Why not remove all government restriction on business?

[Omega Uliza]

People are always complaining about companies 'outsourcing their jobs', so why not create similar, if not better, conditions for business in America so that outsourcing becomes less attractive? For example, they can get rid of minimum wage laws, legalise child labour, get rid of all that safety regulations, &c., &c. That way, jobs stay in America, we produce cheaper exports, and our economy will thrive.

So you're saying we put children back in the coal mines. We get rid of unions to protect workers. We stop using all this 'safe but more expensive' crap that supposedly 'helps the enviroment', and then move on with several more dollars in our pocket.

I'm...I'm sorry...are you fifteen? That may more or less be the way the economy would improve itself, but then there'd be a bunch of children missing their limbs and fingers because they didn't move them away from the machine fast enough, and women being fired for refusing to sleep with their boss, and a whole slew of bad things for the enviroment.

Thus labelling it unethical, not exactly green, and more or less a very bad idea.

[Bluth Corporation]

Since, when did selfishness become better than being selfless, and working for the betterment of humanity, instead betterment of a few individuals.

I work for my betterment; you work for your betterment. When our interests coincide, we may work together, but my reason will be that it ultimately serves my own interests.

As I am the one most directly vested in my own happiness, how is it not better that I work for my own interests?

I also see no justification for compelling me to work for the sake of another, as I do not see how that is anything but outright slavery.

[Tekania]

It's meaningless to say something simply "works" or "does not work" in the abstract. Something can only "work" or "not work" as a means to a particular end.

I'm not speaking of abstract... 6000 years of the recorded history of human civilization says you're entire philosophy is full of shit... Any attempt at creating or implementing laissez-faire ideologies degrades into a classist structure.

A world where such activity is permitted (assuming you have a proper understanding of what "extorting" is) is not a laissez-faire world (since when you're extorting from someone else, you're not "letting him be", which is what "laissez-faire" means), and so is irrelevant to this discussion.

Which is my point... If every human being on the planet thought under the idea that each other person was a perfect equal your system would work. People (historically) have not, and do not. And have always demonstrated a direction whereby when the opportunity arises to extort goods/services from another, someone will... And as soon as one person does, the entire system collapses, because there is no check to the system. People are expected to merely "police" themselves. This is why regulation occurred in the US... As a response to laissez-faire capitalism run a muck, whereas those who own the means of production began to extort service/labor from workers for their own singular benefit. If they operated ethically to begin with, regulation would not occur.

[Frangland]

Gordon Gekko (sp?) said it best in "Wall Street":

"Greed is good."

People complain about US (and other prosperous nations') companies operating in poorer countries and paying beans for indigent labor. I ask this:

If those companies weren't there, where would those people find jobs? If the wage is sufficient to meet the demands of the local standard of living... WTF is the problem?

If those jobs were so bad, would people take them?

[Intangelon]

Since, when did selfishness become better than being selfless, and working for the betterment of humanity, instead betterment of a few individuals.

I work for my betterment; you work for your betterment. When our interests coincide, we may work together, but my reason will be that it ultimately serves my own interests.

As I am the one most directly vested in my own happiness, how is it not better that I work for my own interests?

I also see no justification for compelling me to work for the sake of another, as I do not see how that is anything but outright slavery.

Translation: if you are drowning, I will not help you unless it serves my own interests.

Isn't Objectivism neat?

[Brewdomia]

Since, when did selfishness become better than being selfless, and working for the betterment of humanity, instead betterment of a few individuals.

I work for my betterment; you work for your betterment. When our interests coincide, we may work together, but my reason will be that it ultimately serves my own interests.

As I am the one most directly vested in my own happiness, how is it not better that I work for my own interests?

I also see no justification for compelling me to work for the sake of another, as I do not see how that is anything but outright slavery.

I dont want to compel you to work for others. I am saying business's will not do things they are not forced to, such as minimum wage, stopping pollution, etc, they will scrap your rights, to lining their pockets, thus creating a world where corporations have more rights, than the average individual, working and toiling away, so the leaders of the business, can accumulate exorbitant wealth. at the expense of the average person

[Bluth Corporation]

I'm not speaking of abstract... 6000 years of the recorded history of human civilization says you're entire philosophy is full of shit... Any attempt at creating or implementing laissez-faire ideologies degrades into a classist structure.

