I see. That makes sense now.

I'm in the crack business. It's a rough trade, and subject to much government interference, but it makes me a living.

Yes, I've seen this too.

Corporations are part of our community and should be responsible to that community for how they conduct business and what they produce. — Tom Storm

But corporations are not owned by the community. While they’re in communities, what they do in the privacy of their own buildings isn’t the business of the community. Those from the community who wish to work there indirectly agree that the owners run the company.

To argue corporations should conduct their business and decide what to produce based on community needs is socialism through and through.

To argue corporations should conduct their business and decide what to produce based on community needs is socialism through and through. — Xtrix

Fine by me. :wink:

Bear in mind that corporations (in most countries) cannot do or produce that which defies community standards. If they wish to develop a 'white folks only' recruitment policy, they can't. If they wish to sell child porn, they can't. If they wish to dump toxic chemicals at a park next to a school they can't. So for me the question is where is that line between corporate autonomy and corporate citizenship or community responsibility? I'd like that line to be more definitive. But, no, I'm not arguing we dictate what corporations make per say, more what they can't do in making or selling it.

To argue corporations should conduct their business and decide what to produce based on community needs is socialism through and through. — Xtrix

It's in line with embedded liberalism. The main practical argument for it is that it should protect a capitalist economy from breakdowns like the Great Depression.

It's really an eye opener to learn why this system, which was the norm from 1945-1970 finally failed.

Fine by me. :wink: — Tom Storm

But this infringes on the rights of private citizens. In the private enterprise system the role of the corporation is solely to maximize profits within the bounds of the law, because that's what the shareholders (owners) want. Anything beyond this is -- any social responsibility -- is socialism; i.e., infringement on private property rights and the freedom of individuals to pursue their self interests.

It's in line with embedded liberalism. The main practical argument for it is that it should protect a capitalist economy from breakdowns like the Great Depression. — frank

But in terms of the idea that corporations have social responsibilities, it's socialism. The argument being that the corporation is owned by the shareholders, and the shareholders want to maximize profits. That should be its sole responsibility, within the bounds of the law.

Anything beyond this is -- any social responsibility -- is socialism; i.e., infringement on private property rights and the freedom of individuals to pursue their self interests. — Xtrix

Maybe I'm missing your point and apologies if I am.

The point, as I see it, is that corporations cannot do whatever they want already, right? They cannot peruse their self-interest where community standards are seen to be transgressed. Laws to protect community already constrain some of the worst excesses of rapacious corporate behavior. Corporations are in the community and are responsible to that community. They can't really escape this dyad no matter where you or I set the theoretical great wall between socialism and capitalism.

That should be its sole responsibility, within the bounds of the law. — Xtrix

I don't think the law dictates how society prioritizes its resources (although I'm not sure that's what you meant). Economic policy is usually formed by the legislative and executive branches. Both are in a sense bound by law, but they're also ground zero for the formation of the law, and so above it.

Embedded liberalism was supported by Marxists and socialists. If it had continued to evolve, the US would be more leftist right now. Those who targeted it for destruction claimed that it was collectivism at it's worst and was bound to lead to some kind of slavery in America. The characterization of it as socialist isn't unacceptable.

Just playing devils advocate, as difficult as it is. I agree with you.

Embedded liberalism was supported by Marxists and socialists. If it had continued to evolve, the US would be more leftist right now. Those who targeted it for destruction claimed that it was collectivism at it's worst and was bound to lead to some kind of slavery in America. The characterization of it as socialist isn't unacceptable. — frank

Ok. Failing to see the relevance to the thread, but fine.

Yes, I know you were playing devil's advocate. Your devil should have thrown some Hayek at me.

Fair enough. I only know Friedman. Hayek and Von Mises are probably worth reading as well. But who has the time for bullshit.

It's good understand those you're opposed to, right? How else will you find common ground, understand what they're afraid of, what events shaped them, in short, understand that they're people like you, not orcs from some hell hole?

Eh— If you need to go through exercises like these to remind yourself that people aren’t “orcs,” then there are bigger problems afoot.

Eh— If you need to go through exercises like these to remind yourself that people aren’t “orcs,” then there are bigger problems afoot. — Xtrix

It's really easy to forget that we're all just different leaves on the same tree.