How far should the freedoms of private companies go?

[Divergedwoods]

The capitalistic, liberal model allows the formation and development of privately owned companies that provide goods and services to consumers, there are private corporations in mostly every sector, some provide food, some manufacture various articles, others provide services that can range from highly specialized work, to the most mundane.
Private companies, as long as they remain private and not funded by the government has the right to create policies, a set of rules that guides the way that the business is to be run, but this crates a discrepancy between government policies and private ones, for instance a private school can admit only one sex, or only children with high a IQ, when in public schools they need to admit most anyone. But private institutions are not completely independent, for example not even private schools are allowed to kick out students based on race or sexual orientation (as far as I'm concerned).

My question for this thread is: should they? How far do the freedoms of private institutions or companies extend, taking into consideration the possible (highly improbable) situation that every store in "x" country could deny selling food to "y" group (gays, black, white"¦)

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I don't even understand the question. Private companies should have no freedoms or rights or anything else of that nature. Those things are reserved for PEOPLE.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Joe's biased ranting aside, private companies need some fundamental legal rights to even operate. The right to be a party to contracts, for example. Thus, the law considers companies as a legal "person" and possessed of certain rights.

In my opinion, the rights of businesses to operate as they see fit should be very broad. I wouldn't care if a private school only took people from a certain race; if there's a demand for a private school for people of another race, one will be built.

As for regulation, it should be minimal. Safety regulations should be in place and enforced; regulation by expensive lawsuit seems to be sub-optimal. The government would also have a good role as a third-party keeper of statistics on safety so as to provide an unbiased source. Laws against fraud should also be enforced; but only as to actual fraud and not simply deception. The prevention of slavery is good.

Your hypothetical is absurd for two reasons. First, it assumes a complete homegenity in intent among x that is not found in any large group of humans. Secondly, if the population of x really feels that strongly about y then the law is probably only going to be used to further bludgeon y. You can't legislate people into being moral.

 

[Yfelsung]

I honestly don't even like the idea of private companies. I especially don't like them when they produce a product with safety concerns.

I would like to see private companies reduced to only the entertainment section of society. I'd prefer clothing, food, medicine, cars and other transportation and such be handled by public companies with extreme amounts of government oversight.

I think an amazing option would be to have government run versions of certain company types. For example, a government run clothing company that makes clothing that is cheap, well made and durable. No fashion, none of that, just simple clothing for those of us with no desire to be engaged with fashion. Or a government run car company that makes cheap, well made and durable cars. No fancy stuff, not even capable of breaking the speed limit, just the bare necessities.

These government companies would run with a single purpose, to break even. No money lost, no money gained. Their goal would be to serve us, the public, not share holders or CEOs.

The other options would remain for those who want fancy clothing or fancy cars, but those of us who don't care about that stuff could buy super cheap products that we know are made well and safe.

This would likely, by adding competition to the market, actually reduce the cost of the other options as well. It would force private companies to compete with a company that's only goal is customer needs.

It's Communism and Capitalism working side by side. A tiered economic system.

These companies would have their boards/leadership elected in open elections as well so as to reduce the chance for abuse by rotating leadership out ever few years (I'd say a 2 year term max for any single leader of a company and these could also act as springboards into the larger political space by making rules against current government politicians running for control of these government companies.

Because, personally at least, I own 8 copies of the same black shirt, 3 pairs of the same black jeans, 10 pairs of the same black boxers and 10 pairs of the same black socks. I have no concern for fashion. I would rather drive a super efficient car than one that looks good. I have no desire to be involved in the Capitalistic aspects of society. I am fairly Communistic but I don't think I should force you to be that way, but you shouldn't also force me to be a Capitalist.

Nothing says that the two can't coexist in one society once we decide what will be government controlled and what will be privately controlled.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

I honestly don't even like the idea of private companies. I especially don't like them when they produce a product with safety concerns.

I would like to see private companies reduced to only the entertainment section of society. I'd prefer clothing, food, medicine, cars and other transportation and such be handled by public companies with extreme amounts of government oversight.

Yeah; ask the average Russian and North Korean how well that worked for them.

 

[Aught3]

Yeah; ask the average Russian and North Korean how well that worked for them.

Or you could ask a New Zealander and it worked pretty well.

There were two issues, one was that the government run companies didn't make a lot of money and they would often require 'top-ups' to keep them running. On the other hand the prices they set were fairly low which probably explains it. The other issue was that when the companies were privatised (as happened slowly over the years) they had a monopoly on the market and prices went crazy while service went to shit. Eventually, other companies came in and started up creating a proper market (e.g., telecommunications) or the government had to buy back the company at a big loss and get it running again (e.g., rail network).

Both the rail network and the telecommunication in NZ now operate fairly efficiently so a mixed system can work.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Yeah; ask the average Russian and North Korean how well that worked for them.

Or you could ask a New Zealander and it worked pretty well.

There were two issues, one was that the government run companies didn't make a lot of money and they would often require 'top-ups' to keep them running. On the other hand the prices they set were fairly low which probably explains it. The other issue was that when the companies were privatised (as happened slowly over the years) they had a monopoly on the market and prices went crazy while service went to shit. Eventually, other companies came in and started up creating a proper market (e.g., telecommunications) or the government had to buy back the company at a big loss and get it running again (e.g., rail network).

Both the rail network and the telecommunication in NZ now operate fairly efficiently so a mixed system can work.

Well, sure, government run industries can work for things that are natural monopolies, like rail transit. That isn't what is being proposed though.

A more analogous situation is the Post Office and the various freight companies (UPS, FedEx); I can tell you right now which is cheaper, faster, and more reliable for anything outside of a first class envelope (which the Post Office takes a loss on).

 

[Andiferous]

Private companies should have no freedoms or rights or anything else of that nature. Those things are reserved for PEOPLE.

Love this quote.

Your hypothetical is absurd for two reasons. First, it assumes a complete homegenity in intent among x that is not found in any large group of humans. Secondly, if the population of x really feels that strongly about y then the law is probably only going to be used to further bludgeon y. You can't legislate people into being moral.

I've read this point over several times and still can't quite grasp your meaning.

You can't legislate people into being moral.

The first thing that came to mind when reading this is that ideally the legal structure is about protecting people; not trying to train them in morality. Obviously, there are a lot of laws lingering around that seem like an attempt to enforce morality, but I don't think this is the case there. And then it occured to me that law is founded on morality. If this is so, then that statement makes no sense.

So I find your point somewhat confusing.

For a good lesson on the ill effects of privatisation, you may want to review what happened when electricity was deregulated in California. Interestingly enough, My local plrivatised electric companies sell California a vast amount of electricity, and about this time the price of electricity here went a bit nuts.

The California electricity crisis, also known as the Western U.S. Energy Crisis, of 2000 and 2001 was a situation where California had a shortage of electricity. The state suffered from multiple large-scale blackouts, one of the state's largest energy companies collapsed, and the economic fall-out greatly harmed Governor Gray Davis's standing.

Artificial supply shortage was created by energy traders gratuitously taking power plants offline for (unnecessary) "maintenance" on hot summer days of peak demand.[4][5] Rolling blackouts adversely affected many businesses dependent upon a reliable supply of electricity, and inconvenienced a large number of retail consumers. This demand supply gap was further exploited by energy companies, mainly Enron. Enron traders were thus able to sell power at premium prices, sometimes up to a factor of 20x its normal peak value. Because the state Government had a cap on retail electricity charges, this market manipulation squeezed the industry's revenue margins, causing the bankruptcy of Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) and near bankruptcy of Southern California Edison in early 2001.[6]

The financial crisis was possible because of deregulation legislation instituted in 1996 by Governor Pete Wilson. Enron took advantage of this deregulation and was involved in economic withholding and inflated price bidding in California's spot markets.[7] The crisis cost $40bn to $45bn.

Now that is rather bad for business.

I agree that essential services shouldn't be tossed into the ring with the lions. If private companies want to compete with government companies... go ahead.

 

[Aught3]

Well, sure, government run industries can work for things that are natural monopolies, like rail transit. That isn't what is being proposed though.

:? Rail is a form of transport... If you don't like that example the NZ government also owns a lot of farmland which would count in the food category raised by Yfelsung. What's more off-topic is raising examples of totalitarian regimes who cared more for increasing their own power rather than providing goods and services to their citizens.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Well, sure, government run industries can work for things that are natural monopolies, like rail transit. That isn't what is being proposed though.

:? Rail is a form of transport... If you don't like that example the NZ government also owns a lot of farmland which would count in the food category raised by Yfelsung. What's more off-topic is raising examples of totalitarian regimes who cared more for increasing their own power rather than providing goods and services to their citizens.

... What? He proposed that all industries be state run. I provided two examples of countries where that happened. It didn't work well for them. It didn't work very well for China, either. Most every country that tried having wide-spread exclusively state-run industries has moved away from it. For an example of a country moving towards state ownership of all industry, check out Venezula.

State run food production? Check out Russian history again. It simply doesn't work on a large scale. Or, again, Venezuela:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/venezuela/7849749/Chavez-pushes-Venezuela-into-food-war.html

ImprobableJoe wrote: Private companies should have no freedoms or rights or anything else of that nature. Those things are reserved for PEOPLE.

Love this quote.

This is an absolutely absurd statement. Companies - private or public - have to have certain rights. Otherwise they simply can't operate. A company couldn't function if it didn't have the legal right to enter into contracts, or own land.

I've read this point over several times and still can't quite grasp your meaning.

You can't legislate people into being moral.

The first thing that came to mind when reading this is that ideally the legal structure is about protecting people; not trying to train them in morality. Obviously, there are a lot of laws lingering around that seem like an attempt to enforce morality, but I don't think this is the case there. And then it occured to me that law is founded on morality. If this is so, then that statement makes no sense.

Huh. This is usually a fundamentalist position.

Anyway, no. The law is not founded on morality. Laws are founded on societial advantage; ideally, to the advantage of all citizens. Morality and social advantage have a broad overlap, so there is a high degree of correlation, but there is not a direct causal link. There are plenty of examples of immoral activities that are not illegal, and moral activities that are.

In his hypothetical, we would have to believe that a government (perforce most probably an unpopular dictator) would somehow ignore near-universal popular opinion and pass a law, and the populace would somehow find this law more compelling then their own opinions. It would be an attempt to enforce a moral position (don't hate the y people) with a law.

For a good lesson on the ill effects of privatisation,

Strawman. I'm arguing against all businesses being publically owned; this does not mean that I'm arguing for the directly inverse proposition that all businesses should be completely unregulated.

 

[Prolescum]

As with politics, we really just need to go back to the drawing board; we are not the same as we were 20, 50, 100, 200 years ago. Business, as much else in western society, is broken.

 

[Divergedwoods]

In my opinion, the rights of businesses to operate as they see fit should be very broad. I wouldn't care if a private school only took people from a certain race; if there's a demand for a private school for people of another race, one will be built.

I agree, however, laws don't allow for a school to racially discriminate students, nor does any company have the right to abuse or murder, even if explicitly stipulated in policies and contracts. And assuming (incoming hypothetical, not opinion) this is the proper legislation, then why should it allow for things like sex specific jobs and education (I'm not necessarily saying that it shouldn't)

I think an amazing option would be to have government run versions of certain company types. For example, a government run clothing company that makes clothing that is cheap, well made and durable. No fashion, none of that, just simple clothing for those of us with no desire to be engaged with fashion. Or a government run car company that makes cheap, well made and durable cars. No fancy stuff, not even capable of breaking the speed limit, just the bare necessities

You are first of all assuming that there is an actual demand for mass produced identical and ugly pants, after all we are a far more developed civilization, which centers not only on necessities, but recreation to. The beauty of a capitalistic system is that if you see such a demand, you can create a company to make that product; you could even manage it for 0 profit
On top of that, aim not aware (school me if necessary) of any government run industry other than energy, were demand is practically unlimited, were it doesn't involve a economical loss

Private companies should have no freedoms or rights or anything else of that nature. Those things are reserved for PEOPLE.

