Otis
Footballguy
I thought the same thingChancellor Katehi sounds like a Star Wars character.
I thought the same thingChancellor Katehi sounds like a Star Wars character.
No.You guys figure out what these hippies want yet?
You realize these are campus police? This is like one level above mall cops. Pepper spray is probably one of the most lethal weapon in their arsenal. Oh no, poor OWSers, being held down by the Man.Love how the police say they ware "surrounded" at UCDavis. Yes, of course, cops armed with billy clubs and pepper spray had to feel completely terrorized by a bunch of OWSers sitting in a circle. For those who haven't figured out what they want, try listening to something other than the MSM.
I'm willing to try - are you willing to tell?'bakes said:For those who haven't figured out what they want, try listening to something other than the MSM.
Attention or victimhood? I can't decide which is their main objective.I'm willing to try - are you willing to tell?'bakes said:For those who haven't figured out what they want, try listening to something other than the MSM.
And neither have they.'Otis said:No.'mr roboto said:You guys figure out what these hippies want yet?
Well then you shouldn't be complaining when you see a bunch of rent-seeking in the super-sized government that you actively support. You don't get to have one without the other.'Sigmund Bloom said:big problem require big solutions. constraining the size/scope of gov't on ideological grounds isn't going to get us any closer to solutions because there is nothing in the private sector that is going to solve our many connected problems (poverty, health care, education, and so on). Government is just an apparatus for us to exercise our collective will, no inherent tendencies to do anything really, just what we command/allow it to do.'IvanKaramazov said:Nobody is arguing in favor of abolishing the government. The argument is that unless you keep the size/scope of government severely constrained, it has an inherent tendency to do the kind of stuff you and the OWS people are objecting to. This is NOT just a case of having the "wrong" kind of people in government. A government that gets itself in a position to pick winners and losers is inherently going to find itself with these sorts of people in positions of influence.'Sigmund Bloom said:perhaps if people lived in groups of a few hundred, we could do without government, but otherwise I'm not sure how we humans can function without some people whose full-time job it is to look after the superstructure of our civilization - you know rule of law and personal property and what-not.'oso diablo said:but Big Business had its flaws embedded in its DNA, right?in other words, government doesn't mess things up, government in the hands of the wrong people messes things up. the NRA should love this argument.
Maybe, in some cases. All I'm saying is that if you're going to allow an organization of fallible human beings virtually unlimited power, you're going to see that power used for ends that you wouldn't have approved of a priori. I honestly don't see this observation as being at all controversial. Everybody concedes that private-sector firms aren't motivated by altruism, and we can all point to our favorite examples of abuse of government power too. But for some reason, people still cling to the notion that these things are just due to a few bad apples. They aren't. These things happen because positions of power act as bad-apple magnets.Edit: For the record, I don't think the market itself is a panacea. I am, however, probably willing to live with more "market failures" than you are, because I assign a relatively high value to avoiding "government failure," which often arises when we use government to fix problems. Based on what I think I know about your posting history, my guess is that this is probably a key area of disagreement between the two of us -- I think we view the world in somewhat similar terms otherwise.'Matthias said:On the flipside, if you constrain government and "let the market work it out" then you've just removed the check on business and spared them the trouble of going through the middle-man.'IvanKaramazov said:Nobody is arguing in favor of abolishing the government. The argument is that unless you keep the size/scope of government severely constrained, it has an inherent tendency to do the kind of stuff you and the OWS people are objecting to. This is NOT just a case of having the "wrong" kind of people in government. A government that gets itself in a position to pick winners and losers is inherently going to find itself with these sorts of people in positions of influence.
Stop bringing common sense into this.Well then you shouldn't be complaining when you see a bunch of rent-seeking in the super-sized government that you actively support. You don't get to have one without the other.'Sigmund Bloom said:big problem require big solutions. constraining the size/scope of gov't on ideological grounds isn't going to get us any closer to solutions because there is nothing in the private sector that is going to solve our many connected problems (poverty, health care, education, and so on). Government is just an apparatus for us to exercise our collective will, no inherent tendencies to do anything really, just what we command/allow it to do.'IvanKaramazov said:Nobody is arguing in favor of abolishing the government. The argument is that unless you keep the size/scope of government severely constrained, it has an inherent tendency to do the kind of stuff you and the OWS people are objecting to. This is NOT just a case of having the "wrong" kind of people in government. A government that gets itself in a position to pick winners and losers is inherently going to find itself with these sorts of people in positions of influence.'Sigmund Bloom said:perhaps if people lived in groups of a few hundred, we could do without government, but otherwise I'm not sure how we humans can function without some people whose full-time job it is to look after the superstructure of our civilization - you know rule of law and personal property and what-not.'oso diablo said:but Big Business had its flaws embedded in its DNA, right?in other words, government doesn't mess things up, government in the hands of the wrong people messes things up. the NRA should love this argument.
I don't think private firms acting in their own interests are "bad apples." That's what they're supposed to do. In government there actually are good apples and bad apples. I don't think it's too idealistic to think that the good apples can help to constrain the bad apples.Maybe, in some cases. All I'm saying is that if you're going to allow an organization of fallible human beings virtually unlimited power, you're going to see that power used for ends that you wouldn't have approved of a priori. I honestly don't see this observation as being at all controversial. Everybody concedes that private-sector firms aren't motivated by altruism, and we can all point to our favorite examples of abuse of government power too. But for some reason, people still cling to the notion that these things are just due to a few bad apples. They aren't. These things happen because positions of power act as bad-apple magnets.
no, i agree that it is the moral character of the people involved that make the difference in government; i just also believe that is similarly true with the people in business.'Sigmund Bloom said:perhaps if people lived in groups of a few hundred, we could do without government, but otherwise I'm not sure how we humans can function without some people whose full-time job it is to look after the superstructure of our civilization - you know rule of law and personal property and what-not.'oso diablo said:but Big Business had its flaws embedded in its DNA, right?in other words, government doesn't mess things up, government in the hands of the wrong people messes things up. the NRA should love this argument.
I agree. This is one reason I think the OWS protests need to target the government more than Wall Street, businesses and the wealthy. The business community was pursuing it's role in a capitalist society. One could argue that some went too far, but that's always going to be the case. It's the government that failed in it's role. In fact, it extended it's role from one of constraint to becoming an incredibly large participant.'Matthias said:Not really.As Tiny Dancer pointed out, the incentives are entirely different. Business is aligned to create profit. And we shouldn't expect anything else. Instead, we should use constraints of government to ensure that their profit seeking is directed in such a way as to not be socially harmful.
even in the pursuit of profit (an amoral endeavor), moral-minded people will have different actions than non-moral-minded people. Government regulation is not the only way - and i would argue not even the best way - to avoid social harm.'Matthias said:Not really.As Tiny Dancer pointed out, the incentives are entirely different. Business is aligned to create profit. And we shouldn't expect anything else. Instead, we should use constraints of government to ensure that their profit seeking is directed in such a way as to not be socially harmful.no, i agree that it is the moral character of the people involved that make the difference in government; i just also believe that is similarly true with the people in business.
linkUniv. of Calif., Davis police chief now on leave
By JASON DEAREN | AP – 1 hr 53 mins ago
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — The president of the University of California system said he was "appalled" at images of protesters being doused with pepper spray and plans an assessment of law enforcement procedures on all 10 campuses, as two police officers and the police chief were placed on administrative leave.
"Free speech is part of the DNA of this university, and non-violent protest has long been central to our history," UC President Mark G. Yudof said in a statement Sunday in response to the spraying of students sitting passively at UC Davis. "It is a value we must protect with vigilance."
Yudof said it was not his intention to "micromanage our campus police forces," but he said all 10 chancellors would convene soon for a discussion "about how to ensure proportional law enforcement response to non-violent protest."
So business has no obligation to have any moral compass whatsoever? If something bad happens its only the fault of the government for not stopping it? And its also the government's responsibility to aniticipate every insane scheme dreamed up in every boardroom or backroom across America? I dunno man. If thats the case then the hammer should be dropped on bad actors to at least pose something of a deterrant.I agree. This is one reason I think the OWS protests need to target the government more than Wall Street, businesses and the wealthy. The business community was pursuing it's role in a capitalist society. One could argue that some went too far, but that's always going to be the case. It's the government that failed in it's role. In fact, it extended it's role from one of constraint to becoming an incredibly large participant.'Matthias said:Not really.As Tiny Dancer pointed out, the incentives are entirely different. Business is aligned to create profit. And we shouldn't expect anything else. Instead, we should use constraints of government to ensure that their profit seeking is directed in such a way as to not be socially harmful.
Actually, Genius, they are trained and armed at the same level as local and state police.'jon_mx said:You realize these are campus police? This is like one level above mall cops. Pepper spray is probably one of the most lethal weapon in their arsenal. Oh no, poor OWSers, being held down by the Man.'bakes said:Love how the police say they ware "surrounded" at UCDavis. Yes, of course, cops armed with billy clubs and pepper spray had to feel completely terrorized by a bunch of OWSers sitting in a circle. For those who haven't figured out what they want, try listening to something other than the MSM.
No better way to change the culture of big business than by looking like a bunch of homeless pieces of garbage on random street corners.So business has no obligation to have any moral compass whatsoever?I agree. This is one reason I think the OWS protests need to target the government more than Wall Street, businesses and the wealthy. The business community was pursuing it's role in a capitalist society. One could argue that some went too far, but that's always going to be the case. It's the government that failed in it's role. In fact, it extended it's role from one of constraint to becoming an incredibly large participant.'Matthias said:Not really.As Tiny Dancer pointed out, the incentives are entirely different. Business is aligned to create profit. And we shouldn't expect anything else. Instead, we should use constraints of government to ensure that their profit seeking is directed in such a way as to not be socially harmful.
Business has an obligation to follow the law. Morals are much too ambiguous.So business has no obligation to have any moral compass whatsoever? If something bad happens its only the fault of the government for not stopping it? And its also the government's responsibility to aniticipate every insane scheme dreamed up in every boardroom or backroom across America? I dunno man. If thats the case then the hammer should be dropped on bad actors to at least pose something of a deterrant.I agree. This is one reason I think the OWS protests need to target the government more than Wall Street, businesses and the wealthy. The business community was pursuing it's role in a capitalist society. One could argue that some went too far, but that's always going to be the case. It's the government that failed in it's role. In fact, it extended it's role from one of constraint to becoming an incredibly large participant.'Matthias said:Not really.As Tiny Dancer pointed out, the incentives are entirely different. Business is aligned to create profit. And we shouldn't expect anything else. Instead, we should use constraints of government to ensure that their profit seeking is directed in such a way as to not be socially harmful.
business people make big decisions every day that encompass both the economics and the ethics involved. in your specific hypothetical, i would find that an unethical go-ahead, due to the enormity of the downside, surely involving the loss of livelihood of my workforce, not to mention the loss of life.'Matthias said:I just don't see much ethics in an NPV calculation.If you're a company with a market cap of $50MM who wants to drill in the Gulf with a 99% probability of everything going fine and generating $100MM in profits and a 1% probability of tragic loss, causing $1 trillion in subsequent damages to everyone else, you go ahead and roll the dice. You have a 99% chance of tripling up your market cap. And you have a 1% chance of having it all go wrong and declaring bankruptcy. That's why government is necessary to look at the broader social costs.Fwiw, I don't see making the decision to drill there, from the perspective of the company, as an immoral or even bad one. But that's why you need broader interests considered.
So was Barney Fife, except he had to keep his bullet in his shirt pocket. Campus police are near the low end of the totem pole in the scheme of things.Actually, Genius, they are trained and armed at the same level as local and state police.'jon_mx said:You realize these are campus police? This is like one level above mall cops. Pepper spray is probably one of the most lethal weapon in their arsenal. Oh no, poor OWSers, being held down by the Man.'bakes said:Love how the police say they ware "surrounded" at UCDavis. Yes, of course, cops armed with billy clubs and pepper spray had to feel completely terrorized by a bunch of OWSers sitting in a circle. For those who haven't figured out what they want, try listening to something other than the MSM.
This is video of the Chancelor finally making her exit. The students were silent. I have never seen anything quite like it. Much more powerful than making a bunch of noise in my opinion. She was trying to play the victim and they took that angle from her. http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/11/police-abuse-on-parade-ctd.htmlSo was Barney Fife, except he had to keep his bullet in his shirt pocket. Campus police are near the low end of the totem pole in the scheme of things.Actually, Genius, they are trained and armed at the same level as local and state police.'jon_mx said:You realize these are campus police? This is like one level above mall cops. Pepper spray is probably one of the most lethal weapon in their arsenal. Oh no, poor OWSers, being held down by the Man.'bakes said:Love how the police say they ware "surrounded" at UCDavis. Yes, of course, cops armed with billy clubs and pepper spray had to feel completely terrorized by a bunch of OWSers sitting in a circle. For those who haven't figured out what they want, try listening to something other than the MSM.
No. And in fact it may be unlawful for them to be "moral" if it is at the expense of the shareholders.So business has no obligation to have any moral compass whatsoever?I agree. This is one reason I think the OWS protests need to target the government more than Wall Street, businesses and the wealthy. The business community was pursuing it's role in a capitalist society. One could argue that some went too far, but that's always going to be the case. It's the government that failed in it's role. In fact, it extended it's role from one of constraint to becoming an incredibly large participant.'Matthias said:Not really.As Tiny Dancer pointed out, the incentives are entirely different. Business is aligned to create profit. And we shouldn't expect anything else. Instead, we should use constraints of government to ensure that their profit seeking is directed in such a way as to not be socially harmful.
I think there may be ways to increase the ratio of good apples to bad apples in government. Giving more power to politicians doesn't seem like one of them.I don't think private firms acting in their own interests are "bad apples." That's what they're supposed to do. In government there actually are good apples and bad apples. I don't think it's too idealistic to think that the good apples can help to constrain the bad apples.Maybe, in some cases. All I'm saying is that if you're going to allow an organization of fallible human beings virtually unlimited power, you're going to see that power used for ends that you wouldn't have approved of a priori. I honestly don't see this observation as being at all controversial. Everybody concedes that private-sector firms aren't motivated by altruism, and we can all point to our favorite examples of abuse of government power too. But for some reason, people still cling to the notion that these things are just due to a few bad apples. They aren't. These things happen because positions of power act as bad-apple magnets.
Even if you're right, I don't think the overall objective is just to minimize the bad apples. My motivation for having the federal government doing stuff isn't to reduce bad apples. I suppose it depends on how much the bad apple ratio increases per amount of power given to the federal government. I'm not sure how easy it would be to quantify that, but my impression is that the ratio probably doesn't increase all that much with each marginal increase in the power of the government.I think there may be ways to increase the ratio of good apples to bad apples in government. Giving more power to politicians doesn't seem like one of them.
