Gov. Regulation of Private Business

[SmellyCat]

What are your views on government regulation on privately owned corporations, schools, or even family businesses? This would include:
-Funding
-Non-discrimination policy
-Forcing companies like pharmacies to sell aborificants/artificial birth control
-Forcing private schools on curriculum/demographics
-Disallowing monopolies and some large mergers

I personally believe that government regulation should be zero, as the government is not helping the businesses and the businesses are separate from the government. Anyone care to add/argue about this?

[Di-Di]

What are they feeding you?

[SmellyCat]

At 9/18/05 07:07 PM, CheckMyPoop wrote: What are they feeding you?

I don't know...Cereal and milk? They are just my views, and if yours differ, why don't we discuss it?

[DamienK]

Due to America's free enterprise system, government regulation of private business is illegal. Though you do bring up an interesting point regarding monopolies. I guess the law is pushed aside in dealing with monopolies for the greater good. But yeah, why is government allowed (even justly) to split monopolies.

[SmellyCat]

At 9/18/05 07:27 PM, DamienK wrote: Due to America's free enterprise system, government regulation of private business is illegal. Though you do bring up an interesting point regarding monopolies. I guess the law is pushed aside in dealing with monopolies for the greater good. But yeah, why is government allowed (even justly) to split monopolies.

If that were entirely true, government would, and should, be allowed to hire workers based on personal information. Monopolies are sometimes good, sometimes bad. But the government's job is not to regulate or destroy them.

[MalcheiorSveth]

I would have to disagree with that. The government has no right to interfere yes, but they sometimes have to to keep the economy in balance. They should be allowed some hand in things, but a very, very small one.

[0wnage-Incarnate]

Anyone who argues against the splitting of monopolies needs to take a good, hard look at what Adam Smith ACTUALLY said. Short of that, although there is the argumetn that the people's business doesn't belong to the government, there was also the condition the meat packing industry was in before there were government regulations, now weren't there? And minimum wage laws, which, despite the fact some economists say is causing fewer jobs to be created, which is very likely to be true, is still a pittance.

[Demosthenez]

Fine. You want to do this, I want to also disallow our tax dollars going out to subsidize industry.

That way we wont be able to eat, wont have aluminum or steel, and society would generally be fucked up.

No goverment involvement at all. Just let them all kill eachother off to see who monopolizes everything. And back to the glory days of all white males working and everyone else, sucks to be you. And hwo cares if people lie to investors? Enron was only working with what they could. That should be legal.

Sorry, stupid idea. The goverment is in place to help the greatest amount of people possible not so companies can make as much cash as possible.

[Memorize]

I think that there should be some, but very very little government involvement.

[SmellyCat]

Regulation is different from making businesses obey the law. Yes, the government should take action if companies are lying. Why? Because businesses are breaking the law that may or may not have been inacted to regulate them. Regulation is a specific course of action that restricts businesses. Laws restrict them as well, but they are not necessarily regulation, especially if they apply to people in general.

Society obviously would be different but to say it would stop functioning completely is a stretch. Monopolies obviously control the prices, but the government needs to protect the people, not make sure life is easy for them. About cutting government spending, I don't think that would be a major problem, but monopolies could become dangerous. But to restrict them totally is not fair to those who accomplished it without the aid of the government. If they start cheating the public, they should be sued. That is not regulation, it is breaking a law that applies to everyone.

[ReiperX]

At 9/18/05 06:48 PM, SmellyCat wrote: What are your views on government regulation on privately owned corporations, schools, or even family businesses? This would include:
-Funding

I don't think that the government should donate anything to these companies. Unless its medical research, or something along those lines.

-Non-discrimination policy

While I do think the government has gone too far at times to enforce not discriminating, I do think that these laws should be in place.

-Forcing companies like pharmacies to sell aborificants/artificial birth control

Its a pharmacy. People go to pharmacies to get prescriptions filled.

-Forcing private schools on curriculum/demographics

As far as a curriculum goes, yes. Government should at least ensure that these private schools are teaching facts. If these schools are teaching that the earth is flat, would you really want your children to believe it? There are certain minimum requirments for education that do need to be met, and the government has every right to ensure this.

-Disallowing monopolies and some large mergers

Monopolies can cause so much harm to the consumer, and other businesses trying to start out.

