Big Business is Big Government
Carl Schmitt noted that, “the sovereign is the one who decides on the exception.” That is, when the system of laws established in a given state fail to meet an unexpected crisis in that state, the one who has the authority to act in that crisis is the sovereign. Or, if the exception is what proves the rule, the one who has the authority in that exception transcends the rule and so cannot be judged by it. The question is for us to determine who or what that sovereign is.
In the United States, there is a constant struggle going on to determine who its sovereign is. While many might not like the notion that there is a sovereign, nonetheless, it is clear there will always be someone who is in charge, who has that final authority. A traditional way to determine who that sovereign is was to see who holds the greater power for the greatest exception. In this way, the President of the United States was shown to be that sovereign because of his power of its nuclear arsenal. However, in the current crisis with the oil spill in the gulf, we are seeing a rival for that power coming out and making their dash for power. While one might think we have seen a judicial claim for sovereignty being exercised with the over-turning of the President’s temporary ban on deep off-shore drilling, that is an overly simplistic interpretation of the decision. When in the middle of a crisis to the political system, the judicial branch serves the sovereign and helps make sure the true sovereign remains in authority. Where the judicial branch lends its support, where it says the exception lies, there we can see one of the claimants for power. And if we look carefully, it appears that the judge has ruled that businesses are sovereign, that in the middle of a crisis, their authority is to be followed and not questioned.
We have seen many people who support business say that they are against “big government,” and they encourage people to dismiss the sovereignty of “big government.” But what they mean by big government is the current political authority. Through propaganda, people believe that if we turn everything over to business we would not be ruled “big government;” they have been blinded to the fact that if we give the exception to business, they have become our sovereign and hence can be said to be the real authority behind our government — they would be our real government. Now, if people argue that business can handle governing better and so this is why they should be given sovereignty, at least they should make that case without ignoring the fact that business is being made sovereign. However, for me, the business model of governing ignores many issues which I find necessary for government, such as support for the dignity of the human person and a desire to work for the common good. Businesses model their judgments on pure economic concerns. Is that really what we want from our sovereign?
Comments are closed.
“Conservatism” in America is NOT conservative.
The greatest professor of political conservatism in the Western tradition is Edmund Burke, and when he wrote the first sentence below he was speaking of the necessity of excluding “merchants” (i.e. “businessmen”) from decision-making regarding policy:
Magnanimity in politics is not seldom the truest wisdom; and a great empire and little minds go ill together.
You have a very good idea of what he’d think of plutocrats and their ultimate concern for the “bottom line” governing policy-making by THIS one:
If we command our wealth, we shall be rich and free; if our wealth commands us, we are poor indeed.
You have a pretty good idea of what he’d think of the concentrations of wealth that unregulated laissez faire economics lead to from THIS statement:
It is the interest of the commercial world that wealth should be found everywhere.
Here’s his answer to the “Tea Partiers”:
Liberty must be limited in order to be possessed.
Paul Krugman and NOT the Republican barons of Congress would appreciate this one:
Mere parsimony is not economy. Expense, and great expense, may be an essential part in true economy.
And here’s what Burke would probably say to those who’d limit the Federal Government’s right to legislate and regulate in our economic system—in other words, its right to be the actual “sovereign”:
Nothing turns out to be so oppressive and unjust as a feeble government.
Modern big businesses are heavily dependent on big government (privileges through monopolistic protections and subsidies). Chomsky ones noted that the actual practice of Reagan’s “neoliberalism” is a combination of protectionism and liberalization. Many government protections for the rich, and free markets for the poor only. So its basically the art of socializing cost and privatizing profits.
Those who are “anti-big-government” but defend “big-business” sometimes are so ignorant to see that most big business today won’t be as “predatory” or “exploitative” as it is now without gigantic government’s intervention in behalf of big business.
Clarence Lee Swartz explained clearly in his book, “What is Mutualism”, regarding the rise of big business. http://www.panarchy.org/swartz/mutualism.1.html
Mutualism is probably the closest existing economic system to Catholic’s distributism.
This is an interesting look at Emilia-Romagna’s cooperative economy.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:XAVlTprWpbgJ:www.ontario.coop/upload/Freeman_Bob%2520Emilia%2520Romagnas%2520Cooperative-based%2520economy.ppt+emilia+romagna+new+york&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au&client=firefox-a
Well, then, Andreas, speaking from the standpoint of cultural values, “Americanism” is one gigantic hoax, isn’t it?
What I mean is that, although we SAY we’re a liberal and economic democracy whose prevailing myth is that of Horatio Alger, we are actually a very intricate and ingenious class system, by which the upper class, which is only partially a meritocracy, hold on to power by manipulating industrial and financial regulatory systems to their own benefit.
In other words, practically speaking–and from the standpoints of BOTH Adam Smith economics AND Catholic “distributism,” we have a system of “bureaucratized collectivism” that benefits (and at different intervals) the “socialistic” Democratic regulators and the “free enterprise” Republican tycoons.
“Where the judicial branch lends its support, where it says the exception lies, there we can see one of the claimants for power. And if we look carefully, it appears that the judge has ruled that businesses are sovereign, that in the middle of a crisis, their authority is to be followed and not questioned.”
In our system I think the ultimate sovereign at times is the people and the law.
That being said I found the opinion of the Judge well reasoned and his line of logic was not shocking. The fact is the Govt messed up and it came closer to appearing like Presidential whim and fiat than following the law. I am not alone down here in thinking that a narrow scope of the ban and oh yes some more reasoning for the prohibitions would pass his muster. When you are about to put a good bit of the Gulf Coast out of work and interfere with billions in contracts, possibly cause long term damage to the Louisiana and Gulf Coast economy , then yes supplying some good reasoning is essential. Some facts please!!! Is that too much to ask
The Govt’s work might have passed Law exam muster but not much higher.
“Modern big businesses are heavily dependent on big government ”
Just for the record “Big Business” would not be the main ones effected here . In fact the Big Business that people are thinking about here “BIG OIL” could survive in many cases as they move their floating rigs and interest to African and South AMerica .
The “small Business in Houma Louisiana” that makes and supplies pipes to service the wells will not. The samll business of boats and aviation air that service the wells would not. etc etc
JH
You still do not get the environmental concern. We need to make sure we don’t turn the earth into one big Easter Island. Saying “we need jobs” does not justify unsafe business conditions working in waters where we do not have technology to deal with disasters. More importantly, if the whole economy is based upon oil, doesn’t that make it dangerous for the future, if/when oil is either not needed or impossible to be had? Long term strategies need to be given to which look for the welfare beyond the immediate future. More importantly, when we find “BP is being treated unfairly” and “no regulations can be put in place to protect the environment from business,” we really DO see business is sovereign, and profit is put before all else.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad
The problem isn’t not enough regulations, its too much privileges of power given to these Corporations. Corporations have the right to free speech, they would LOVE maximize this right to lobby for legal privileges. Why should it be given so many artificial rights of human beings in the first place?
“In other words, practically speaking–and from the standpoints of BOTH Adam Smith economics AND Catholic “distributism,” we have a system of “bureaucratized collectivism” that benefits (and at different intervals) the “socialistic” Democratic regulators and the “free enterprise” Republican tycoons.”
What’s most important is, their benefits are gained in the expense of the weak and poor.
Henry I very much get the ” get the environmental concern”. In fact the environement is a big consideration because in the most overlooked issue funds to restore the Coastline (Coastal erosion issues) are about to be coming from revenues in some of these fields. If we don’t get those funds there will be no Coast period. After watching this now for decades I am pretty convinced the Congress is not going to giving the needed funds to replace that. That is a depressing scenario that occurs regardless of what party is in power or who controls the White House or who is in charge of the Corp of Engineers which at times seems like a shadow Govt.
I guess my poin tis if people want to complain about the Judges ruling they need to complain about the sloppy work of the Interior Dpartment. Not the Judge.
jh — why not the judge on top of the lack of proper dealing with the spill? Of course, the spill shows this kind of drilling is outside of our ability to control, but the judge doesn’t care, thinks business interests trump other interests, and again, that does place them on the level of sovereign. You can argue “well, it’s a better sovereign, because we need the jobs,” but at least look to what is happening.
“More importantly, when we find “BP is being treated unfairly” and “no regulations can be put in place to protect the environment from business,” we really DO see business is sovereign, and profit is put before all else.”