Now I understand why you so strongly support Paterno in the Sandusky scandal.Business has an obligation to follow the law. Morals are much too ambiguous.So business has no obligation to have any moral compass whatsoever? If something bad happens its only the fault of the government for not stopping it? And its also the government's responsibility to aniticipate every insane scheme dreamed up in every boardroom or backroom across America? I dunno man. If thats the case then the hammer should be dropped on bad actors to at least pose something of a deterrant.I agree. This is one reason I think the OWS protests need to target the government more than Wall Street, businesses and the wealthy. The business community was pursuing it's role in a capitalist society. One could argue that some went too far, but that's always going to be the case. It's the government that failed in it's role. In fact, it extended it's role from one of constraint to becoming an incredibly large participant.'Matthias said:Not really.As Tiny Dancer pointed out, the incentives are entirely different. Business is aligned to create profit. And we shouldn't expect anything else. Instead, we should use constraints of government to ensure that their profit seeking is directed in such a way as to not be socially harmful.
I don't know whether the ratio of bad apples to good apples increases by very much with each marginal increase in governmental power; but the amount of harm that the bad apples can collectively do probably does increase a fair amount with each marginal increase in governmental power.Even if you're right, I don't think the overall objective is just to minimize the bad apples. My motivation for having the federal government doing stuff isn't to reduce bad apples. I suppose it depends on how much the bad apple ratio increases per amount of power given to the federal government. I'm not sure how easy it would be to quantify that, but my impression is that the ratio probably doesn't increase all that much with each marginal increase in the power of the government.I think there may be ways to increase the ratio of good apples to bad apples in government. Giving more power to politicians doesn't seem like one of them.
In theory the amount of good stuff that the good apples can do would also increase a fair amount.I don't know whether the ratio of bad apples to good apples increases by very much with each marginal increase in governmental power; but the amount of harm that the bad apples can collectively do probably does increase a fair amount with each marginal increase in governmental power.Even if you're right, I don't think the overall objective is just to minimize the bad apples. My motivation for having the federal government doing stuff isn't to reduce bad apples. I suppose it depends on how much the bad apple ratio increases per amount of power given to the federal government. I'm not sure how easy it would be to quantify that, but my impression is that the ratio probably doesn't increase all that much with each marginal increase in the power of the government.I think there may be ways to increase the ratio of good apples to bad apples in government. Giving more power to politicians doesn't seem like one of them.
Paterno is a business?Now I understand why you so strongly support Paterno in the Sandusky scandal.Business has an obligation to follow the law. Morals are much too ambiguous.So business has no obligation to have any moral compass whatsoever? If something bad happens its only the fault of the government for not stopping it? And its also the government's responsibility to aniticipate every insane scheme dreamed up in every boardroom or backroom across America? I dunno man. If thats the case then the hammer should be dropped on bad actors to at least pose something of a deterrant.I agree. This is one reason I think the OWS protests need to target the government more than Wall Street, businesses and the wealthy. The business community was pursuing it's role in a capitalist society. One could argue that some went too far, but that's always going to be the case. It's the government that failed in it's role. In fact, it extended it's role from one of constraint to becoming an incredibly large participant.'Matthias said:Not really.As Tiny Dancer pointed out, the incentives are entirely different. Business is aligned to create profit. And we shouldn't expect anything else. Instead, we should use constraints of government to ensure that their profit seeking is directed in such a way as to not be socially harmful.
Businesses don't make decisions. People do.Paterno is a business?Now I understand why you so strongly support Paterno in the Sandusky scandal.Business has an obligation to follow the law. Morals are much too ambiguous.So business has no obligation to have any moral compass whatsoever? If something bad happens its only the fault of the government for not stopping it? And its also the government's responsibility to aniticipate every insane scheme dreamed up in every boardroom or backroom across America? I dunno man. If thats the case then the hammer should be dropped on bad actors to at least pose something of a deterrant.I agree. This is one reason I think the OWS protests need to target the government more than Wall Street, businesses and the wealthy. The business community was pursuing it's role in a capitalist society. One could argue that some went too far, but that's always going to be the case. It's the government that failed in it's role. In fact, it extended it's role from one of constraint to becoming an incredibly large participant.'Matthias said:Not really.As Tiny Dancer pointed out, the incentives are entirely different. Business is aligned to create profit. And we shouldn't expect anything else. Instead, we should use constraints of government to ensure that their profit seeking is directed in such a way as to not be socially harmful.
So? The issue was what's the obligation. There was a well defined legal obligation for Paterno. He complied with his legal obligation. He failed in his moral obligation. Paterno and not PSU is suffering because of Paterno's moral failure.Businesses don't make decisions. People do.Paterno is a business?Now I understand why you so strongly support Paterno in the Sandusky scandal.Business has an obligation to follow the law. Morals are much too ambiguous.So business has no obligation to have any moral compass whatsoever? If something bad happens its only the fault of the government for not stopping it? And its also the government's responsibility to aniticipate every insane scheme dreamed up in every boardroom or backroom across America? I dunno man. If thats the case then the hammer should be dropped on bad actors to at least pose something of a deterrant.I agree. This is one reason I think the OWS protests need to target the government more than Wall Street, businesses and the wealthy. The business community was pursuing it's role in a capitalist society. One could argue that some went too far, but that's always going to be the case. It's the government that failed in it's role. In fact, it extended it's role from one of constraint to becoming an incredibly large participant.'Matthias said:Not really.As Tiny Dancer pointed out, the incentives are entirely different. Business is aligned to create profit. And we shouldn't expect anything else. Instead, we should use constraints of government to ensure that their profit seeking is directed in such a way as to not be socially harmful.
You're really going to make me spell this out?So? The issue was what's the obligation. There was a well defined legal obligation for Paterno. He complied with his legal obligation. He failed in his moral obligation. Paterno and not PSU is suffering because of Paterno's moral failure.Businesses don't make decisions. People do.Paterno is a business?Now I understand why you so strongly support Paterno in the Sandusky scandal.Business has an obligation to follow the law. Morals are much too ambiguous.So business has no obligation to have any moral compass whatsoever? If something bad happens its only the fault of the government for not stopping it? And its also the government's responsibility to aniticipate every insane scheme dreamed up in every boardroom or backroom across America? I dunno man. If thats the case then the hammer should be dropped on bad actors to at least pose something of a deterrant.I agree. This is one reason I think the OWS protests need to target the government more than Wall Street, businesses and the wealthy. The business community was pursuing it's role in a capitalist society. One could argue that some went too far, but that's always going to be the case. It's the government that failed in it's role. In fact, it extended it's role from one of constraint to becoming an incredibly large participant.'Matthias said:Not really.As Tiny Dancer pointed out, the incentives are entirely different. Business is aligned to create profit. And we shouldn't expect anything else. Instead, we should use constraints of government to ensure that their profit seeking is directed in such a way as to not be socially harmful.
Be my guest. I'd love to see you explain how legal fictions have moral obligations.You're really going to make me spell this out?So? The issue was what's the obligation. There was a well defined legal obligation for Paterno. He complied with his legal obligation. He failed in his moral obligation. Paterno and not PSU is suffering because of Paterno's moral failure.Businesses don't make decisions. People do.Paterno is a business?Now I understand why you so strongly support Paterno in the Sandusky scandal.Business has an obligation to follow the law. Morals are much too ambiguous.So business has no obligation to have any moral compass whatsoever? If something bad happens its only the fault of the government for not stopping it? And its also the government's responsibility to aniticipate every insane scheme dreamed up in every boardroom or backroom across America? I dunno man. If thats the case then the hammer should be dropped on bad actors to at least pose something of a deterrant.I agree. This is one reason I think the OWS protests need to target the government more than Wall Street, businesses and the wealthy. The business community was pursuing it's role in a capitalist society. One could argue that some went too far, but that's always going to be the case. It's the government that failed in it's role. In fact, it extended it's role from one of constraint to becoming an incredibly large participant.'Matthias said:Not really.As Tiny Dancer pointed out, the incentives are entirely different. Business is aligned to create profit. And we shouldn't expect anything else. Instead, we should use constraints of government to ensure that their profit seeking is directed in such a way as to not be socially harmful.
Businesses are composed of people--each with legal obligations and morals. Beyond that businesses are subject to regulations and additional laws. A business is just a legal fabrication--it can't "do" anything. Occupy Wall Street seems to think that businesses are these giant, monolithic entities that are void of humanity--or that their employees just blindly do the bidding of the greedy, evil 1%ers. I think they've watched too many movies.So apparently if you are a business its basically a license to be a complete sociopath.
Depends on whose theory. Ludwig von Mises thought that central planners with even the purest intentions would be doomed to make a mess of things because of the limitations on how much information can be acquired or usefully considered by any person or committee (as opposed to a market).In any case, my observations in an American-style democracy lead me to believe that any power given to politicians is more likely to be used for their ends than for ours. I don't think it's because the wrong people are in charge; I think it's because people are in charge. It's human nature to treat one's friends better than one's enemies, and to treat campaign donors as friends. (Isn't that the thinking behind restrictions on campaign contributions?) Even good apples aren't immune from human nature.In theory the amount of good stuff that the good apples can do would also increase a fair amount.I don't know whether the ratio of bad apples to good apples increases by very much with each marginal increase in governmental power; but the amount of harm that the bad apples can collectively do probably does increase a fair amount with each marginal increase in governmental power.Even if you're right, I don't think the overall objective is just to minimize the bad apples. My motivation for having the federal government doing stuff isn't to reduce bad apples. I suppose it depends on how much the bad apple ratio increases per amount of power given to the federal government. I'm not sure how easy it would be to quantify that, but my impression is that the ratio probably doesn't increase all that much with each marginal increase in the power of the government.I think there may be ways to increase the ratio of good apples to bad apples in government. Giving more power to politicians doesn't seem like one of them.