I personally believe that government regulation should be zero, as the government is not helping the businesses and the businesses are separate from the government. Anyone care to add/argue about this?

Without any government regulation what would there be to ensure a safe work enviorment. Worker's Comp if you are injured on the job. What would stop them from working you 12 hours a day 7 days a week for $2.00 an hour. Would they all do this? No, but many of your lesser skilled jobs certainly would. Regulation is a much needed thing.

[SmellyCat]

-Non-discrimination policy

While I do think the government has gone too far at times to enforce not discriminating, I do think that these laws should be in place.

Why? The companies independant of the government have th right to hire whoever they want. Why can't they excercise free speech in the form of who they hire? Or on who is more capable? Affirmative action would mean that businesses can't even hire the best candidates.

-Forcing companies like pharmacies to sell aborificants/artificial birth control

It's a private pharmacy. Why should they be forced to sell things againsttheir religion. Don't like what they sell? Go somewhere else. You don't need to set up a pharmacy. Why should you be forced to sell certain things from someone who doesn't help you?

As far as a curriculum goes, yes. Government should at least ensure that these private schools are teaching facts. If these schools are teaching that the earth is flat, would you really want your children to believe it? There are certain minimum requirments for education that do need to be met, and the government has every right to ensure this.

I disagree greatly. The children who go to these schools pay to get in, and the parents choose or the children choose to attend. Therefore they make the choice. If the curriculum is falsely advertized, then yes. Of course, schools need to have a strong curriculum, but I think most private schools do... Choice.

-Disallowing monopolies and some large mergers

Monopolies can cause so much harm to the consumer, and other businesses trying to start out.

Right. First, yes, they can cause harm to the consumer, but there is no reason why they can't push other businesses out. C'est la vie. However, I do agree on the harm to the consumer, but I feel the government should respond to each monopoly independantly...Not just prevent any monopoly.

Without any government regulation what would there be to ensure a safe work enviorment. Worker's Comp if you are injured on the job. What would stop them from working you 12 hours a day 7 days a week for $2.00 an hour. Would they all do this? No, but many of your lesser skilled jobs certainly would. Regulation is a much needed thing.

I disagree about this as well. Yes, that is not a humane thing to do, but there are always other companies to choose from, especially in today's world. You are talking about the convenience of the people. The businesses do not need to ensure safe working areas as long as the workers know the wages and hours beforehand. That is why I don't think government involvement in this area is unnecessary.

[Camarohusky]

At 9/19/05 09:41 AM, SmellyCat wrote: Why? The companies independant of the government have th right to hire whoever they want. Why can't they excercise free speech in the form of who they hire? Or on who is more capable? Affirmative action would mean that businesses can't even hire the best candidates.

Let's say all companies with good wages decided to stop hiring all white people because they felt that they could get better, cheaper work from Asians, and also just plain hated all white people. Would you think this is a good idea?

It's a private pharmacy. Why should they be forced to sell things againsttheir religion. Don't like what they sell? Go somewhere else. You don't need to set up a pharmacy. Why should you be forced to sell certain things from someone who doesn't help you?

What is sold at a pharmacy is DRUGS. No doubt about it. The difference between much of what the pharmacy sells and what is found on a street corner is only one document. Without the documant the pharmacy changes from a phamracy into a drug dealer selling contraband. The pharmacies are already heavily regulated. If you believe that pharmacies should be allowed to not sell certain items, then why do you believe that pharmacies MUST have perscriptions and keep these perscriptions behind the counter, or keep (in many areas) some bsaic drugs like Sudafed behind the counter?

I disagree greatly. The children who go to these schools pay to get in, and the parents choose or the children choose to attend. Therefore they make the choice. If the curriculum is falsely advertized, then yes. Of course, schools need to have a strong curriculum, but I think most private schools do... Choice.

Look at the scandals that are involved with the private technical schools. They teach nothing and give out high priced degrees that mean nothing. Schools need to teach viable skills or they commit fraud. The government just steps in to make sure that the schools teach what they are supposed to.

Right. First, yes, they can cause harm to the consumer, but there is no reason why they can't push other businesses out. C'est la vie. However, I do agree on the harm to the consumer, but I feel the government should respond to each monopoly independantly...Not just prevent any monopoly.

I don't think you understand why monopolies hurt the consumer. When one companies controls an enormous part of a certain business they have no competition, and no one to either drive prices down or quality up. Granted comptetion is no guarantee that either will happn, but it is much more likely to happen when two businesses compete than when one runs the entire market. On top of that, look what happened when Enron and Worldcom fell. Two enormous companies fell and the entire market is still sufferring from their collapse, along with many other important yet smaller factors.

I disagree about this as well. Yes, that is not a humane thing to do, but there are always other companies to choose from, especially in today's world. You are talking about the convenience of the people. The businesses do not need to ensure safe working areas as long as the workers know the wages and hours beforehand. That is why I don't think government involvement in this area is unnecessary.

If there were no speed limit you would drive 125 down the highway and 50 down a residential street, right? Think about this and you will know why businesses MUST be regulated.

[Jimsween]

The government NEEDS to regulate businesses, at least to some degree.

You CANNOT just simply trust businesses and corporations to be nice. Corporations will do anything for money, they would murder and rape for money if it was legal, thats why they must be regulated.

Anybody who thinks we should just trust them to play fair is a moron, plain and simple.

[SmellyCat]

In response to the last two posts, I retract my first statement. The only time where government truly needs to be involved is with some monopolies.

About schools, the people make the choice. If the school doesn't teach good things, or anything, and doesn't deny this, why should they be shut down? What LAW are they breaking?

And health care is personal. Pharmacies are usually private businesses. And you are right, a piece of paper separates them from drug dealers. This is the choice that people have made today about how to help themselves. Pharmacies should be allowed to do whatever the heck they want, as long as they don't break the laws....

And the only point I agree with you on is on monopolies. However, the government shouldn't restrict them all, they should only take action when there is a true problem. Monopolies wouldn't occur often enough for the government to be bogged down on trying to analyze whether the monopolies should be allowed. And if you are so against monopolies, how do you feel about OPEC?

[Jimsween]

At 9/19/05 07:27 PM, SmellyCat wrote: About schools, the people make the choice. If the school doesn't teach good things, or anything, and doesn't deny this, why should they be shut down? What LAW are they breaking?

The law that says they have to teach good things.... I'm sure there is one, it's not as if it's in the bill of rights though. However, the argument shouldn't be if there is a law or not, it should be whether there should be a law or not.

Schools have to be required to teach certain things because schools are what teach our kids, we don't let parents give thier kids drugs, why should we let them neglect thier schooling?

And health care is personal. Pharmacies are usually private businesses. And you are right, a piece of paper separates them from drug dealers. This is the choice that people have made today about how to help themselves. Pharmacies should be allowed to do whatever the heck they want, as long as they don't break the laws....

Thats what regulations are...... laws. There is a law that says Pharmacies have to sell birth control.

[SmellyCat]

The law that says they have to teach good things.... I'm sure there is one, it's not as if it's in the bill of rights though. However, the argument shouldn't be if there is a law or not, it should be whether there should be a law or not.

This is a dead end. Anyway, the drugs are not a private institution, and the rules apply to all people in the nation, not just businesses.

Thats what regulations are...... laws. There is a law that says Pharmacies have to sell birth control.

Right, that shouldn't be the case. Especially if the people running it are against birth control. Why should they be forced to sell birth control? It is not necessary to prolong life, my parents have never used it. They use NFP, which is actually more effective.

[Jimsween]

At 9/19/05 08:02 PM, SmellyCat wrote: This is a dead end. Anyway, the drugs are not a private institution, and the rules apply to all people in the nation, not just businesses.

What? FYI, laws can apply to just businesses and not people, and vice versa.

Right, that shouldn't be the case. Especially if the people running it are against birth control. Why should they be forced to sell birth control? It is not necessary to prolong life, my parents have never used it. They use NFP, which is actually more effective.

They should be forced to because if they might not do it if they aren't. Thats the same as not serving black people. Allowing them not to opens up a whole can of worms, and places who may not be against brith control may be forced not to sell it by lobbyist groups protesting at thier doors. Basically, the law was made because in the 60's nobody would sell them for that exact reason.

[SmellyCat]

What? FYI, laws can apply to just businesses and not people, and vice versa.

Let this die... We have opposite views, it makes no sense to argue.

