AMERICA may be the land of the free, but Americans who favour both economic and social freedom have no political home. The Republican Party espouses economic freedom—ie, low taxes and minimal regulation—but is less keen on sexual liberation. The Democratic Party champions the right of homosexuals to do their thing without government interference, but not businesspeople. Libertarian voters have an unhappy choice. Assuming they opt for one of the two main parties, they can vote to kick the state out of the bedroom, or the boardroom, but not both.
-
‹ Home
Contents
-
Categories
- 1: Favourite Posts
- America
- Anime
- Apple
- Art
- Australia
- Blogs
- Business
- Culture
- Economics
- Entertainment
- Europe
- Food
- Girls
- Humour
- Law
- Legal Practice Notes
- Malaysia
- Media
- Morons
- Movies
- Music
- One-eyed Tuesdays
- People
- Personal
- Philosophy
- Politics
- Professional Ethics
- Religious Fundamentalism
- Singapore
- Technology
- TV
-
Archives
- July 2008
- June 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
-
RSS Feeds
-
Meta
3 Comments
Meh, businesses needs to be regulated. Just one look at Enron, WorldCom and you’ll know why.
Businesses will NEVER self-regulate, since their responsibility is solely to make profits (Friedman), no? So its stupid to think that they would entertain cost-increasing regulations. Hence the role for governments to step in and beat businesses into submission
Ayah, “libertarianism” in this context is a synonym for “right-wing American libertarianism” again, just like people keep referring to “Mandarin” as “Chinese” (one is far larger than the other).
There is libertarian socialism - which is much less known in America but known in other parts of the world - there is the ability of censure by the community, such as boycotts, etc. Regulation through grassroots means - the actual people - as opposed to a top-down bureaucracy.
sigma:
Businesses will do whatever their owners want the businesses to do. Of course making profits is one example, but I don’t think we can generalise this to every single business owner. Social entrepreneurs operate for profit businesses that primarily fulfil social purposes, and I don’t see that as a conflict with capitalism.
Secondly, businesses cannot force you or coerce you into dealing with them. If you are not happy, you have the choice of not buying or associating with a business if you feel that they are doing something you do not agree with. Even better, you can organise boycotts or movements for other people not to deal with businesses to exert pressure on them.
The only time when you cannot avoid dealing with a business is when it is a monopoly. I can easily show you that behind every instance of monopoly, is the invisible hand of the state propping up or protecting that monopoly.
The fact of the matter is, corporate power only exists when it is backed by the coercive power of the state.