I don't think you understood what I was actually saying there.

As to your latter point, I don't think you understand what laissez-faire actually is. It most certainly is not anarchy, and I don't know why you seem to think it is. You don't need "regulation" specifically for business. You just need to enforce the usual prohibitions against one individual initiating, attempting to initiate, or threatening to initiate physical force or fraud against the person or property of another individual--in other words, "laissez-faire."

[City of Norfolk]

People are always complaining about companies 'outsourcing their jobs', so why not create similar, if not better, conditions for business in America so that outsourcing becomes less attractive? For example, they can get rid of minimum wage laws, legalise child labour, get rid of all that safety regulations, &c., &c. That way, jobs stay in America, we produce cheaper exports, and our economy will thrive.

Are you mad!? How dare you think of such things! The Entrepreneurs and Business owners deserve none of that money! They are the scum of the earth! Greedy people who think only for themselves, and they have restrictions to keep them in line with society!

Ok, obviously a little overboard, but thats radically and pretty much the reason why the government puts so much pressure on private businesses. I personally believe in very very very few if any regulations on business.

[Intangelon]

Gordon Gekko (sp?) said it best in "Wall Street":

"Greed is good."

People complain about US (and other prosperous nations') companies operating in poorer countries and paying beans for indigent labor. I ask this:

If those companies weren't there, where would those people find jobs? If the wage is sufficient to meet the demands of the local standard of living... WTF is the problem?

If those jobs were so bad, would people take them?

Oh come on. Bad job > no job, and you know it.

And "if" the wage is sufficient? "If"? How is any wage sufficient when it can be paid in pennies, and everyone is still living without running water or reliable electricity? Have you seen an actual sweatshop and the standard of living in sweatshop nations?

If those companies weren't there, it just might open the door for local entrepreneurs to start businesses there instead of relying on Western multinational corporations for their local commerce. It's hard to judge because it's difficult to squeak into a monopoly.

[Bluth Corporation]

I dont want to compel you to work for others. I am saying business's will not do things they are not forced to, such as minimum wage, stopping pollution, etc,

And what's wrong with that? Wages are a private matter between employer and employee; no one else has any right to interfere. And they're entitled to pollute all they want. If they can keep it on their own property, great. If it spills over to my property and I can prove it, I have a legitimate claim against them. If I can't prove it, then that sucks for me, but that's the cost of moral rectitude.

they will scrap your rights,

They can't, because unlike governments they're not in the habit of holding a gun to my head to get me to do what they want, which means that I am always free to choose whether or not I wish to deal with them at all.

[Intangelon]

People are always complaining about companies 'outsourcing their jobs', so why not create similar, if not better, conditions for business in America so that outsourcing becomes less attractive? For example, they can get rid of minimum wage laws, legalise child labour, get rid of all that safety regulations, &c., &c. That way, jobs stay in America, we produce cheaper exports, and our economy will thrive.

Are you mad!? How dare you think of such things! The Entrepreneurs and Business owners deserve none of that money! They are the scum of the earth! Greedy people who think only for themselves, and they have restrictions to keep them in line with society!

Ok, obviously a little overboard, but thats radically and pretty much the reason why the government puts so much pressure on private businesses. I personally believe in very very very few if any regulations on business.

Go back into US or UK history and see what life was like for workers under the de facto laissez-faire policies from the beginning of the industrial Revolution through about 1950 or so. Yeah, you overstated the opposition to corporations, but it's difficult to overstate what was done to workers in that era -- including children -- in the name of the corporation.

[Brewdomia]

I dont want to compel you to work for others. I am saying business's will not do things they are not forced to, such as minimum wage, stopping pollution, etc,

And what's wrong with that? Wages are a private matter between employer and employee; no one else has any right to interfere. And they're entitled to pollute all they want. If they can keep it on their own property, great. If it spills over to my property and I can prove it, I have a legitimate claim against them. If I can't prove it, then that sucks for me, but that's the cost of moral rectitude.

they will scrap your rights,

They can't, because unlike governments they're not in the habit of holding a gun to my head to get me to do what they want, which means that I am always free to choose whether or not I wish to deal with them at all.