Yes, complete sociopaths.So apparently if you are a business its basically a license to be a complete sociopath.
They all go through the same Academy together in our state, and they have to pass the same standards before they are credentialed to serve as law enforcement officers. They can make arrests in their jurisdiction (campus), and departments can form partnerships with other departments to assist outside of that jurisdiction. I think you are arguing under a gross misperception. Our urban campus is one of the safest places in the city because of a high concentration of uniformed officers, as a result of having a campus police department.So was Barney Fife, except he had to keep his bullet in his shirt pocket. Campus police are near the low end of the totem pole in the scheme of things.Actually, Genius, they are trained and armed at the same level as local and state police.'jon_mx said:You realize these are campus police? This is like one level above mall cops. Pepper spray is probably one of the most lethal weapon in their arsenal. Oh no, poor OWSers, being held down by the Man.'bakes said:Love how the police say they ware "surrounded" at UCDavis. Yes, of course, cops armed with billy clubs and pepper spray had to feel completely terrorized by a bunch of OWSers sitting in a circle. For those who haven't figured out what they want, try listening to something other than the MSM.
So apparently if you are a business its basically a license to be a complete sociopath.
The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits
by Milton Friedman
The New York Times Magazine, September 13, 1970. Copyright @ 1970 by The New York Times Company.
When I hear businessmen speak eloquently about the "social responsibilities of business in a free-enterprise system," I am reminded of the wonderful line about the Frenchman who discovered at the age of 70 that he had been speaking prose all his life. The businessmen believe that they are defending free enterprise when they declaim that business is not concerned "merely" with profit but also with promoting desirable "social" ends; that business has a "social conscience" and takes seriously its responsibilities for providing employment, eliminating discrimination, avoiding pollution and whatever else may be the catchwords of the contemporary crop of reformers. In fact they are–or would be if they or anyone else took them seriously–preaching pure and unadulterated socialism. Businessmen who talk this way are unwitting puppets of the intellectual forces that have been undermining the basis of a free society these past decades.
The discussions of the "social responsibilities of business" are notable for their analytical looseness and lack of rigor. What does it mean to say that "business" has responsibilities? Only people can have responsibilities. A corporation is an artificial person and in this sense may have artificial responsibilities, but "business" as a whole cannot be said to have responsibilities, even in this vague sense. The first step toward clarity in examining the doctrine of the social responsibility of business is to ask precisely what it implies for whom.
Presumably, the individuals who are to be responsible are businessmen, which means individual proprietors or corporate executives. Most of the discussion of social responsibility is directed at corporations, so in what follows I shall mostly neglect the individual proprietors and speak of corporate executives.
In a free-enterprise, private-property system, a corporate executive is an employee of the owners of the business. He has direct responsibility to his employers. That responsibility is to conduct the business in accordance with their desires, which generally will be to make as much money as possible while conforming to the basic rules of the society, both those embodied in law and those embodied in ethical custom. Of course, in some cases his employers may have a different objective. A group of persons might establish a corporation for an eleemosynary purpose–for example, a hospital or a school. The manager of such a corporation will not have money profit as his objective but the rendering of certain services.
In either case, the key point is that, in his capacity as a corporate executive, the manager is the agent of the individuals who own the corporation or establish the eleemosynary institution, and his primary responsibility is to them.
Needless to say, this does not mean that it is easy to judge how well he is performing his task. But at least the criterion of performance is straightforward, and the persons among whom a voluntary contractual arrangement exists are clearly defined.
Of course, the corporate executive is also a person in his own right. As a person, he may have many other responsibilities that he recognizes or assumes voluntarily–to his family, his conscience, his feelings of charity, his church, his clubs, his city, his country. He ma}. feel impelled by these responsibilities to devote part of his income to causes he regards as worthy, to refuse to work for particular corporations, even to leave his job, for example, to join his country's armed forces. Ifwe wish, we may refer to some of these responsibilities as "social responsibilities." But in these respects he is acting as a principal, not an agent; he is spending his own money or time or energy, not the money of his employers or the time or energy he has contracted to devote to their purposes. If these are "social responsibilities," they are the social responsibilities of individuals, not of business.
What does it mean to say that the corporate executive has a "social responsibility" in his capacity as businessman? If this statement is not pure rhetoric, it must mean that he is to act in some way that is not in the interest of his employers. For example, that he is to refrain from increasing the price of the product in order to contribute to the social objective of preventing inflation, even though a price in crease would be in the best interests of the corporation. Or that he is to make expenditures on reducing pollution beyond the amount that is in the best interests of the corporation or that is required by law in order to contribute to the social objective of improving the environment. Or that, at the expense of corporate profits, he is to hire "hardcore" unemployed instead of better qualified available workmen to contribute to the social objective of reducing poverty.
