Libertarian land ownership theory

[Flint]

So...I can run a very harmful business as long as I get away with it?

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Flint

So...I can run a very harmful business as long as I get away with it?

It's not a very smart way to do business. It's criminal and you'll eventually get caught. Not very many investors would be interested in a company that practices criminal behavior. Any criminal can do what they can get away with until they get caught. Regulations don't change this.

[9th Engineer]

What if I cannot afford to fight you in court? Very often it's almost impossible for individuals to launch a suit because a large business has the money to tie up procedings and outlast you. You would have to ban private legal representation and channel everything through the government, good luck.

[glatt]

Back to property rights.

Can a property owner build a building any way they want to? We have building codes now that restrict how a property owner can wire their house. Under Libertarianism, can anyone wire their house any way they want to? If their creative wiring harms others, only then will they be taken to court and the problem addressed?

If so, I agree with 9th Engineer that this will put a burden on the courts and on those who need representation in court.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by glatt

Back to property rights.

Can a property owner build a building any way they want to? We have building codes now that restrict how a property owner can wire their house. Under Libertarianism, can anyone wire their house any way they want to? If their creative wiring harms others, only then will they be taken to court and the problem addressed?

If so, I agree with 9th Engineer that this will put a burden on the courts and on those who need representation in court.

If you want to hire a cheap guy with no training, you get what you pay for. If they are creative with their wiring and it damages your house or surrounding houses or endangers people, they are criminally liable and financially liable.

The courts are tied up right now with drug cases. Those would be gone under libertarianism, so there's plenty of room for new cases and for tort reform.

[Radar]

If you can't fight in court on a legitimate case, you aren't trying very hard. There are thousands upon thousands of lawyers who would work on contingency or even pro-bono in a pollution case that killed kids or some other such thing.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by flint

So...I can run a very harmful business as long as I get away with it?

Originally Posted by Radar

It's not a very smart way to do business. It's criminal and you'll eventually get caught. Not very many investors would be interested in a company that practices criminal behavior. Any criminal can do what they can get away with until they get caught. Regulations don't change this.

But as long as I can stay profitable there isn't any reason I can't run a business that harms a few people, right? I disagree that, in reality, investors would care whether I am harming people, if I can make money for them. I don't believe that the free market itself presents any deterent mechanism whatsoever to the harm of individuals.

To paraphrase Clodfobble: what's another word for "deterent mechanisms" ???

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Flint

But as long as I can stay profitable there isn't any reason I can't run a business that harms a few people, right? I disagree that, in reality, investors would care whether I am harming people, if I can make money for them. I don't believe that the free market itself presents any deterent mechanism whatsoever to the harm of individuals.

To paraphrase Clodfobble: what's another word for "deterent mechanisms" ???

Of course investors would care. Investors are human beings. They would care, especially if it meant they might lose their investment in the future if such actions were discovered. The free market absolutely makes businesses MORE accountable than they are with regulations, and gives the ULTIMATE means to keep businesses honest ... dollars and cents. People won't buy products from businesses that are harming people. The business will close and people will buy from those who are more ethical and responsible. Other businesses will WILLINGLY raise the quality of their goods, safety, worker conditions, etc. to avoid the same fate.

This is what ended child labor... not unions. When people speak with dollars, it is far more effective than any law. Businesses are in business to make a profit, and there is no long term profit in dishonesty or in harming people.

[Stormieweather]

Originally Posted by Radar

...This is what ended child labor... not unions. When people speak with dollars, it is far more effective than any law. Businesses are in business to make a profit, and there is no long term profit in dishonesty or in harming people.

Riiiiight. So they move to the Far East where there are no child labor laws.

Originally Posted by Radar

Nike is one of the most socially responsible companies on earth. They give jobs to people in other countries that would die of starvation without their help, yet there are some foolish people who accuse them of exploitation or other such nonsense.

