As I've stated before, this exists in all markets. My mother works in a nursing home, the director acknowledges that it's easier to just bribe the state investigator than to pay the wages of the number of nurses and aides they're federally required to have working. So, that's what they do. This is why my mom is so burned out and beat up. They hire just enough help to give the ILLUSION of good care.
If it's cheaper to screw someone, they will. When the goal is max profit for minimal effort a society of privilege and and savage selfishness is the outcome. It's an inherent flaw in a capitalistic system. Regulations and programs like affirmative action and emissions tests are in place for the betterment of society
However to run a successful business long term you need to be seen as beneficial to your consumers, because those consumers will only purchase your product if they feel it is beneficial to them. If consumers are unhappy with said company they will goto another one, or a competitor with a competing product with crop up.
However currently you don't have a free market to allow this to happen because regulations and laws have been put in place, not to protect you, but to protect the current players in the arena. Allow me to put it this way. Currently let's say I make widgets. There are currently three widget makers in all. We want to make sure that no one else comes into the widget business and undercuts our business. So we lobby government to make a law that says to start making widgets you need an expensive license to start making widgets, and you need to pay to have your widgets inspected by a certified widget inspector. Now we've increased the cost of making widgets and protected ourselves from not competitors in the widget business, so now we can artificially raise our prices or decrease the quality of our widgets because everyone only has three widget makers to choose from.
Get it? The same method is also used to inhibit other business who might be competing for my customer's dollars. Or I could ask the government to safeguard my personal wealth in case I am found to have gained it through fraud, such as what happened with Enron. In a free-market though you can't actually do this though because there's no entity that owns a monopoloy on force that you can turn to use for this purpose.
It's also a better proof against corruption because you can have free-market regulatory agencies that companies work with voluntarily, Underwriters Laboratory or UL is a prime real-world example of this, as a way show their product has been vetted by an independent party. The regulatory agency is less-likely to accept bribes because it is in there interest to provide the service they say they will. If they're found to be corrupt or lax in their inspection standards then they themselves would be held accountable and would lose business, or go out of business. On the other hand a government inspector has problem with being lax or accepting a bribe because they're the only ones who can do the inspection, they won't be held accountable if they're wrong, and if the individual is discovered, the arbiter of it is going to be someone within the government itself and not an independent party, meaning very little will occur. In short, they have very few reasons not to be corrupt.
A lovely film about the subject
Indeed, it's hypocritical for us to sit back and wince and cringe at the misinformed -Fatal Hopper- with guns outside the town hall meetings, and then show up at the house of representatives with guns ourselves. We have to use the law, peaceful protest, civil disobedience, and spread awareness in other ways if we're ever going to set ourselves apart.
Werefrog's right, the "another heavily armed group of people" to do the same thing I'm referring to is the government. Though it's still true if that group is a mercenary organization, a militia, or your local gun club. The point of the statement is that people often find it acceptable for unethical things to be done when it is the government doing it for them. I'm trying to point out the fallacy in this kind of thinking.
Okay, so firstly, I agree with the right of a person to do whatever the -Fatal Hopper- they want on the land they own as long as they pay their taxes on time. But, when they use that land to publicly rape, butcher, and display the mutilated remains of little girls then the government has to step in...
If government has any purpose it would be to protect the life, liberty, and property of people within it. This is an example of situation where force would be required. I'm not a pacifist, I'm not saying force is never the answer. I'm just saying it's the last answer, and I think too many people jump to it as an answer much too soon.
Although I've been told there are better more efficiant ways to deal with a problem like this than using government, you'd have to ask someone better educated than I am to explain it. Honestly, I'm not sure how I feel about doing things that way.
@Werefrog
I don't think you quite understand what civility means. Also, while using the free market is a simple solution, it's not a simple answer. It's a complex system which constitutes an entire field of study. Similar to how "evolution" is a simple yet complex answer for the creation of complex forms of life. (And they both have interesting correlaries to each other too.)
If you really want to use government to solve all your problems though I'm going to tell you what's going to happen. As you use government to enact force upon your enemies they will respond in kind and you and your foes are going to wrestle over the "wheels of power" for the rest of your life, trying to get small morsels of benefit out of the system while the Democratic and Republican parties gain from your constant struggles, the real beneficiaries of your efforts will be their friends who possess enough wealth to work the system. Each new administration will grab more power for itself, building upon the power the last administration garnered for the office it vacated.
I've also, never ever once, endorsed threatening anyone with a gun. Please try again.
@Werefrog and Meg
I can completely understand why you find this idea to be so unusual because you're not used to hearing it. But even if you don't agree with on anything with me you should at least be able to attempt to answer this question. I'll repeat it: Let us suppose that all of the programs you suggested where genuinely good ones. If they are so beneficial, they why are you unable to convince other people to fund them voluntarily? Why do you need to force people to fund then? Does not the fact that you need to force people to fund them bother you?
I find it to be a very simple question.
