions can be changed in seconds we are running out of time to correct this.

I agree too. But I'm not sure if consumers lack the determination to spend money wisely, more like they've never learned to in the first place. Too often I see people trusting that a product or company is good because, surely, if it were bad it wouldn't be allowed it on the market! It's like Kip Chalmers and the collapse of the Taggart Tunnel - no one gives a second thought to the fact that they're going into an 8 mile tunnel with a coal-burning engine, they just trust the faceless men in charge. In an unregulated (laissez-faire) economy the consumer would accept personal responsibility and research a product before buying. Anyone alive today would have to be retrained to do so, of course (present company excluded). Also I'm pretty sure in that in that unregulated world a transportation company wouldn't send hundreds of passengers to their deaths. Call it ethical if you want, but really it would just be bad for business.

Depends on the position. I'll pass on the cheese puffs... kh can have mine.

Agreed. I hear a number of people complain about Wal-Mart being corrupt/too big/ evil but they still go there to shop. If you think something is wrong don't support it or accept the fact that they are doing something right.

“But doesn’t this idea only work if the corporations are ethical?”
I think the failure of capitalism to be realized as the most amazing economic structure ever has nothing to do with whether or not big business is ethical, but instead, capitalism fails when there is an absence of consumer-driven action to put money in what truly has value. Do we complain about the evils of a big name oil company while filling up our gas tanks and buying their products at their stations? Whatever gave us the idea that it is our duty or responsibility to make a company ethical? Doesn’t it make more sense to go out and find an ethical company to begin with and spend our time and money with and on them? The problem with us, the consumers, is that we lack the determination to do whatever is necessary to spend every dollar wisely. Instead, we spend easy and complain, allowing our government (which is looking for it’s own customers to exploit) to have an excuse to step in. We can make more ethical companies competitive and powerful by valuing them with our business. I believe in getting selfish. Get your dollar’s worth every time.

nod of recognition

I am unaware of any testing that has any meaningful validity. However, if you have seen research, I am happy to look at it. Our background is intellectual property. we look at the science and the legal aspects of the science. and the protection of property rights.
The executive order doesn't really cover "franken-food" hate the term and happy to debate it-after you watch all the Penn and Teller Bull Shit episodes on it- lol.
This exec order(which I do not agree with) covers contracts. Here's how that works. A farmer contracts for genetically modified seeds. The company offering the seeds, has stipulations. If the farmer does not like the stipulations, DO NOT CONTRACT. plant another type of seed. Well, turns out the farmer really wants that seed to compete. hmmmm. what to do, what to do... you can fill in the rest of the picture. One may not strong arm Hank Rearden to give up his metal because YOU need it to compete.

In a free market when a company screws someone over or acts in a way that the consumers don't agree with, they will lose business to their competitors, which will eventually put them out of business. If they commit fraud by lying about their product they will be sued and the PR will again drive them out of business. The system regulates itself.

laddius, you get some latitude for finals. :)
do well

I will read up on that. Thank you for the information. It may havevto wait a week until the semester is over though.

Well for example, Monsanto's genetically modified food has no long term exposure testing on humans and has actually killed rats that have performed long term testing on. Is that true?

100% agree. I like the analogy of legislature sitting around pre-empting stuff. bad for business

I'll consider this question homework for the night. :-) Give me a chance to study up on this and form an opinion. I can't promise it will be the same as Ayn Rand's. If that's what you're looking for, she does have an entire book on the subject of Capitalism you could certainly pick up for not many $$$.

@lionelhutz. I certainly didn't mean that. You are right. I knew when I was writing the question, it wasn't coming off correctly. Preemptive action isn't the solution here. That is the status quo now and its only making things worse. Government is the problem here. The more I read yours and others responses, it brings me back to my original thought of government being the cause here. I don have another question. What was the point of the anti trust laws then?

You are asking a good question. The only thing that bothers me about how you phrased it are the terms "make sure" and "supposed to", which have great potential to be contorted/abused.

If a business doesn't deliver promised goods in exchange for money, the courts need to be involved. If a business destroys another's property, the courts need to be involved.
It's not all on the business, either. The individual can also wrong a business in the same ways.

Laissez-faire doesn't mean government will turn a blind eye to business or individual misbehavior. However, and this is my 2C, it means all the actors have the freedom to behave as they want, and courts will be the arbiters to judge the behavior after it happens.

When you use terms like "make sure companies operate as they are supposed to", it makes me think of the legislature sitting in a room asking themselves how they want the companies to behave, and then passing laws to ensure the companies comply with their wishes.
The offence is when government tries to preempt certain outcomes by denying businesses the freedom to act as they wish.

I need to study up on Laissez-faire more, myself. I could be misrepresenting the position.

Laddius. look at the questions you are asking here and tell me which ones are driven by emotion and which ones you presented facts for us to analyze. I spend alot of my time thinking, writing and researching about these very issues. maybe you do as well-but you have given little context. just saying Monsanto and BP like we all agree-well, I do not agree. and so I respond accordingly. I am happy to debate evidence of your assertions

how have I judged you? You made statements. I responded. When you asked questions, I answered the ones I found interesting.
Enforce natural rights and get rid of fascism/crony capitalism.
I've yet to run into one small business, raising capital without govt benefit, not using a black market or intimidation, keep customers and grow that is crappy.
Have you?

it's all good laddius. reason can't slap anyone around only awake :)