Now that our season is over...

[Jim Hyla]

But businesses run by Businessmen should be regulated by Politicians who are informed by Economists and Philosophers to prevent those Businesses from harming society.

It's not at all clear that it's even possible for businessmen to do as much damage to society as politicians have.

Nor is it clear that the reverse is true. Do you have some stats or just another nice saying?

[Rosey]

But businesses run by Businessmen should be regulated by Politicians who are informed by Economists and Philosophers to prevent those Businesses from harming society.

It's not at all clear that it's even possible for businessmen to do as much damage to society as politicians have.

Nor is it clear that the reverse is true. Do you have some stats or just another nice saying?

If you want to take action that negatively affects someone else, at the very least you should be required to demonstrate in advance why you think that action is necessary and proper and will achieve the desired objective.  The presumption should not be that "It'll work!" and the driving justification should not be "We have to do something!"

People in favor of open-ended regulation, typically bought and paid for by the behemoths in the regulated markets, are basically declaring "Mission Accomplished" based entirely on good feelings and intuition.  We've all seen how well that approach has worked out in another area.

[KeithK]

But businesses run by Businessmen should be regulated by Politicians who are informed by Economists and Philosophers to prevent those Businesses from harming society.

It's not at all clear that it's even possible for businessmen to do as much damage to society as politicians have.

Nor is it clear that the reverse is true. Do you have some stats or just another nice saying?

Well, one could list the hundreds or thousands of unitended consequences from well meaning laws and regulations that have caused great harm. But stats? In the end it's a subjective question depending on how you define "damage to society", let alone how you attempt to quantify it.

[Jim Hyla]

And I could come up with hundreds or thousands of harmful effects from companies, so what does that prove? The two of you always comment about how government is worse than business, but you don't really have facts to prove it. Let's face it both can be bad. There are some of us who feel we need both. You seem to feel only business can be right. I'm happy to have heard your opinion, but comments such as "It's not at all clear that it's even possible for businessmen to do as much damage to society as politicians have.", don't really have basis in fact, just opinion.

[Rosey]

The two of you always comment about how government is worse than business, but you don't really have facts to prove it.

You seem to be the one with the burden of proof since you are the one advocating action; that said, a few points come to mind:

How many wars have been started by businesses without the help of state-run armies?
Remind me again which of the two imprisons more than 1% of the population for non-violent behaviors.
Businesses in a free market trade services for money in mutually-beneficial voluntary trades; governments take money under the threat of violence irrespective of the service level provided.

Furthermore, I'm curious to know what you consider abusive business practices that need regulation.  If you could cite just one or two, maybe I could get a better idea of what your justifications for regulation are.

[KeithK]

Exactly. Like I said, subjective.

I for one don't think government is all bad. There is a role for limied government. Few would argue that government doesn't provide some benefits to society. But given the current state of our society, in my opinion,  almost every increase in government power or authority results in a negative marginal benefit (costs outweight the benefits).

[Roy 82]

But businesses run by Businessmen should be regulated by Politicians who are informed by Economists and Philosophers to prevent those Businesses from harming society.

It's not at all clear that it's even possible for businessmen to do as much damage to society as politicians have.

or as much good.

[Jim Hyla]

How about oil spills from ships with only one hull, how about lakes and rivers polluted to the point that fish can't live there. Those are a few obvious environmental ones.

You certainly won't get me to defend wars, although religion may be just as bad as governments.

My point isn't that governments are less bothersome than companies, rather to always say that government is bad and business is good is obviously not correct. Rules do have their good points, even in hockey.

All of this is subjective, opinion, and not facts. That's why I respond to all encompassing statements with a you can't prove that statement.

[Jim Hyla]

But businesses run by Businessmen should be regulated by Politicians who are informed by Economists and Philosophers to prevent those Businesses from harming society.

It's not at all clear that it's even possible for businessmen to do as much damage to society as politicians have.

or as much good.

Well it's hard to list all the ways. Do you at least like traffic rules? Do you think that fire departments are good? To get to more controversial subjects, you may want to argue abut Social Security and Medicare, but having heard about my family in the depression and seeing how much better senior care is now, I have no doubt as to it's worth.

[Robb]

On the contrary.  I haven't been to business school, but from talking with friends who have, it seems to me that they do at least as many case studies about where things have gone wrong in business as they do where things have gone right.  It's almost a form of entertainment for them - laughing at the misfortunes and foibles of those who have gone before...

"Things that have gone wrong in business" is a distinct category from "things that businesses do, by design, that have negative consequences for society at large." The former is about learning from the mistakes of others; the latter is about making sure not to repeat them even if it was profitable.

That's expecting rather a lot.  How many law schools teach the negative effects of lawyering?

All of them, probably? All states and the federal government have canons of ethics that are binding and I'd be shocked if every law school didn't have an ethics curriculum. Are you really asking "do lawyers act unethically/selfishly/stupidly/destructively in their professional capacities? Of course some do.