In each of these cases, the corporate executive would be spending someone else's money for a general social interest. Insofar as his actions in accord with his "social responsibility" reduce returns to stockholders, he is spending their money. Insofar as his actions raise the price to customers, he is spending the customers' money. Insofar as his actions lower the wages of some employees, he is spending their money. The stockholders or the customers or the employees could separately spend their own money on the particular action if they wished to do so. The executive is exercising a distinct "social responsibility," rather than serving as an agent of the stockholders or the customers or the employees, only if he spends the money in a different way than they would have spent it.
But if he does this, he is in effect imposing taxes, on the one hand, and deciding how the tax proceeds shall be spent, on the other.
This process raises political questions on two levels: principle and consequences. On the level of political principle, the imposition of taxes and the expenditure of tax proceeds are governmental functions. We have established elaborate constitutional, parliamentary and judicial provisions to control these functions, to assure that taxes are imposed so far as possible in accordance with the preferences and desires of the public–after all, "taxation without representation" was one of the battle cries of the American Revolution. We have a system of checks and balances to separate the legislative function of imposing taxes and enacting expenditures from the executive function of collecting taxes and administering expenditure programs and from the judicial function of mediating disputes and interpreting the law.
Here the businessman–self-selected or appointed directly or indirectly by stockholders–is to be simultaneously legislator, executive and, jurist. He is to decide whom to tax by how much and for what purpose, and he is to spend the proceeds–all this guided only by general exhortations from on high to restrain inflation, improve the environment, fight poverty and so on and on.
The whole justification for permitting the corporate executive to be selected by the stockholders is that the executive is an agent serving the interests of his principal. This justification disappears when the corporate executive imposes taxes and spends the proceeds for "social" purposes. He becomes in effect a public employee, a civil servant, even though he remains in name an employee of a private enterprise. On grounds of political principle, it is intolerable that such civil servants–insofar as their actions in the name of social responsibility are real and not just window-dressing–should be selected as they are now. If they are to be civil servants, then they must be elected through a political process. If they are to impose taxes and make expenditures to foster "social" objectives, then political machinery must be set up to make the assessment of taxes and to determine through a political process the objectives to be served.
This is the basic reason why the doctrine of "social responsibility" involves the acceptance of the socialist view that political mechanisms, not market mechanisms, are the appropriate way to determine the allocation of scarce resources to alternative uses.
On the grounds of consequences, can the corporate executive in fact discharge his alleged "social responsibilities?" On the other hand, suppose he could get away with spending the stockholders' or customers' or employees' money. How is he to know how to spend it? He is told that he must contribute to fighting inflation. How is he to know what action of his will contribute to that end? He is presumably an expert in running his company–in producing a product or selling it or financing it. But nothing about his selection makes him an expert on inflation. Will his hold ing down the price of his product reduce inflationary pressure? Or, by leaving more spending power in the hands of his customers, simply divert it elsewhere? Or, by forcing him to produce less because of the lower price, will it simply contribute to shortages? Even if he could answer these questions, how much cost is he justified in imposing on his stockholders, customers and employees for this social purpose? What is his appropriate share and what is the appropriate share of others?
And, whether he wants to or not, can he get away with spending his stockholders', customers' or employees' money? Will not the stockholders fire him? (Either the present ones or those who take over when his actions in the name of social responsibility have reduced the corporation's profits and the price of its stock.) His customers and his employees can desert him for other producers and employers less scrupulous in exercising their social responsibilities.
This facet of "social responsibility" doc trine is brought into sharp relief when the doctrine is used to justify wage restraint by trade unions. The conflict of interest is naked and clear when union officials are asked to subordinate the interest of their members to some more general purpose. If the union officials try to enforce wage restraint, the consequence is likely to be wildcat strikes, rank-and-file revolts and the emergence of strong competitors for their jobs. We thus have the ironic phenomenon that union leaders–at least in the U.S.–have objected to Government interference with the market far more consistently and courageously than have business leaders.
The difficulty of exercising "social responsibility" illustrates, of course, the great virtue of private competitive enterprise–it forces people to be responsible for their own actions and makes it difficult for them to "exploit" other people for either selfish or unselfish purposes. They can do good–but only at their own expense.
Many a reader who has followed the argument this far may be tempted to remonstrate that it is all well and good to speak of Government's having the responsibility to impose taxes and determine expenditures for such "social" purposes as controlling pollution or training the hard-core unemployed, but that the problems are too urgent to wait on the slow course of political processes, that the exercise of social responsibility by businessmen is a quicker and surer way to solve pressing current problems.
Aside from the question of fact–I share Adam Smith's skepticism about the benefits that can be expected from "those who affected to trade for the public good"–this argument must be rejected on grounds of principle. What it amounts to is an assertion that those who favor the taxes and expenditures in question have failed to persuade a majority of their fellow citizens to be of like mind and that they are seeking to attain by undemocratic procedures what they cannot attain by democratic procedures. In a free society, it is hard for "evil" people to do "evil," especially since one man's good is another's evil.