They wont keep it on their property, and you know it, the fossil fuel emissions, spread like wildfire into the atmosphere.

Once your unemployed, you may go and work, oh wait you are getting paid pennies, so quit your job and suffer, oh wait you need to work to maintain any standard of living, thus they can leverage against you, for them giving a few extra pennies.

[Omega Uliza]

Since, when did selfishness become better than being selfless, and working for the betterment of humanity, instead betterment of a few individuals.

I work for my betterment; you work for your betterment. When our interests coincide, we may work together, but my reason will be that it ultimately serves my own interests.

As I am the one most directly vested in my own happiness, how is it not better that I work for my own interests?

I also see no justification for compelling me to work for the sake of another, as I do not see how that is anything but outright slavery.

Slavery is not the same thing as offering a little meat for helping other people out. Comparing it as such is ridiculous and out and out makes you seem as nothing but greedy, the very thing that many people while harbouring, try to avert themselves from in the sake of helping others. That's called being moral and good, by the standards as set by 6,000 years of philisophical progression.

[Bluth Corporation]

So? They're the ones with something to offer; if I want it I have to take it under their terms or do without. I'm not entitled to it, after all, nor are they obligated to sacrifice some of their sacred natural rights for my sake, since they're not my slave.

[Bluth Corporation]

Slavery is not the same thing as offering a little meat for helping other people out.

It is when you're forced to do it.

Comparing it as such is ridiculous and out and out makes you seem as nothing but greedy,

Which is the highest of virtues.

the very thing that many people while harbouring, try to avert themselves from in the sake of helping others. That's called being moral and good, by the standards as set by 6,000 years of philisophical progression.

They were wrong; there is no rational basis for believing that altruism is a virtue. The eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand settled that issue clearly and conclusively decades ago.

[Omega Uliza]

So? They're the ones with something to offer; if I want it I have to take it under their terms or do without. I'm not entitled to it, after all, nor are they obligated to sacrifice some of their sacred natural rights for my sake, since they're not my slave.

If you get a good life from dirty or ill-begotten means, it's a sham, a fraud. The means can justify the ends, but you're talking about accepting corruption for what it is because they've attained their power and use it as they like, no matter who it hurts.

[Intangelon]

I dont want to compel you to work for others. I am saying business's will not do things they are not forced to, such as minimum wage, stopping pollution, etc,

And what's wrong with that? Wages are a private matter between employer and employee; no one else has any right to interfere. And they're entitled to pollute all they want. If they can keep it on their own property, great. If it spills over to my property and I can prove it, I have a legitimate claim against them. If I can't prove it, then that sucks for me, but that's the cost of moral rectitude.

they will scrap your rights,

They can't, because unlike governments they're not in the habit of holding a gun to my head to get me to do what they want, which means that I am always free to choose whether or not I wish to deal with them at all.

So what's to keep a whole host of things from happening because they "can't be proven"? What's to keep a corporation from making sure nothing ever gets "proven"? They've gone to some pretty outlandish lengths in the past to cover up everything from pollution to illegal labor practices. MSHA alone has saved countless miners' lives, and they still haven't done enough, as we're still hearing about the practices that lead to accidents every other year or so. Regulation is needed to ensure that such accidents are investigated and policies enacted to make the attempt to keep them from happening again.

Your attitude basically boils down to "tough shit", and it's ironic, because what is a corporation but a shitload of cooperation, presumably toward the goal of profit -- what regulation ensures is that it's not profit at any cost, when any cost can mean the senseless waste or deterioration of human life or its environment.

[Greed and Death]

So? They're the ones with something to offer; if I want it I have to take it under their terms or do without. I'm not entitled to it, after all, nor are they obligated to sacrifice some of their sacred natural rights for my sake, since they're not my slave.