First off there is regulations. Second of all the whole focus of this should not be BP which is just one of many players in this
THe Jindal Administration as well as Senator Landrieu offered all sort of common sense compromises that were logical here. They were largely ignored.
How is BP sovereign when it has limited liability of tort to other people’s property?
Sovereignty means you are fully responsible for any damage made to other territory outside your sovereignty.
Sovereignty means you are fully responsible for any damage made to other territory outside your sovereignty. It depends upon what you mean by “responsible.” In the world at large, when one deals with a combination of sovereigns in rivalry with each other, and other entities which would like to be sovereign, there is a combination of conflict and compromise which goes on. Each sovereign or would be sovereign engages in compromise when they feel it is in their best interests, but — at other times, if they think they can dictate to others, they put off the burden to others (be it their subjects or some other sovereign and their subjects).
Henry, it doesn’t sound like you’ve read the judge’s decision. The law is the final arbiter in this case.
Pinky
There are many questions as to how he read the law, and there is great indication of an “activist” reading of the law. Beyond that, even if it were the law to make businesses sovereign, the question remains as to whether we should or not, and whether or not people who are loud against “big government” will engage “big business” when it is shown to be acting as a sovereign. We can’t just say “that’s the law, that’s that.” Isn’t that right? Or should we just sit back and accept abortion now?
You write this assuming that government remains free from corruption. A corrupt government regulating honest businesses is not a better situation.
Big government also encourages greater influence of big business. To gain an upperhand, big business will increase political contributions and lobbying activities to influence government regulation to rule in its favor. Therefore, increased regulation, and bigger government, favor big businesses and discourage small businesses. In the end, small businesses will suffer and corruption will continue. (Our current administration is making secret deals with businesses to gain political power. Certain businesses are making deals with the current administration to gain political favors.)
Also, a business is the sum of its owners who happen to be people. These people are in business to feed, clothe, and shelter their families. Of course these businesses have economic concerns. If the business takes in less money than it spends, how will it continue? An honest business owner will manage the business and treat his/her employees fairly.
You write this assuming that government remains free from corruption.
Where do I assume that? I don’t. Government is a human enterprise, no matter who is in charge. There is no utopia. There will be corruption and problems based upon whomever is in charge. However, I think there are principles which are better for government than others, such as working for the common good instead of the mighty buck. Moreover, I think the fact that businesses fulfill the role of sovereigns while people ignore that is a major concern.
In regard to the situation with BP, government regulation has not helped. How could the accident have happened when the company passed inspection in the week preceding the explosion?
Also, the the accident has become messier because government regulation and lack of leadership by the federal government has hampered many clean up options. Why were the Dutch prevented from helping us shortly after the explosion? (Federal law prevented foreign vessels from entering this area!)
This accident is being politicized.
Cathy
That only indicates there was not good enough regulation, and again, it seems to indicate because BP itself has had more sovereignty than people realize. The same people who say “well, see regulations don’t work” at the ones who would have screamed “communist” if the government did something. No, you don’t get to do a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” response. If you are against regulations then you should be concerned that the government did inspections of any sort. This kind of rhetorical game you play is what is leading to the kinds of problems which cannot be dealt with — of course, it is to be expected, because we were told people would do everything possible to make Obama’s administration a failure. Good job, you damage the gulf coast! And it is your demands, which want less regulations and complain about them, which has led to this. Good job!
I think the government should have done something and to stop the up-and-coming power play of business, it should follow the example of Teddy squashing such would be sovereigns, but it didn’t. But the people who are making charges against the administration now would be the first to obstruct what needs to be done- – and already they are.
The assumption is in your reference to the ‘business model of governing’ which you state is missing ‘support for the dignity of the human person and the desire to work for the common good.’ An honest business owner will treat his/her employees with dignity and bring a positive influence to his/her community. Corruption will continue with government regulation and can hurt many honest small business owners.
Also, allowing an executive order to go unchecked by the judicial branch or the legislative branch of government renders the citizens of this country helpless and subject to tyranny. Therefore, the court decision in this case is viewing all options. Allowing the ban to continue does nothing to correct the current crises nor does it provide for any clean up measures.