I have, for simplicity, concentrated on the special case of the corporate executive, except only for the brief digression on trade unions. But precisely the same argument applies to the newer phenomenon of calling upon stockholders to require corporations to exercise social responsibility (the recent G.M crusade for example). In most of these cases, what is in effect involved is some stockholders trying to get other stockholders (or customers or employees) to contribute against their will to "social" causes favored by the activists. Insofar as they succeed, they are again imposing taxes and spending the proceeds.
The situation of the individual proprietor is somewhat different. If he acts to reduce the returns of his enterprise in order to exercise his "social responsibility," he is spending his own money, not someone else's. If he wishes to spend his money on such purposes, that is his right, and I cannot see that there is any objection to his doing so. In the process, he, too, may impose costs on employees and customers. However, because he is far less likely than a large corporation or union to have monopolistic power, any such side effects will tend to be minor.
Of course, in practice the doctrine of social responsibility is frequently a cloak for actions that are justified on other grounds rather than a reason for those actions.
To illustrate, it may well be in the long run interest of a corporation that is a major employer in a small community to devote resources to providing amenities to that community or to improving its government. That may make it easier to attract desirable employees, it may reduce the wage bill or lessen losses from pilferage and sabotage or have other worthwhile effects. Or it may be that, given the laws about the deductibility of corporate charitable contributions, the stockholders can contribute more to charities they favor by having the corporation make the gift than by doing it themselves, since they can in that way contribute an amount that would otherwise have been paid as corporate taxes.
In each of these–and many similar–cases, there is a strong temptation to rationalize these actions as an exercise of "social responsibility." In the present climate of opinion, with its wide spread aversion to "capitalism," "profits," the "soulless corporation" and so on, this is one way for a corporation to generate goodwill as a by-product of expenditures that are entirely justified in its own self-interest.
It would be inconsistent of me to call on corporate executives to refrain from this hypocritical window-dressing because it harms the foundations of a free society. That would be to call on them to exercise a "social responsibility"! If our institutions, and the attitudes of the public make it in their self-interest to cloak their actions in this way, I cannot summon much indignation to denounce them. At the same time, I can express admiration for those individual proprietors or owners of closely held corporations or stockholders of more broadly held corporations who disdain such tactics as approaching fraud.
Whether blameworthy or not, the use of the cloak of social responsibility, and the nonsense spoken in its name by influential and prestigious businessmen, does clearly harm the foundations of a free society. I have been impressed time and again by the schizophrenic character of many businessmen. They are capable of being extremely farsighted and clearheaded in matters that are internal to their businesses. They are incredibly shortsighted and muddleheaded in matters that are outside their businesses but affect the possible survival of business in general. This shortsightedness is strikingly exemplified in the calls from many businessmen for wage and price guidelines or controls or income policies. There is nothing that could do more in a brief period to destroy a market system and replace it by a centrally controlled system than effective governmental control of prices and wages.
The shortsightedness is also exemplified in speeches by businessmen on social responsibility. This may gain them kudos in the short run. But it helps to strengthen the already too prevalent view that the pursuit of profits is wicked and immoral and must be curbed and controlled by external forces. Once this view is adopted, the external forces that curb the market will not be the social consciences, however highly developed, of the pontificating executives; it will be the iron fist of Government bureaucrats. Here, as with price and wage controls, businessmen seem to me to reveal a suicidal impulse.
The political principle that underlies the market mechanism is unanimity. In an ideal free market resting on private property, no individual can coerce any other, all cooperation is voluntary, all parties to such cooperation benefit or they need not participate. There are no values, no "social" responsibilities in any sense other than the shared values and responsibilities of individuals. Society is a collection of individuals and of the various groups they voluntarily form.
The political principle that underlies the political mechanism is conformity. The individual must serve a more general social interest–whether that be determined by a church or a dictator or a majority. The individual may have a vote and say in what is to be done, but if he is overruled, he must conform. It is appropriate for some to require others to contribute to a general social purpose whether they wish to or not.
Unfortunately, unanimity is not always feasible. There are some respects in which conformity appears unavoidable, so I do not see how one can avoid the use of the political mechanism altogether.
But the doctrine of "social responsibility" taken seriously would extend the scope of the political mechanism to every human activity. It does not differ in philosophy from the most explicitly collectivist doctrine. It differs only by professing to believe that collectivist ends can be attained without collectivist means. That is why, in my book Capitalism and Freedom, I have called it a "fundamentally subversive doctrine" in a free society, and have said that in such a society, "there is one and only one social responsibility of business–to use it resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud."
Fixed. As long as the sociopathic behavior is in the best interests of the shareholders, mind you.So apparently if you work for a business its basically a license to be a complete sociopath.
Its more of a legal obligation to the stockholders than a licenseFixed. As long as the sociopathic behavior is in the best interests of the shareholders, mind you.So apparently if you work for a business its basically a license to be a complete sociopath.
A quick look (using their numbers):-$600B of additional taxes per year.'mcintyre1 said:Occupy DC's proposal to reduce the deficit
For those that keep clamoring for "solutions" from the protesters, there's a start.