Should businesses that pursue the profit-motive at the expense of individuals, families, communities, and/or the country be reigned in by some authority (not necessarily the gov) or process?
It's a question of freedom. Just because I don't like it, doesn't mean it should go away. Tolerance.
Is this a "I hate rich people or business" question?
I'm a little of this, little of that kind of guy. If it works, keep it. If not, ditch it. If we need it, do it. If its all good, let it go.
I'm NOT an idiot who believes what profiteers in the media sell, just like any other product.
I'm torn, but I voted yes strictly based on my strong objection to the practice of "pay to delay" side deals made by drug companies to interfere with the availability of affordable generic drugs after the patent protection expires. Unconscionable.
I hope that includes all businesses. If they don't charge for their services and make a profit then they'll go out of business and then we'll all be screwed.
Reigning-in the profit motive would be devastating.
The people and the community need to reign them in. This is why I don't shop at Wal--Mart.
This is coming from someone who works for the dark side.
Cough.... Papa johns.... Cough
Do you think people can evaluate all of the information necessary to make accurate, informed decisions, every day?
It's obvious people are duped and misled on a daily basis.
Typical republican rhetoric ⬆⬆⬆⬆
Maybe this is similar yet inverse to conservatives wanting TV stations to not show dirty movies. Libs say, "don't want your kid to watch, turn off the tv, but don't expect the tv station to parent your kid. So why should red bull mind a child's diet?
So, don't buy that company's drugs, or push to regulate it away, or make it illegal, but don't expect them to be keepers of your personal morality.
Some drugs are a life and death issue though.
Not to reign in the profit-motive....to stop wayward business that focus on profits at the expense of people/the country.
You should know better than that. Do you think I hate either of those?!
But, if we're going to expect companies to be keepers of our private morality, lets make a deal. I'll support your position in this if you'll agree that TV stations and cable companies should never show any movie rated older than PG.
As a software developer I work for the "dork side."
Not sure what you're getting at, but in a free country it's the voters who are concerned with the big picture. I don't expect walmart to be concerned with infrastructure or student loans, etc.
I'm ok with businesses just focusing on profits. It's best not to make them organs of democracy or "keepers of the public trust." Set laws for them to operate in and slam them hard if they violate.
No, but you're a big gov kind of guy, so I had to ask. :-)
Is the principle of free-market capitalism more important than concern for the well-being of anyone? No. I can't believe people think otherwise.
If its legal then you can't really blame them. If you think it's a bad idea to have red bull on the campuses then push to make it illegal, or have the school ban it. I don't blame the company. They're not the kids parents.
I would say it depends on what it is but there are companies that have dumped poisons in the water and things like that yeah they need to be fined or something
Walmart. Do a google, but here's at least one example: www.econmatters.com/2012/07/is-wal-mart-evil-20-shocking-facts.html?m=1
Just curious if anyone has examples for this question...
Who does the reigning in? I don't know.
Can you think of another option to control the problem?
But, at the expense of the big picture. The final outcome. Sell alcohol to everyone, let the market decided?
Though I hesitate because this can be done so poorly, biased and hypocritically, yes. As an extreme, if they are dumping radioactive toxins into the water/food supply, that needs stopped immediately.
If someone has information that can help people from being hurt by a business--by all means, share it. People need to know and it happens all the time--blogs, reviews, etc. What we don't need is more regulation.
Aside from gov, only one authority can persuade a business to change, and that's money. So people need to educate themselves and others and support the businesses that support your morals.
People must be responsible for their own lives. Nanny state not needed.
Don't all business make profit off people? If they are doing it wrong like Enron then the law will prosecute.
BTW I know that's a very optimistic plan haha
If the market itself doesn't rein them in, they don't need to be reined in.
Eventually they'll figure out the equation where community, environment, and family are not suppressed externalities.
All of that.
Only by existing laws or, if something really stinks, by making new laws.
Sweet! RedBull vending machines on all school campuses then.
Yes. It's called the free market.
That's capitalism, my friend.
Sure if u want to abolish the free-market
If a company is truly evil or bad, then people can choose not to support it with their business. Who does the "reigning in"? Doesn't sound like a free country.
They're are parents of kids. It's no ok that it's other people's kids.
I think of it the same way I think of sports....play with honor, by the rules. Don't juice just to support your bottom line. Do it right. Do it fair. Money isn't everything.