Cathy
Business morality only does honesty as far as it helps them, but it is quite clear, if you look at the way businesses treat the world (both the lower level employees, and non-employees) they do not treat them with positive values. More importantly, saying that the business model goes against traditional Catholic principles of governing does not mean those who engage the traditional principles are going to be perfect — just better. Look to the legacy of businesses around the world, and how many lives they have destroyed.
Allowing the ban to continue actually makes sure there will be no further situation, no worse situation. This isn’t just a mere accident.
The only obtructions that I see in this situation is the Obama administration itself. The clean up action has been initiated by the state leaders and has been delayed due to additional regulation.
Why not empower the people who have the knowledge and skill to work in this situation? The administration seems to have problems with this. Is this for political reasons?
The only obtructions that I see in this situation is the Obama administration itself.
That’s why we have judges, following the lead of businesses, saying we can’t obstruct. And you favor that response.
I don’t think that I saw in what I just read any mention of the fact that the judge in question here should have recused himself in the first place, since he had a personal stake in the continuation of the drilling.
Secondly, so long as our politicians are financially backed primarily by corporate America, and can be expected, therefore, to do the bidding of corporate America to keeps those funds coming in, there can be little doubt as to where the true sovereignty lies: follow the money.
Business, far from taking the kind of long view advocated by Henry above, tends to see the future one fiscal quarter at a time, and to act accordingly.
As this whole thing unfolds, I keep remembering how the novel Atlas Shrugged ends. That’s exactly the road we’re on.
[i]It depends upon what you mean by “responsible.”[/i]
If I accidentally drove my car to your house, I will have to pay the full cost of the damage. That’s what I really meant. If I do not have to pay for it because I simply have a legal privilege to partially get away from it, that means I have sovereignty not only over my car, but also partial sovereignty over your house.
Andreas
On the other hand, we already have people saying BP should only be liable to a few million of the billions of damage they have caused. Which goes with the question — why are corporations given limits to liability?
If we don’t have businesses producing food, clothes and other goods needed to live, who will produce them?
Cathy
So, if we are to put regulations on businesses, that means we are to have no business? Every response you give to me shows you think in extremes, which is not what is being done here. “Oh, if you think government is better than business, you think government can’t err and will bring perfection.” “Oh, if you think government should be free to regulate businesses, then there would be no one making anything.” Instead of going to such extremes, deal with the issue at hand.
Cathy writes: a business is the sum of its owners who happen to be people.
And then writes: An honest business owner will treat his/her employees with dignity and bring a positive influence to his/her community
Actually, under law (vigourously defending by the Big Business lobbying groups and the Republican Party), the owners (that is, the shareholders) are prohibited from instructing the managers on compensation and other employee issues.
Henry, law can’t make business soveriegn, unless you’re using the word “soveriegn” in a way I don’t understand. The law decides the case. I suppose if you want to dig further, you could say that the law derives its authority from the Constitution, which derives its authority from the consent of the governed. But you can’t look at a judge’s ruling against a moratorium and say that the plaintiff is soveriegn.
You mention the possibility that judicial activism was at fault. In what way? The judge cited the law under which he was exercising his authority, and explained how the case met the conditions set under the law. He relied on precedent. I’m no lawyer, but I don’t see anywhere that he overstepped his bounds.
Lastly, you mention abortion. I don’t know why. While I oppose abortion, and oppose the Supreme Court’s overreach in claiming a right to have an abortion, I would also oppose the prosecution of abortionists under the current law. The fact is, the current law says what it says, and this side of a Nuremberg trial I don’t see how you can be prosecuted for obeying it.
You mention the possibility that judicial activism was at fault. In what way? The judge cited the law under which he was exercising his authority, and explained how the case met the conditions set under the law.
Sounds like what happens after every activist judge makes a decision. Seriously, you assume the judge is correct, and so whatever response I give you will come back with the “the judge said.” So let’s assume it is the law to date. The question remains and this is just a red herring to the overall discussion. The discussion is — should big business be granted such sovereignty?
“jh — why not the judge on top of the lack of proper dealing with the spill? Of course, the spill shows this kind of drilling is outside of our ability to control, but the judge doesn’t care, thinks business interests trump other interests, and again, that does place them on the level of sovereign. You can argue “well, it’s a better sovereign, because we need the jobs,” but at least look to what is happening.”
Henry That is not what is at issue here. THe Judge is applying the law and yes it appears the Govt was being arbitrary and caprcious here.
6 monthss stoppage? WHy not one? WHy not 20? WHy 6? We don’t have to give a answer it seems is the Govt response
What is with the 1000 feet mark. WHy is 500 cited elsewhere. Where did that number come from. Well we just pulled it out of hat it seems
I also commend the Govt for consulting their experts. However it is then bad to ignore the expert advice (they did not sign on the the full ban). It is even worse to try to mislead that the experts in facts supported the ban when they did not.
The problem here was not the Judge but the Inerior and how they handled this.
The Judge followed the law. If people don’t like it they did to change the APA and other provisions that came in.
I suspect that the new action brought by the Dept of Interior will address these concerns and I would not be shocked when they do that the Judge will be more open.
I understand people might have problems with offshore drilling. But this was not the venue to really promote that policy concern. That belongs in Congress
Henry, the issue of judicial activism is a red herring, but it’s one that you raised. Even in the last post you present it as a possible explanation. I won’t say that “the judge said”, as you anticipatorily accuse me of. But if you are going to question his honesty, the burden of proof falls on you. What did the judge say that made you question his fitness as a judge (for that is implied in your accusation)? Do you think it’s appropriate for a Catholic to accuse someone of breaking an oath without providing proof?
Back to the original question: how is big business being granted sovereignity?
Henry, the issue of judicial activism is a red herring, but it’s one that you raised. The fact that I believe there is such activism going on here is a point, but not the central issue — that business is being made sovereign, and the way the courts rule show this sovereignty. Even if it can be argued that it was given such sovereignty by “law,” we must see — as Rodak points out — why this is the case. It’s not hard to see business interests are in control, and the system itself has abdicated authority to business, with politicians becoming agents to such sovereigns. As for the judge, Rodak also explains why it is very appropriate to question him.
Kurt:
Small business owners provide the most jobs in this country. These entities include sole proprietors, partnerships, LLC’s, and corporations. Many of the corporations have shareholders who actually manage the company. In the other entites, the owners are the managers. Therefore, the largest group of employers in this country own and manage their businesses and it is not against the law.
In any type of business, the organization is the sum of its parts – the people who happen to be owners and employees. The owners have a vested interest to be honest and fair with their employees. If they are not, the will suffer from high turnover and an unstable workforce. They also have incentive to treat the community and their customers fairly for without this type of behavior, they will not survive as a business.
Some owners will be dishonest. If they are not penalized with a failed business, they will need to honest to a higher power – God.
That’s a good question, Henry.
I would say the answer to that is to maximize profit, but it is done in the expense of others. In actual reality, the “others” here mostly are the weak and the poor. That’s why I personally think that the very existence of Corporations, in itself, is immoral. It is a far inhumane economic institutions compared to co-ops (favored by Chesterton), for example.
It is granted the status of personhood (as in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad), but it has rights which a human individual does not have, one of which is limited liability.
Economist Dean Baker wrote in “The Conservative Nanny State : How the Wealthy Use the Government to Stay Rich and Get Richer” (http://www.conservativenannystate.org/cns.html#4) that corporations, are invention of the government, the greatest form of economic privilege as a result of government intervention in the economy in behalf of those who have, in the expense of those who have less.
More regulations are only treating symptoms (exploitative Big Business), probably a necessary condition, but it is not the cure to the disease (Privileges).
If BP and other Oil Corporations did not have this privilege, they wouldn’t be a predatory and reckless as they are right now. But then again, they now have so much power to lobby the government to defend their dominance over the economy. In a sense, we have a Government ruled by the Corporations.
Henry –
My question is extreme, and your ideas are extreme. I do not agree with your demonization of business, because it is a necessary entity. It is necessary unless we all wish to grow our own food, make our own clothes, and go back to bartering. (Also, if the country was run like a business, we may not have the current budget deficit or economic crisis. Our leaders might be more accoutable for the resources and their actions.)
I also disagree with your idea of regulation. You believe your ideas help people because they penalize businesses. This regulation might penalize big business but it also penalizes people especially those that own small businesses. It also punishes people seeking jobs.
Your ideas are extreme on one side and I presented an idea that is extreme by asking you the question. Regulation did not prevent the accident and the response by the president for the ban on drilling was not the correct response to the crisis. Furthermore, if we don’t drill other countries will. Didn’t George Soros make offshore drilling investments with the country of Brazil?
I forgot to add that the US loaned money to the country of Brazil to explore off-shore oil drilling. Therefore, our administration is financing off-shore oil drilling in other countries but wants to prohibit it here. Why? Big government is financing big business, and we are expected to accept regulation with no questions asked.
There are many business entities. Corporation, with all the immoral privileges attained through big government, is just one form.
A Co-Operative economy proposed by the distributists or mutualists (libertarian socialists), is gazillion times better than the the American oligarchical corporate system, and State Socialism if that matters. It is also a form of a genuine free market, and not like the rhetorical “free market” of Reaganomics-”Conservative” (who is infact the most protectionist president since the world war). It is free enterprise, with distributive justice. It has proven to be really successful in Emilia-Romagna, Italy and Mondragon, Spain.
Cathy,
I don’t buy theory that a business will do what is just and good because the natural order of the world makes it in their interest, and therefore we have no need to protect the rights of shareholders or workers any more than we have no need for democracy and the rights of citizens because rulers, even without any limitation on their authority, will do what is right and just because otherwise their nation will fail.
Kurt:
We all have weaknesses, and our country has laws that we should follow for a more orderly society. However, excessive regulation hinders growth and encourages corruption.
Just as we cannot force people to attend church and always follow the God, some people in business will be greedy and dishonest. But, many of them will find rewards operating a fair business.
Much of the regulation proposed will be administered by people without qualified skills. Therefore, ideas of so-called reform can result with many unintended consequences. Or, are they really unintended?
Regulations are good, when it regulates privileges/power given to Corporations that enables them to use public money or government power and protection for their own special interest. What’s even better is not only to regulate these privileges, but to abolish them altogether, and let the Co-Ops or any other more humane economic institutions run the show.
Regulations become bad, when it involves punishing other form of honest and decent businesses who hasn’t taken any part of the dirty works of the Big Corporations.
It isn’t regulation that crushes small businesses–it’s monopoly capitalism.
As for regulation, let’s say that we put one in place to control a certain kind of pollution, being emitted locally by a huge corporate installation. If we put a limit on how much that corporation can emit, how does that enable X-number of small businesses making the same product to suddenly be able to compete? It doesn’t, unless you give them a waiver on the emissions.
If you allow them to go into business without the regulation, they will, in the aggregate, soon be emitting as much pollution as the giant that is regulated formerly produced. The giant will have laid off workers to cover its operating losses and the small businesses will have hired them, resulting in no net gain of jobs. The only real loser is the environment–your kids and mine–who are still exposed to the same pollution.
Obviously, this is an over-simplification, but I think that it essentially states the case.
When I mean regulation, that means any form of government intervention in the economy that distorts the markets. The question being is, now, do we need more or less regulation, when regulation was the problem in the first place i.e. Corporate privileges such as limited liability, Corporate personhoood (free speech right in politics), protectionism, etc? If those privileges did not exist in the first place, we wouldn’t have reckless polluters and the prevalent exploitation of workers. I would be more than happy if Corporations as it exist in Corporate Capitalism, is abolished. Corporations (big business) are creatures of the government, not the market. Why bother re-regulate it? Why should we waste our time treating the symptoms when the disease can be removed? It’s like saying “I’ll give you power to bomb your neighbors, but you’re not allowed to use nuclear weapons”. Don’t give that power (privilege), at all, it shouldn’t exist in the first place.
Rodak:
To expand on your example, I will use Cap and Trade. The government wishes to impose Cap and Trade, as a regulation, to reduce polllution. Large entites can afford to purchase carbon credits while small companies cannot. Also, the extra costs are passed onto the consumer. Large companies are making political deals with the administration for political favors while the small companies cannot afford to make any deals. Also, some polticians, and a well-known former politician turned activist, have invested in carbon credits to anticipate the enforcement of Cap and Trade.
The winners are the the big companies who made special deals, the politicians, and the activist. They all profit from their investments and win a political fight. The losers are the consumers and small companies who will see their living costs increase due to increased regulation. Other losers include unemployed workers because small employers may not be able to compete and may cut jobs to cut costs.
Also, will this regulation actually cut pollution? People and companies will still pollute and those with resources will be able to pollute as much as they wish and they will buy carbon credits to make themselves feel good after polluting.
My point is that regulation does not always work and too much regulation can hurt. Also, regulation encourages corruption. Politicians impose regulation to make win the approval of votes. Sometimes regulation is imposed by people who do not have the knowledge and skills in a specific area and causes more harm than good.
Obviously, the idea of the carbon credits is to do enough damage to the (large or small) company’s bottom line that it will be cheaper for them to spend what it takes to cut their rates of carbon emission. If the law is written carefully, this should be possible to effect. There is only so much cost that can be passed on to the consumer before the consumer doesn’t buy.
It is true, of course, that no law, of any kind, will have its intended effect if it is not 1) properly written in the first place, and 2) equitably enforced once it’s in place.
So, what you do is write the best legislation possible and then maintain vigilence to see that it is enacted as written.
The alternative is to do nothing; and I think that I can confidently guarantee that doing nothing will improve nothing.
Cathy,
Do I understand your position correctly: you believe that regulation is bad, and that corporations would voluntarily respect and protect their employees, their customers, and the environment, if there were no regulations? I believe there have been historical periods in the US in which there was almost no regulation. I am thinking of the 19th century. Corporations worked 7-year-old children 16 hours a day and sold milk preserved with mercury that caused brain-damage to babies. Corporations did not voluntarily stop abusing children. Regulation forced them to stop. Corporations did not voluntarily stop poisoning babies. Regulation forced them to stop. That is our world, our history. Maybe you exist in a parallel universe?
Her “parallel universe” would erase the memory of my paternal grandfather–practically my only ancestor who started life as a poor boy: unlike almost all of my other forebears, who made their livings “clipping coupons” (of her largely unregulated corporations)shortly after arriving in this country, he was put into a coal pit when he was EIGHT YEARS OLD.
People forget why the labor movement came into being.
Apparently some people have replaced devotional readings from the Bible with devotional readings from Ragged Dick.
Digby,
I am confident that the owner of that “coal pit” was a respectable businessman and that he believed that working eight-year-old children in coal mines was the right thing to do, the neighborly thing to do, the Christian thing to do. If working eight-year-old children in coal mines were a bad thing, then the market would have punished the businessmen who did it, and the practice would have disappeared. But it was not the market that punished the businessmen in the end, it was the evil regulators. The evil regulators have deprived eight-year-old children of the Right to Work. Isn’t that a crying shame?
I can no longer figger out who’s zoomin’ whom here.
It seems to me that the underlying issue is the value system that influences big business and government. We have no formalized system of values that provides clearly defined guidelines which govern relationships between business and government.
Mutual respect and cooperation to achieve goals established through a value system based on empathy would be a start. However, when competition is the foundation for motivation and human relationships then degredation and corruption are natural consequences that everyone must adjust to and survive with at the expense of love of one’s neighbor. What has occurred is the natural result of the survival instinct being dominant in our relationships.
The system will not change and there will always be disasters of this magnitude due to the lack of empathic understanding and wisdom of those who are in the seat of power.
To support the present system is to support the insanity of the past.
As usual, Ronald King’s is the voice of reason here, but I’d like to add something to his assignment of blame to “competition”: what if the “competition” were not over power or riches or dynastic ambition? What if the “competition” were over virtue and moral improvement and intellectual integrity and distinguishment?
The Buddhists would say that our problems in choosing between liberty and community as political values come as a result of ignorance–of inability to recognise what is truly “a good.” The business ethic need not be a bad one if its focus were not on money, but on honour and repute and loyalty to one’s employees, as well as one’s customers.
Unfortunately, in the the American culture we have now, it takes government regulation to keep businessmen focused on THOSE OTHER values. To have less government regulation, you need better spiritual grounding, and I don’t see it arising in our profoundly MISTAKEN religious culture–mistaken about the nature of man, mistaken about his relationship with nature and nature’s God, and mistaken in its thinking that the message of spiritual teachings is that man must be sufficed with “pie-in-the-sky-after death.”
I would say that humility does not compete, and that humility is the active ingredient in moral action.