You do realize that the reason Nike, Coca Cola, Phillips Van-Heusen, Levi Strauss and other large manufacturers utilize Far Eastern countries (instead of say, Europe) for their manufactoring is because there are very few if any laws there to protect the laborers? The governments of those poor countries condone physical abuse, child labor, excessive working hours, pitiful working conditions, unauthorized withdrawals from their paychecks or refusing to pay the employees at all? Any attempt by these employees to unionize or organize is quickly squashed, even by assassins if necessary, in order to continue to operate at minimal costs. These companies are not there out of the goodness of their hearts or to 'help', they are there to get the maximum product for the least cost. It has nothing to do with being socially responsible.

You say that investors care, that unethical behavior is not profitable in the long run, but I beg to differ. We don't care. We want our stock dividends and our pretty Nike shoes at reasonable costs. As long as the manner in which they produce these products doesn't affect US directly, most people turn a blind eye to unethical behavior.

Would these people starve without these jobs? Maybe. So abusing another human being is justified if they will tolerate it in order to survive?

Stormie

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by Stormieweather

Would these people starve without these jobs? Maybe.

I've yet to read any study that concludes anything other than a plummeting quality of life after large corporations setup shop in developing countries and began employing locals for cheap labor. "Starving"? No. They may have not have made much/any money prior to the introduction of cheap labor, but it is often the case that they did not need it and their community/culture didn't rely on it.

After the introduction of the shop, though, they suddenly require money to survive thanks to the change in the local market. Not only that, but they have to work much harder and many more hours to achieve a similar life to what what they had before. I won't touch the topic of how to correctly handle this situation, but it is absolutely false to summarize the introduction of cheap labor shops into developing nations as "saving that population from starving".

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Stormieweather

Riiiiight. So they move to the Far East where there are no child labor laws.

I was referring to child labor in America. And eventually since these people are getting a taste of the freedom, money, and prosperity capitalism brings, they will eventually get there too.

Originally Posted by Stormieweather

You do realize that the reason Nike, Coca Cola, Phillips Van-Heusen, Levi Strauss and other large manufacturers utilize Far Eastern countries (instead of say, Europe) for their manufactoring is because there are very few if any laws there to protect the laborers?

You do realize that your entire last statement is completely false and is actually completely unrelated at all to the reasons they do business in Asia rather than Europe. The real reason is because labor costs are cheaper there. They pay people the going rate of salary (and sometimes a bit more) to produce their goods. They are also giving people opportunity to work that they wouldn't have without these companies. They are literally saving families from starving to death.

Originally Posted by Stormieweather

The governments of those poor countries condone physical abuse, child labor, excessive working hours, pitiful working conditions, unauthorized withdrawals from their paychecks or refusing to pay the employees at all? Any attempt by these employees to unionize or organize is quickly squashed, even by assassins if necessary, in order to continue to operate at minimal costs.

Not one of these people has a gun to their head. They willingly take these jobs knowing the conditions. Nobody is forcing them to stay. They can leave if they don't like it. They are paid exactly what they are worth; not a penny more or less. It's also a good thing they don't unionize. Unions suck, and have done nothing good for workers or for business. In fact, unions are why many people don't have jobs and why many businesses close down or go elsewhere.

Originally Posted by Stormieweather

These companies are not there out of the goodness of their hearts or to 'help', they are there to get the maximum product for the least cost. It has nothing to do with being socially responsible.

Nobody said they were there out of the goodness of their heart. They are there to make the maximum profit they can for their investors....people like housewives, mechanics, computer network administrators, secretaries, doctors, lawyers, nurses, grocery store clerks, etc. Luckily, making a healthy profit does not mean they aren't helping people out too. They are giving people opportunity they would not have otherwise. They are following the laws of the country they are in, they are not abusing anyone, they are not forcing anyone to stay or to apply for work. They are offering a fair salary for the work that is being done in the location for the job.

Nike is making a profit because they are fiscally responsible to their investors, and giving jobs to poor people because they are a socially responsible company that cares about those in need.

Originally Posted by Stormieweather

You say that investors care, that unethical behavior is not profitable in the long run, but I beg to differ. We don't care. We want our stock dividends and our pretty Nike shoes at reasonable costs. As long as the manner in which they produce these products doesn't affect US directly, most people turn a blind eye to unethical behavior.

