Business, by its very nature, must be more shortsighted than government. It has to look at the bottom line of immediate profitability and pleasing shareholders. It's a narrow focus of interests. That's why private businesses can't be expected to take on nationwide projects or social programs successfully - there's too much competition and protection of copyrights and patents. Some projects are best left to government as the representative of broad social needs.
Limited liability is another immoral practice that allows business to ride roughshod over us. It was originally instituted to solve the problem of risk management, so that a business could not be destroyed by one lawsuit nor its deep pocketed stockholders bled of all their wealth. No stockholder should be liable for more than the percentage they own. If businesses had full liability, then they should not be taxed; business passes its taxes on to us, the consumers, anyway. However, limited liability also means limited responsibility and the people get screwed by business. If businesses knew that they could be sued out of existence, then they wouldn't be so prone to abuse our rights or act as if they owned the world.
The people own the airwaves; businesses lease the use of frequencies from the government; they do not own them, but act as if they do. We need a public broadcast system that allows anyone to broadcast without restriction on certain frequencies at low power in local areas. Business continually thwarts any laws to give the people a voice of their own. This is unconstitutional, but until we know and demand our rights, we will be deprived of a voice.
Some things should be forever in the public realm and forbidden private ownership and profit: the air and water, the airwaves, naturally occurring animal and plant DNA, perhaps medicine. Business will eventually try to sell us the very air we breathe.
More businesses should be worker owned. This would make business more democratic and help to redistribute wealth in a fair, noncoercive manner. You might think that this would have been a natural evolution in America, but capitalists have always feared this and worked against it, sometimes illegally or at least unfairly and underhandedly.
The American sport is making money. Sports have become entertainment. Entertainment is big business. Business isn't sporting.
The US Post Office should be sold and made into a private corporation. We would have to amend the Constitution to do this because the Constitution grants the government the privilege of setting up and maintaining a postal service. This was necessary in the early days of the republic because only the government had the resources to provide a national postal service. Nevertheless, the government has no business running any business, especially one that competes against private businesses. If it can't make money then some other corporation should take its place.
Business concerns in America and most of the developed world are sacred. All other social requirements are subjugated to them, and this power is becoming worse.
We live in a corporatocracy. Corporations dictate our laws, elect our politicians and tell them how to vote. The result? Government and laws are set up to protect business first, the people second. The laws promote business interests over public interests. Many multinational corporations are economically much larger than sovereign nations and yet have no balancing power against them, so they're like rogue states. Businesses have become super-citizens. Too, most corporations aren't democratic institutions and only pay lip service to democratic ideals. Their actions in the real world are dictatorial. There exists a condition of business against the people.
How did business achieve this level of political influence? It slowly crept up on us and we have become accustomed to it without questioning it.
Santa Clara Co. Vs. Southern Pacific Railroad Co., 118 U.S. 394 (1886): gave business rights. "A business is a person." This may be the most immoral decision ever made by the Supreme Court. An incorporated business is a fictitious entity that has almost all the rights of a real person, except the right of the vote, but they do that illegitimately, through lobbying, and they have far more power than an individual citizen.
I want us to build a very high and thick wall between business and government so that they never meet. Business has no business meddling with government. Only in the individual citizens who own a part of a business is the proper place for business and government/politics to meet. Business isn't the be all and end all of life. Businesses shouldn't have political power because they distort equal representation by their lobbying efforts and political campaign financing that can equal the votes of tens of thousands of citizens. Lobbying should be illegal because it subverts the relationship of equal representation between the citizen and representative, which should be one to one. It's not a free speech issue, as its proponents claim.
The proper role of government in regulating business is to make sure that business practices are fair and honest and that the environment isn't harmed. Otherwise, business should be free to practice its arts and offer us the products we want.
The private realm, i.e., business, should be forbidden any political activity. Businesses are fictitious entities, and shouldn't have the rights of citizens. Fictitious entities only belong in novels and movies, not in law. The public realm is the proper sphere for politics because it is open and inclusive of all the people. And the political should not intrude into the private realm. An idea whose time is nigh: separation of business and state.
Business should bow to you, the consumer, who ultimately makes possible their continued existence, but they think they should dictate not only what you buy and manipulate you into buying it.
The once great public sector of American society has been sold off to private interests. Pop culture and business mentality has replaced the ideal of the public good and public duty. This privatization makes us less social, builds barriers among us, offers fewer outlets for altruistically motivated action and does not promote civic responsibility. No society can advance or remain strong without a vital public sector wherein all can participate in some aspect of it as suits their knowledge, skills and purpose. It must be based on a willing voluntarism without expectation of monetary compensation or the prospect of unusual recognition.
Public universities have had a long tradition of patenting and selling publically funded research results to private corporations with our government's blessing. Even private universities have some areas of publically funded research. Any research produced with public funding should be made public and free. It rightly belongs to the people who funded it. Let's stop this abuse of power.
It's unfortunate that holidays have become a capitalist excuse for buying and consuming. We may grouse about it, but we've bought the line hook and sinker. It's insane that we must push to shop for the right gift lest we be made to feel guilty by business and government propaganda. Most of the minor holidays, i.e., Mother and Father's Days, etc., were championed by business interests purely interested in promoting another reason to increase profit.
Why should we make money from suffering? Why should we allow private business to run health and care facilities? A much higher percentage of the private ones have abuses than public, non-profit ones. In private, publicly held companies, the bottom line is profit for the stockholders, not quality service or product. A wealthy society, such as ours, can afford some welfare for the unfortunate. It's a duty to humanity.
Why shouldn't we have a single payer health care system? Why should we need private insurance at all? If all citizens were taken as a group in a nonprofit insurance scheme, then risks and costs would be evenly distributed and reduced and everyone would be covered. Private insurance is and has always been a scam. You pay high premiums for years without needing the service, then when you submit a claim they may pay most of it, but your rates go up or your policy is canceled. This isn't fair. No one should make money from potential suffering. It should be a community group effort for mutual protection.
Lest we fear creeping socialism, let's look at the things public ownership does very well. None of us thinks there's anything wrong with the local, state and even federal governments owning the streets, roads and highways. It's a system that usually works well. Could you imagine the horrible complications of conflicting interests and standards if roads were privately owned? - what a nightmare paying for them would be! Often, at a local level, water and sewer facilities and services are publicly owned, sometimes other utilities, such as gas and electricity. Private companies are often hired to build and maintain them. Then, why shouldn't all public infrastructures be publicly owned? Shouldn't we own the electric grid, the telephone, cable TV and the computer network infrastructures and pay private companies to build, upgrade and maintain them in their local areas? After all, these private companies are usually called "public utilities", and have some restrictions under law as providers of services to everyone. They exist for everyone and everyone should have access without having to deal with a private company. Public ownership would call for uniform standards and eliminate standards battles and proprietary systems. Everyone should be guaranteed access to these services paid from the general public funds. If we were to nationalize this infrastructure we should pay the owners the market rate to be fair.
President Dwight Eisenhower warned us of the Military Industrial Complex back in the 1950s. In the hands of a conservative, pro business, paranoid administration, the temptation to support the arms business and military interests will overrule good sense and social needs. We Americans and the world suffer.
Defense spending is often increased to pay defense contractors who lobby government to buy their products. We're told that it's good for the economy. They're in bed with the military. Most spending on weapons is a waste - they aren't used and must eventually be destroyed.
Shouldn't you have concern over using private corporations to do public security? To whom do they owe their loyalty? Certainly not the people. This is a public service that shouldn't make a profit or be controled by any private entity.
We created a bizarre national work system much influenced by the needs of the Industrial Revolution and the counterattempt by unions to correct the social ills. We expect companies to offer benefits to employees and to force retirement at a certain age. Why? Why should a business be expected to provide for employees what society, thru government, should morally provide? Why should we expect and require business to provide medical, insurance and retirement benefits? Shouldn't that be the responsibility of the public realm? This policy drives up prices, lowers wages and creates a bureaucratic mess. Why should people be forced or at least strongly encouraged to retire at a specific age, especially if they are capable and happy continuing to work? One answer is to allow younger people to take their places. There's something wrong with forcing business to provide for public welfare. Business should exist only in the private realm and not be confusedly connected with social policy. These policies have been a detriment to both business and society.
How do you feel about receiving junk mail, telephone solicitations, spam? That business has, shares and uses your personal information when you haven't explicitly given permission? Why is this allowed? Generally, you must take the time to actively opt out of these advertising schemes. Why is that? It means that the power of business to act as it wishes is greater than that of the people's rights to privacy. With spammers, these pirates and scourge of the Internet, you often can't opt out. You must buy and set up anti-spam software. Why isn't spamming illegal? Would you like to be able to send email bombs back to spammers that would damage them as much as they have you? I would. I don't think they have a right to exist or that they should have free speech protection because they invade your privacy without invitation. Why do we accept that business should have such power? And why aren't you so pissed off that you want to tear down such business with your bare hands and lynch the corporate rulers and the politicians that gave them this power?
Contents