They should be forced to because if they might not do it if they aren't. Thats the same as not serving black people. Allowing them not to opens up a whole can of worms, and places who may not be against brith control may be forced not to sell it by lobbyist groups protesting at thier doors. Basically, the law was made because in the 60's nobody would sell them for that exact reason.

They should not be forced to sell anything. What difference does it make whether they sell birth control? You don't need it to survive, and there are enough pharmacies around that they cna go anywhere else. Pharmacies should not be forced to sell anything people want them to.
For a more direct question, what justification do you have that pharmacies should be FORCED to, or even should, sell birth control against their will?

[Jimsween]

At 9/19/05 08:14 PM, SmellyCat wrote: Let this die... We have opposite views, it makes no sense to argue.

Wait, hold on one second. Thats the exact point of debate, it's not just so everyone can agree.

And besides that..... I've yet to hear you state your views, you were just saying that laws have to apply to both people and businesses, and I was pointing out that they dont.

They should not be forced to sell anything. What difference does it make whether they sell birth control? You don't need it to survive, and there are enough pharmacies around that they cna go anywhere else. Pharmacies should not be forced to sell anything people want them to.

There was a time in which there were not enough pharmacies to go around, none were selling birth control. The fact is that if pharmacies are allowed to choose, then people will try and make the choice for them. Anti-abortionist groups will be protesting around the clock against the morning after pill, scientologists will be protesting against phsycology medicine. It's just to save everyone the hassle. If you are going to deal in medicine, you should expect to sell medicine, not your opinion.

[Nomader]

At 9/18/05 06:48 PM, SmellyCat wrote: What are your views on government regulation on privately owned corporations, schools, or even family businesses? This would include:
-Funding

I'd think about it...

-Non-discrimination policy

What do you mean? We can't let people hang signs up that say "No N words allowed!"

-Forcing companies like pharmacies to sell aborificants/artificial birth control

No way Jose - you'd have everyone on top of you like a pack of wild hyenas if you went through with that.

-Forcing private schools on curriculum/demographics

Is this a joke? I'm sorry, but as a Private School student, I can imagine what would happen if we combined with DC Public schools in the curriculum - it would be horrible...

-Disallowing monopolies and some large mergers

We need to break some if they become too large, but we need to have a limit set.

[Thespus]

At 9/18/05 06:48 PM, SmellyCat wrote: What are your views on government regulation on privately owned corporations, schools, or even family businesses? This would include:
-Funding

If a company is going bankrupt, it deserves a chance to get back on its feet. So the bankruptcy laws in place are ok, a little too corporation friendly vs. private small business friendly, but it's still ok.

-Non-discrimination policy

Anything to create fairness in the marketplace. The government has this job for one reason. If companies discriminate, less people have jobs and that hurts the economy.

-Forcing companies like pharmacies to sell aborificants/artificial birth control

Forcing or giving the choice? I've never heard of the government forcing pharmacies to sell something they make money off of. Please explain.

-Forcing private schools on curriculum/demographics

Private schools still have a lot of freedom in regards to curriculum. What do you mean by demographics? I don't understand. Are you saying that certain private schools should be allowed to discriminate by race or gender? Well, there are boys and girls schools and then you have schools that only cater to a certain religion. We're past the point where the government has to force desegregation, however it was necessary for its time.

-Disallowing monopolies and some large mergers

Everyone knows that competition is good for the economy. If you don't want a strong economy, then make your own country but I'd like to continue to have one of the strongest economies in the world, thank you very much.

I personally believe that government regulation should be zero, as the government is not helping the businesses and the businesses are separate from the government. Anyone care to add/argue about this?

The government is helping its citizens, it's primary concern. Why should a company be concerned with it's customers if it makes a good profit? The only reason the government interferes is because they can't expect business to do business responsibly and care about the people it's supposed to cater to.

[Gunter45]

I'm all about having a little regulation. I like a lot of the regulations that the US has in place. Subsidizing farms is pushing it, but I prefer the government paying farmers not to plant some crops is better than having a glut in the market.

All in all, complete and total government control of the private sector is called socialism and it has never worked, nor is it possible to fully implement, it's not going to happen, and if it did, it wouldn't work. Even China had some privately owned businesses 50 years ago when it was still heavily communist. Now that they're becoming more and more capitalist, their economy is picking up. However, if you have a completely laissez-faire economy, corporations will absolutely rape the workers, as was evidenced in the American Industrial Revolution.