Some people will turn a blind eye to misdeeds. Nike isn't responsible for any, but if they were, some people would turn away. If Nike were enslaving children and beating them when they worked slowly and locking them up so they couldn't escape, you can bet your ass the first people to say something would be the investors, and they'd demand that it stop immediately. The consumers would do the same. If you say otherwise, you only prove your own ignorance and inability to grasp reality.

Originally Posted by Stormieweather

Would these people starve without these jobs? Maybe. So abusing another human being is justified if they will tolerate it in order to survive?

Stormie

Nobody who works for Nike is being abused, exploited, or harmed by Nike. None of them are lied to. None of them are forced to apply or forced to stay. When they took the job, they agreed that the pay was what their labor was worth, and the conditions were acceptable. Otherwise they wouldn't have taken the job.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Radar

Businesses are in business to make a profit, and there is no long term profit in dishonesty or in harming people.

Like slavery, then. Nobody was harmed by slavery, were they, and nobody profited either? And I don't just mean the reletively recent incidence of African slavery in the United States, or the current, thriving practice of sexual slavery in Thailand (and elsewhere) - I mean the pervasive historical tendency of human beings to enslave other human beings. Nobody is harmed by this ??? Nobody profits from this ???

I'll throw you a life-line, though: go off on a semantical tangent focused on the qualifier "long term" . . .

[Radar]

Mentioning slavery only shows your own ignorance.

None of the people working for any of these companies is a slave. Slaves didn't apply for the work, weren't paid money in compensation, and weren't allowed to leave anytime they want. The people working for Nike aren't beaten when they don't work, and aren't bought and sold.

As far as long term profit goes, let's discuss slavery in America since it was the most recent. In the short term it was profitable, but in the long run, they lost the lives of most of their men, had their cities burned down, and lost just about everything.

Let's look at American business. Ethics violations have cost Boeing BILLIONS of dollars in lost revenue and work. How much do you think Enron or MCI stock is worth today? Why are they worthless? Because there is no long term profit in unethical business.

Compare this to truly ethical and socially responble businesses like Wal-Mart, Microsoft, Siemens, etc. who employ millions and bring high quality and affordable products to the masses, while at the same time making a decent amount of profit.

[Stormieweather]

Originally Posted by Radar

Mentioning slavery only shows your own ignorance.

None of the people working for any of these companies is a slave. Slaves didn't apply for the work, weren't paid money in compensation, and weren't allowed to leave anytime they want. The people working for Nike aren't beaten when they don't work, and aren't bought and sold.

Compare this to truly ethical and socially responble businesses like Wal-Mart, Microsoft, Siemens, etc. who employ millions and bring high quality and affordable products to the masses, while at the same time making a decent amount of profit.

Maybe you think this is ethical and socially responsible? http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=13550

And this isn't slavery? http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=13514

I am an accountant and financial analyst so my business is your business's bottom line. I work with and for some of the largest real estate developers and investment holding companies in the US. I know damn well that it is possible to be financially successful without resorting to some of the practices certain corporations do.


Stormie

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Radar

Mentioning slavery only shows your own ignorance. None of the people working for any of these companies is a slave.

No, it shows your lack of reading comprehension. I didn't make that comparison. I was referring to literal slavery.

Originally Posted by Radar

Slaves didn't apply for the work, weren't paid money in compensation, and weren't allowed to leave anytime they want.

Yes, slavery is a business practice, common throughout history, where people are harmed and a profit is made.
It disproves your flawed theory that you cannot make a profit by harming people.

Originally Posted by Radar

As far as long term profit goes, let's discuss slavery in America since it was the most recent. In the short term it was profitable, but in the long run, they lost the lives of most of their men, had their cities burned down, and lost just about everything.

People were harmed, and a profit was made. In the long term, regardless of the outcome, those people were still harmed - you can't undo the harm.
Harming people is profitable. It always has been, and it always will be. That is an easily demonstrated reality.

Originally Posted by Radar

Let's look at American business.

Let's just go ahead and look at all of recorded history.