For some legal purposes, companies can be considered as people, they can be independent entities, the same way that a government can be considered an entity by itself ("congress")

 

[ArthurWilborn]

As with politics, we really just need to go back to the drawing board; we are not the same as we were 20, 50, 100, 200 years ago. Business, as much else in western society, is broken.

Do you want to suggest something?

 

[Prolescum]

As with politics, we really just need to go back to the drawing board; we are not the same as we were 20, 50, 100, 200 years ago. Business, as much else in western society, is broken.

Do you want to suggest something?

Like most people, I can't be arsed.

 

[Aught3]

What? He proposed that all industries be state run.

No, he really didn't.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

What? He proposed that all industries be state run.

No, he really didn't.

He really did (with the narrow exception of entertainment). To wit:

"I honestly don't even like the idea of private companies. I especially don't like them when they produce a product with safety concerns.

I would like to see private companies reduced to only the entertainment section of society. I'd prefer clothing, food, medicine, cars and other transportation and such be handled by public companies with extreme amounts of government oversight."

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Love this quote.

The nonsensical idea that companies have freedoms and rights, are some sort of "legal person", is part of the disease at the heart of modern capitalism. A "company" is a collection of people, and those people have freedoms and rights that they can exert and defend, and the responsibilities that go with them. "Companies" should never be treated as something outside of the people who own it, especially since that tends to remove responsibility from the people who form the imaginary "company".

So, the legal fiction we call a "company" should have at MOST whatever freedoms that the people who make up the company have, and not a bit more. Possibly fewer rights than people, if you want to treat a company as something more than a collection of people. Tighter regulation, that sort of thing.

 

[Aught3]

He really did (with the narrow exception of entertainment). To wit:

"I honestly don't even like the idea of private companies. I especially don't like them when they produce a product with safety concerns.

I would like to see private companies reduced to only the entertainment section of society. I'd prefer clothing, food, medicine, cars and other transportation and such be handled by public companies with extreme amounts of government oversight."

That's called a quote mine. If you keep reading:

"These government companies would run with a single purpose, to break even. No money lost, no money gained. Their goal would be to serve us, the public, not share holders or CEOs.

The other options would remain for those who want fancy clothing or fancy cars, but those of us who don't care about that stuff could buy super cheap products that we know are made well and safe.

This would likely, by adding competition to the market, actually reduce the cost of the other options as well. It would force private companies to compete with a company that's only goal is customer needs.

It's Communism and Capitalism working side by side. A tiered economic system."

Emphasis added. Though I would say that I don't think communism is an accurate description.

 

[Divergedwoods]

So, the legal fiction we call a "company" should have at MOST whatever freedoms that the people who make up the company have, and not a bit more. Possibly fewer rights than people, if you want to treat a company as something more than a collection of people. Tighter regulation, that sort of thing.

But if you limit the rights of companies, you are incidentally reducing the rights of the people that constitute them (by your own definition)

And is not a quantitative matter of more or less rights, but a qualitative, were the rights are different to adjust to the way a company works as compared to a person

 

[ArthurWilborn]

In my opinion, the rights of businesses to operate as they see fit should be very broad. I wouldn't care if a private school only took people from a certain race; if there's a demand for a private school for people of another race, one will be built.

I agree, however, laws don't allow for a school to racially discriminate students, nor does any company have the right to abuse or murder, even if explicitly stipulated in policies and contracts. And assuming (incoming hypothetical, not opinion) this is the proper legislation, then why should it allow for things like sex specific jobs and education (I'm not necessarily saying that it shouldn't)

I'm... not sure what you're saying. Again, I wouldn't mind if a private business discriminated in employment or choice of customers. I generally oppose anti-discrimination laws. I oppose them for purely pragmatic reasons; they are rarely effective at achieving their stated goals.

The question with any law should be "why should we forbid something" as opposed to your attitude of "why not". Why ban sex (or race, or religion) as a consideration for a private business?