@Kizzy
After the Civil War you had a group of people disadvantaged by previous legal policy, given nothing, and when they did try to freely make a life for themselves after the civil war the government enacted laws to prohibit them from competing fairly in the marketplace up until the middle of this century. They barely even had a chance to get on their feet before the majority in power used the stick of government to force them down. Using government to "fix" the problem took about 357 years. Pick a minority group, allow them to compete freely in the market like everyone else? Do you really think it would take 357 years for them to uplift themselves, disregarding the fact that without government policy allowing slavery most of them wouldn't even be here in the first place?
And to add to your next statement, if a company is bigoted, and they have enough customers to stay in business and all your efforts don't stop people from going there, then yes they would stay in business. That's how a free market works, the people who are spending the money at the business decide if the establishment get to stay in business. That means there is going to be something you or I detest that is in business. But it also means that something you or I enjoy that someone else detests can stay in business too so long as it can cover it's operating costs. But your alternative to get to decide who gets to be in business and who isn't is to use government, and that's a much, much worse alternative, where lobbyists get to decide who gets to be in business and who doesn't.
Let's bring this to present-day with hiring policies. You seem to forget that a business is made up of many individuals. Without the EEOC, a hiring manager with prejudices against certain groups can simply "overlook" my application due to my race/religion (those are apparent from my name) without me having any recourse. Otherwise, I could very much enjoy working at the place (HR is usually separate from your direct manager, so a prejudiced hiring manager doesn't mean the entire establishment is bigoted).
I don't forget business are made up of individuals, but there's a problem with your statement. You don't need the EEOC to protect you. The company as a whole is perfectly capable of establishing it's own policies regarding hiring. These policies may or may not sensitive to discrimination. Also, there are ways to ensure equality without government intervention. A company that wishes to gain the economic advantages that come with being known as a place business which does not discriminate on the basis of race, sex, or religion, could also allow an independent agency to audit the company to for this, similar to ISO audits.
Additionally, without the EEOC and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, I'm completely at the mercy of my company when I need reasonable religious accommodations. For instance, I leave work every Friday for prayers (I'm out of the office about 90 minutes total). Everyone from my manager on up to my CEO knows that I have every right to do that. Without Title VII, the power is on their side to pressure me into staying, no matter if they could easily accommodate my needs; with Title VII, the power is on my side, to say that I have the right to observe my religion.
However to gain this protection you're using the threat of force to secure it. Although I want you to be able to practice your religion freely your method of securing that protection is unethical. Also, remember now that you're using these unethical means to secure this protection, those opposed to you being able to take out that 90 minutes for prayers on Friday are going to respond in kind by using this same agency to harm you in turn.
And as I've stated before there are ethical ways to achieve the effect your looking for, for the most part.
Gerald Ford wrote:Government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases.
@Everyone
Well it happened. I literally spent my entire day responding to messages on this board. Let me say that I've found the discussion enjoyable, even if some people aren't particularly pleased with what I've had to say and apparently hate me right now. I'd like to leave you all with quote from Mary Ruwart's excellent book, "Healing our World", available in print and online, which is a long example of a lot of what I've been trying to explain. I know some of you are probably going to ignore this additional wall of text I'm throwing your way, but I do hope some of you will take the time to read it, or the enlightening book it's a part of.
I probably won't be making any more replies to this thread for a few days, since obviously, I can't afford to be spending so many hours replying to threads on this board. Lastly, sorry if at any point I misconstrued or misunderstood anyone's points. In trying what everyone is saying, comprehend, analyze, and respond to it I'm certain it's possible some errors have occured.
Mary Ruwart wrote:How We Violate the Principle of Non-Aggression Daily Without Even Realizing It!
If we decided we wanted a new neighborhood park, how would we go about getting one? We could call together other individuals who want the same thing and could raise enough money to own and operate the park through donations, by selling stock in a corporation set up for that purpose, or through other voluntary means. If those who did not participate in the fundraising effort decide later to use the park, we might require them to pay an entry fee. Obviously, we would be relating voluntarily and non-aggressively with our neighbors. If George didn't want to be involved as either a contributor or a park visitor, we would honor his choice.
Of course, another way we could proceed would be to vote for a tax to purchase and maintain the park. If a large enough gang of our neighbors voted for it, George's hard-earned dollars would be used for a park he didn't want and wouldn't use. If he refused to pay what our gang dictated, law enforcement agents, acting on behalf of the winning voters, would extract the tax, at gunpoint, if necessary. If he resisted too vehemently, George might even get killed in the scuffle.
Wouldn't we be using a gang called "government" to steal from George? Wouldn't we be the first ones to turn guns on a neighbor who hadn't defrauded or stolen from us? Wouldn't George eventually retaliate by getting government to turn its guns on us for projects that he prefers but we want nothing to do with? Wouldn't we alternate as victims and aggressors, as minorities and majorities? Wouldn't we just be taking turns directing the law enforcement agents toward each other?
Through taxation, pacifists are forced at gunpoint to pay for killing machines; vegetarians are forced at gunpoint to subsidize grazing land for cattle; nonsmokers are forced at gunpoint to support both the production of tobacco and the research to counter its impact on health. These minorities are the victims, not the initiators of aggression. Their only crime is not agreeing with the priorities of the majority. Taxation appears to be more than theft; it is intolerance for the preferences and even the moral viewpoints of our neighbors. Through taxation we forcibly impose our will on others in an attempt to control theirchoices.