But when you talk of ethics training for lawyers, you're talking about teaching them to do the right thing within the current legal framework.  That's not what you were talking about for business schools. What you are expecting business schools to do (questioning the very basis of the capitalist system) would be more like having law students study whether we should abandon our current system of common law and replace it with something else.  That's a topic a little too deep for a basic law school curriculum.

[Rosey]

How about oil spills from ships with only one hull, how about lakes and rivers polluted to the point that fish can't live there. Those are a few obvious environmental ones.

Pollution causes problems when it comes up against someone's property or interest in property (e.g., water rights): those people have a claim to damages.  It would look very different from existing criminal environmental law, but it's not at all clear that it would be worse or less equitable.  It is in fact government that creates barriers to and restricts the standing of property owners to sue for environmental damages, making it effectively legal to pollute except when the government says otherwise.

You certainly won't get me to defend wars, although religion may be just as bad as governments.

Don't gloss over wars: wars and genocide in the 20th century alone have killed about 200 million people.  This is a level of violence unmatched by all private enterprise throughout human history.  And I'd argue that religion is more akin to government than to private enterprise, though certainly it isn't a perfect comparison.

My point isn't that governments are less bothersome than companies, rather to always say that government is bad and business is good is obviously not correct.

I've never asserted that business is always good.  I'm simply saying that it's not at all clear that government regulation is always, or even often, of net benefit to society: the evidence I've seen suggests that it causes more problems than it solves.

[Rosey]

Well it's hard to list all the ways. Do you at least like traffic rules?

Conventions, yes.  But it's already basically voluntary: there isn't a cop hiding at every intersection making people obey the rules, and from living around Massholes for 10 years I've come to know where conventions violate the rules and obey the conventions because that winds up causing fewer problems.  Furthermore, there is evidence that removing excessive traffic control devices actually reduces accidents.

Do you think that fire departments are good?

I have yet to hear a good argument against private fire insurance, just like flood insurance, liability insuance, or theft insurance.

To get to more controversial subjects, you may want to argue abut Social Security and Medicare, but having heard about my family in the depression and seeing how much better senior care is now, I have no doubt as to it's worth.

Because there's no other substantive difference between the 1930's and the 2000's?

[Jim Hyla]

How about oil spills from ships with only one hull, how about lakes and rivers polluted to the point that fish can't live there. Those are a few obvious environmental ones.

Pollution causes problems when it comes up against someone's property or interest in property (e.g., water rights): those people have a claim to damages.  It would look very different from existing criminal environmental law, but it's not at all clear that it would be worse or less equitable.  It is in fact government that creates barriers to and restricts the standing of property owners to sue for environmental damages, making it effectively legal to pollute except when the government says otherwise.

But the rule for double hulled ships prevents the damage. Personally I feel that's better than trying to sue afterward. Corporate lawyers would almost for sure win out against me and my lakefront. They have a lot more bucks to throw at them than I do.

You certainly won't get me to defend wars, although religion may be just as bad as governments.

Don't gloss over wars: wars and genocide in the 20th century alone have killed about 200 million people.  This is a level of violence unmatched by all private enterprise throughout human history.  And I'd argue that religion is more akin to government than to private enterprise, though certainly it isn't a perfect comparison.

I don't think that I "glossed over wars", I said I wouldn't defend them. Also I didn't mean to make religion akin to business, in fact I consider it a warped and dysfunctional form of government.

My point isn't that governments are less bothersome than companies, rather to always say that government is bad and business is good is obviously not correct.

I've never asserted that business is always good.  I'm simply saying that it's not at all clear that government regulation is always, or even often, of net benefit to society: the evidence I've seen suggests that it causes more problems than it solves.

Well, I've not remembered when you ever put government ahead of business. I seem to think, like your statement that started this discussion "It's not at all clear that it's even possible for businessmen to do as much damage to society as politicians have.", that you always come down on the side of business. I'd rather take an individualized approach.

[Jim Hyla]

Well it's hard to list all the ways. Do you at least like traffic rules?

Conventions, yes.  But it's already basically voluntary: there isn't a cop hiding at every intersection making people obey the rules, and from living around Massholes for 10 years I've come to know where conventions violate the rules and obey the conventions because that winds up causing fewer problems.  Furthermore, there is evidence that removing excessive traffic control devices actually reduces accidents.

Who does enforce the "conventions"? Sure you're going to say that the drivers do, because they see that it works. Well, I've certainly seen many reverse instances. Drivers trying to get through an intersection, but not able to get all the way through so no one can move.

Do you think that fire departments are good?

I have yet to hear a good argument against private fire insurance, just like flood insurance, liability insuance, or theft insurance.

So if your house is on fire, you're happy to have it burn and get the money, rather than have a fieman come put it out?::screwy::

To get to more controversial subjects, you may want to argue abut Social Security and Medicare, but having heard about my family in the depression and seeing how much better senior care is now, I have no doubt as to it's worth.

Because there's no other substantive difference between the 1930's and the 2000's?

So your point is?

[mnagowski]

So... uh... does anybody care about the Penn basketball team's ethical lapse in judgment when they refused to vacate their "win" against Brown this season?