Drawing a line.

Posted by Laddius_Maximus 12 years, 2 months ago to Business
117 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

So as I understand it, Ayn Rand advocated small government and having them stay completely out of business. Laissez-faire? Or do I have the wrong idea. This would foster more competition and bring down prices for all. But doesn't this idea only work if the corporations are ethical? If they always do the right thing? I don't mean social ethics but in terms of not polluting the environment,(BP) or making food that makes us sick. (monsanto) How do you make sure these companies operate as they are supposed to? I know I'm not phrasing this question correctly because I feel government should shrink and get the hell out of the way, but where does the line get drawn? Where does regulation and oversight become infringement and collusion?


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 5.
  • Posted by 12 years, 2 months ago
    Why am I getting "slapped around"? If others feel better by insulting me that is their problem. I am just trying to learn about the truth of things.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    trust busting was a violation of natural rights.
    every single trust that Teddy Roosevelt complained about-their goods' prices over the decade preceding the passage of the Sherman anti-trust act, declined by 90% or more. These laws were not for consumers-they were to protect inefficient producers and increase govt power.
    A correct statute to study on monopolies check out English statute on Monopolies (1623?) which limited the power of govt NOT the power of private citizens
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 12 years, 2 months ago
    Like I said, I dont think I phrased my question properly. I more than likely have an incomplete understanding of the true nature of the problem. If anyone can explain it to me, Ill be more than happy to listen.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    the executive order was foul. But the Monsanto issue is complicated and govt's remedy doesn't address the larger issue of property rights. genetically modified food-everything one eats and drinks is genetically "modified" especially cheese puffs
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 12 years, 2 months ago
    What about the so-called trust busters and monopoly breaking? What was that really about? Was it required, or was this government intrusion for some nefarious purpose?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 12 years, 2 months ago
    How did such an awful situation become the status quo? Where does it end? Can it end? Will it end? The system as it stands now can't sustain itself as it is. My question is did it ever? When did it go off the rails?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 12 years, 2 months ago
    @khalling Apparently I am being misunderstood and you are to ready to judge someone which is more interesting if you ask me. I do not accept any leftist premise. I do not think corporations are evil. I am simply asking where does the line begin? We have seen really crappy examples of corporations and we have seen great ones. I'm just trying to understand what can be done about the ones who aren't great but yet seem to do fantastic.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment deleted.
  • Posted by khalling 12 years, 2 months ago
    No, it does not depend on companies acting "ethically." It depends on a govt acting ethically and protecting individuals' natural rights. We have tort law for cases like BP -HOWEVER, your assumption that BP and Monsanto acted unethically is dubious at best.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by LetsShrug 12 years, 2 months ago
    In a Laissez-faire economy there would be so much competition and so much booming business that businesses who weren't ethical wouldn't survive. It would be regulated by just that. Healthy competition.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo