Show of HandsShow of Hands

RJ1969 July 19th, 2013 11:28pm

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?

19 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

duey in a fools paradise
07/20/13 7:43 am

Just curious if anyone has examples for this question...

Doopy Remedial Americanism
07/20/13 4:35 am

If the market itself doesn't rein them in, they don't need to be reined in.

eLucidate writing
07/19/13 11:32 pm

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.

Reply
seandolan93 Cascadia
07/19/13 7:20 pm

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.

seandolan93 Cascadia
07/19/13 7:21 pm

BTW I know that's a very optimistic plan haha

Praetorianus Fair enough.
07/19/13 6:15 pm

Only by existing laws or, if something really stinks, by making new laws.

huskermedic Cincinnati
07/19/13 6:09 pm

Don't all business make profit off people? If they are doing it wrong like Enron then the law will prosecute.

Rosebud Ohio
07/19/13 6:07 pm

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.

XposeBarak Out There
07/19/13 5:54 pm

Sure if u want to abolish the free-market

raccoon1 SoCal
07/19/13 5:32 pm

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.

RJ1969 SoCal
07/19/13 5:40 pm

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.

RJ1969 SoCal
07/19/13 5:41 pm

Who does the reigning in? I don't know.

Can you think of another option to control the problem?

raccoon1 SoCal
07/19/13 5:45 pm

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.

raccoon1 SoCal
07/19/13 5:46 pm

People must be responsible for their own lives. Nanny state not needed.

TiltonAllStarz Outside Ur Comfort Zone
07/19/13 5:27 pm

It's a question of freedom. Just because I don't like it, doesn't mean it should go away. Tolerance.

Reply
Zod Above Pugetropolis
07/19/13 5:07 pm

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.

Reply
RJ1969 SoCal
07/19/13 5:10 pm

Agreed.

TempName14 Everywhere but nowhere
07/19/13 5:15 pm

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.

RJ1969 SoCal
07/19/13 5:16 pm

Some drugs are a life and death issue though.

RJ1969 SoCal
07/19/13 5:16 pm

This is coming from someone who works for the dark side.

TempName14 Everywhere but nowhere
07/19/13 5:18 pm

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.

TempName14 Everywhere but nowhere
07/19/13 5:19 pm

As a software developer I work for the "dork side."

Squidboy Snarkapottamus
07/19/13 5:05 pm

The people and the community need to reign them in. This is why I don't shop at Wal--Mart.

Reply
july475
07/19/13 5:03 pm

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

Reply
suppressedID That is my secret Cap
07/19/13 4:45 pm

Eventually they'll figure out the equation where community, environment, and family are not suppressed externalities.

TempName14 Everywhere but nowhere
07/19/13 4:39 pm

Is this a "I hate rich people or business" question?

Reply
RJ1969 SoCal
07/19/13 4:39 pm

No.

You should know better than that. Do you think I hate either of those?!

TempName14 Everywhere but nowhere
07/19/13 4:45 pm

No, but you're a big gov kind of guy, so I had to ask. :-)

RJ1969 SoCal
07/19/13 4:48 pm

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.

TempName14 Everywhere but nowhere
07/19/13 4:35 pm

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.

Reply
zman117 Ohio
07/19/13 4:37 pm

Typical republican rhetoric ⬆⬆⬆⬆

TempName14 Everywhere but nowhere
07/19/13 4:38 pm

Reigning-in the profit motive would be devastating.

RJ1969 SoCal
07/19/13 4:38 pm

But, at the expense of the big picture. The final outcome. Sell alcohol to everyone, let the market decided?

RJ1969 SoCal
07/19/13 4:39 pm

Not to reign in the profit-motive....to stop wayward business that focus on profits at the expense of people/the country.

TempName14 Everywhere but nowhere
07/19/13 4:41 pm

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.

TempName14 Everywhere but nowhere
07/19/13 4:43 pm

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.

RJ1969 SoCal
07/19/13 4:50 pm

Sweet! RedBull vending machines on all school campuses then.

TempName14 Everywhere but nowhere
07/19/13 4:54 pm

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.

RJ1969 SoCal
07/19/13 4:58 pm

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.

TempName14 Everywhere but nowhere
07/19/13 5:14 pm

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?

zman117 Ohio
07/19/13 4:33 pm

Cough.... Papa johns.... Cough

Reply