If you get a good life from dirty or ill-begotten means, it's a sham, a fraud. The means can justify the ends, but you're talking about accepting corruption for what it is because they've attained their power and use it as they like, no matter who it hurts.

If they are doing something illegal they have laws and trials to handle it.
Taxes shoudl not be used to correct perceived social injustice.

[Brewdomia]

So? They're the ones with something to offer; if I want it I have to take it under their terms or do without. I'm not entitled to it, after all, nor are they obligated to sacrifice some of their sacred natural rights for my sake, since they're not my slave.

So you would rather be living in a hut, for some extremely greedy people?

[Brewdomia]

When the hell was greed a virtue, seems more of a curse on the human race

[Intangelon]

Slavery is not the same thing as offering a little meat for helping other people out.

It is when you're forced to do it.

Comparing it as such is ridiculous and out and out makes you seem as nothing but greedy,

Which is the highest of virtues.

the very thing that many people while harbouring, try to avert themselves from in the sake of helping others. That's called being moral and good, by the standards as set by 6,000 years of philisophical progression.

They were wrong; there is no rational basis for believing that altruism is a virtue. The eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand settled that issue clearly and conclusively decades ago.

There she is! I knew it wouldn't take long.

There's no rational basis for believing that Ayn Rand is or was ever eminent. She may have settled the issue for you, as you read her lithe, supple and mesmerizing words, your hand slipping up and down your inseam, sweat beading on your adolescent brow, but I assure you, she settled nothing other than conning some people into thinking she had anything at all important to say. Greed has its place, I grant you. But preeminence isn't that place.

[Omega Uliza]

Slavery is not the same thing as offering a little meat for helping other people out.

It is when you're forced to do it.

Comparing it as such is ridiculous and out and out makes you seem as nothing but greedy,

Which is the highest of virtues.

the very thing that many people while harbouring, try to avert themselves from in the sake of helping others. That's called being moral and good, by the standards as set by 6,000 years of philisophical progression.

They were wrong; there is no rational basis for believing that altruism is a virtue. The eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand settled that issue clearly and conclusively decades ago.

A lot of the people in those 3rd world nations are practically forced to get a job for whatever they can. That makes it their way of life. But it doesn't make it right.

Greed...is not the highest of virtues. A virtue by definition is, "moral excellence; goodness; righteousness." How is living only for yourself, exercising your power no matter who it hurts, 'moral excellence'?

As for your third response. My simple answer is bullshit. Man may not be equal, but they deserve equality based upon the fact that we are all human. Treating a Chinese man different because of his situation of living in rural China and makes no more than around $4,000 a year, and then offering a job where he may earn enough to feed his family but practically has to sell his soul to do so...is also not, 'moral excellence'.

[Redwulf]

So? They're the ones with something to offer; if I want it I have to take it under their terms or do without. I'm not entitled to it, after all, nor are they obligated to sacrifice some of their sacred natural rights for my sake, since they're not my slave.

So you would rather be living in a hut, for some extremely greedy people?

Are you crazy? He expects to be one of the extremely greedy people and have his own personal people who live in huts.

[Brewdomia]

So? They're the ones with something to offer; if I want it I have to take it under their terms or do without. I'm not entitled to it, after all, nor are they obligated to sacrifice some of their sacred natural rights for my sake, since they're not my slave.

So you would rather be living in a hut, for some extremely greedy people?

Are you crazy? He expects to be one of the extremely greedy people and have his own personal people who live in huts.

When he turn out he isn't how is that going to affect your dream?

[Gauthier]

So? They're the ones with something to offer; if I want it I have to take it under their terms or do without. I'm not entitled to it, after all, nor are they obligated to sacrifice some of their sacred natural rights for my sake, since they're not my slave.

So you would rather be living in a hut, for some extremely greedy people?

Just a tiny observation. A vast majority of the people who speak out in favor of unrestricted free- market capitalism are almost always under the notion that *they* won't be part of the unwashed masses who were victims of circumstances or class manipulation obviously too lazy to make money for themselves, and that they will be magically immune to the machinations of those all ready at the top due to their sheer faith in rampant free-market capitalism.