The Invisible Hand of the Market....Again

[Ryantology]

I personally would prefer Freedom Industries to be regulated stringently so as to avoid these disasters, rather than get compensation for my water being toxic soup for months.

[popeyespappy]

Do you live in West Virginia Ryan?

[Ryantology]

This doesn't make it easier for businesses to "become government", because the government is still there, and it still enforces laws protecting the people.

Except, in practice, the government could not protect the people, because it would not be able to enforce laws protecting people from business. If governmenr has no regulatory power over business, there is pretty much nothing stopping business from buying the apparatus of government. Government today often operates as an enabling tool of corporations, and this is not because government over-regulates.

---

Do you live in West Virginia Ryan?

Kentucky.

[Tiberius]

Except, in practice, the government could not protect the people, because it would not be able to enforce laws protecting people from business.

Of course it could. Businesses are made up of people, all of whom must follow the laws regarding people.

Removing regulations doesn't mean a business can do anything it wants. For example, a business where consumers could hire assasins would still be illegal, because murder / conspiracy to murder would still be against the law.

[popeyespappy]

Businesses don't have to hire assassins to kill people, Tiberius. All they have to do is fail to put the safety mechanisms and/or processes in place that keep whatever they are doing from killing people. If history tells us anything it is businesses are not inherently ethical. They will scrimp in these kind of areas in order to maximize profits. When that happens people get hurt and die. The environment suffers. Regulations set a minimum standard, and inspections are the only way to ensure businesses meet the minimum standards set for a given industry.

[EvolutionKills]

There's your problem...

[Ryantology]

Of course it could. Businesses are made up of people, all of whom must follow the laws regarding people.

Removing regulations doesn't mean a business can do anything it wants. For example, a business where consumers could hire assasins would still be illegal, because murder / conspiracy to murder would still be against the law.

In practice, removing regulations has indeed given businesses the idea that they can get away with any manner of crimes. When attempting to enforce the law upon a business entity is frowned upon as 'government interfering with business', why shouldn't they get that idea?

A business, especially a large one, which is caught hiring assassins might sacrifice a few scapegoats on the altar of public relations, pay a fine that could come out of the CEO's lunch money, and call it a day. Justice is served.

[TaraJo]

Corporations can't hire assissins to kill individuals. Instead, they can polute the water and air and our food, killing millions. Why are we so well protected from the former but not the latter?

Yes, the basic job of the government does need to be protecting the people, but one of the primary forces we need to be protected from are corporations. So far, the government hasn't been doing the best job there. I think the first thing we need to do is wake up and realize that the way they hurt us is far different from how, say, your neighbor or a car jacker or a rapist will hurt someone and that the way you protect from those hurts is going to be government regulations. I mean, let's be real: you aren't going to let a pedophile influence the law as it relates to child sex crimes; so why do we let corporations have so much influence on the regulations intended to curb their bad behavior?

[A Theist]

Evil capitalist corporations polluting the water, air and food, killing millions??!! Oh my! There's no need to fear! Government regulation Underdog is here!!!

[Mister Agenda]

Is it prohibited by the free market to use your resources and your willing allies to force others to play by your rules?

It's a contradiction of a free market to use force to alter it. To the degree you introduce force, you decrease the freedom of the market. The cost of reducing the freedom of the market is reduced efficiency. Reducing efficiency can be a rational choice if what is gained by so reducing it is considered a greater good than the efficiency lost.