Manipulating Companies
Over at personal responsibility Darwin states:
For normal employees, it’s important to allow employees to unionize because consumers don’t have much control over how employees are treated; therefore unions are useful to make sure that the balance between employee rights/pay and corporate profit/efficiency is maintained.
Seriously, are you fucking high? Do you smoke crack? Companies are constantly pressured by consumers to change. If they don’t adjust to consumer demands they will very quickly find themselves out of business. Companies are not like the government, they cant force people to do their will, they actually have to appeal to the people.
When thinking about this kind of thing, one must be wise enough to understand that a successful company already has a base of consumers willing to support the actions of that company. Those that take objection to the company are most likely in the minority. Or at the very least, are unpersuasive in convincing other consumers to stop supporting the company.
Given that the objectionable actions of the company have not already put them out of business, and the groups of people that object have been unpersuasive with those that do support the company, it seems reasonable to assume those against the company do not have a majority. This is precisely why they seek state regulation. To get around the problem of not having consumer support, which is a much better determinant of the people’s will then a democratic vote.
In choosing the state as the means to regulate a company, the activist is very clearly attempting to force their values down the throats of consumers. Environmentalists demand increasing taxes on gas guzzling SUVs as a way to reduce how many are produced and in turn ‘help’ the environment. The fact that these companies sell them year after year implies that there is a consumer base that supports this kind of vehicle. This means two things. First that a large groups of people support SUV by way of purchasing them, and secondly the environmentalist arguments for not purchasing SUVs are unpersuasive. Thus, the environmentalist decides to shove their environmental values down the throats of the SUV consumers via the state. This is the kind of attitude that liberals have, and it is what I most strongly object to.
Because capitalism does not use coercion, it is the best measure of the people’s will. Activist that don’t like the people’s will seek the coercive force of the state to format people’s will to be more consistent with their own values. In the case of Darwin, he supports jailing people that believe in the value of self protection by firearm.
Using Experts to Justify Shoving Your Values Down Someone Else’s Throat
No doubt you will want to counter by stating that the SUV is bad for the environment. Let me entertain this argument and in the process bring Dan into the discussion. Since supporters of SUV are likely to be unconvinced by environmentalist’s arguments that the vehicles does harm to the environment, the environmentalist will bring in the ‘expert’. Since he is an expert, he knows the ‘truth’ about SUV causing harm to the environment. Since he is ‘knowledgeable’ and has done ‘science’ its clear that he should be the arbiter of truth regarding SUV harm. Remarkably his conclusion’s support the environmentalist’s claims.
But let’s say that with use of the expert, the environmentalist wins the day and state legislation is passed increasing the tax on SUVs. This is an interesting precedent. Its okay to call on the state to shove your values down the throats of others so long as you have an expert that says the benefits are ‘true’.
Well then knowing that, let me introduce you to a website Diatribe came across documenting over 200 studies showing the ‘truth’ about children being raised in single parent home. The experts show that it’s ‘harmful’ to the child, and in turn society in general, to grow up with a single parent. A savvy Christian that believes that God’s wish is for children to be raised in a two parent home would be wise to employ these experts in showing this effect to get legislation passed forcing single parents to give up their children.
Something tells me Darwin would oppose the state forcing this Christian value down the throats of single parents. But on what grounds? The experts have determined the ‘truth’. Single parent households are harmful to children. When ‘experts’ use ‘science’ to determine ‘truth’ there is no more debate. Those that oppose the legislation must relent because the ‘truth’ has been settled.
There is no doubt there would be a significant drop off in gun violence if the state forbid raising children in a one parent home. Yet I doubt Darwin would see this as a fair trade, however he would gladly take away your constitutional right to firearms just to reduce gun violence.
Experts are useful, just not when they are used to justify using the state coercive force to shove one group’s value down another groups throat. In the context of this blog, this is almost always the way I’m attacking experts. When it comes to minority groups trying to force their will on others it best to ignore their experts. Even when the experts are the scientific consensus on global warming.
On Failing to Convince the Consumer
Highly vocal critics of some corporations always seem to forget that in many cases there is a much larger silent consumer base that does not object to the company. Those on the left seem painfully unaware of this large ‘voting block’ which enjoys a great deal of control over the corporations that need their money to survive. Companies that have a tin ear towards their consumers will very quickly find themselves out of business. Companies that have a tin ear towards activist will not find themselves out of businesses. It’s this indifference towards the activist that leads to dumbass statements like this:
consumers don’t have much control over how employees are treated
Its not that the consumer doesn’t have control, its just that they don’t care about the activist hang up towards this company and continue to support it, and its practices towards labor. Furthermore, consumers are right to be dubious of experts telling them their actions are ‘harmful’ and should object on principle to using experts to justify value coercion. Believe me, when the consumer base that supports a company decides against the company, that company will make changes or be filing for bankruptcy in short order.
In the end, its not that the activist lacks control over the company, it’s that the activist lacks control over the consumers that support that company. Failing to convince the consumer, the activist’s next move is to bring in the state to force the consumers to follow the values of the activist. I object to this both from the liberal and the conservative side. The only question in my mind is why you draw exceptions for liberals but join me in resisting conservative attempts at value coercion.
March 14th, 2008 at 11:18 am
I’m sorry, but I don’t remember paying a higher tax on my SUV. Since you speak of this so often, you must have concrete examples (that aren’t hypothetical) of where it has happened. Could you use those examples instead.
March 14th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Are you serious? If so, I want you to tell me all about eth labor relations policies of the last 20 corporations you did business with. Here’s a hint: you have no fucking idea. Amd neither do I. I don’t want to have to spend 2 months researching the labor, trade, and environmental policies of practices of the companies that make every damn product I intend to buy before I go to the grocery store every week. Neither does anyone else. We would prefer to simply vote for government agencies to monitor this shit for us, so we don’t have to worry about it when we go to the store. Instead, we only have to worry about it when we vote, and to make sure it’s being done properly, we only have to monitor one public government agency, instead of trying to monitor every private corporation and store on the planet.
You can’t pass this off as a few activists trying to cram their morals down the throat of teh public. Sure, those people texist, but they almost always fail. The regulations that DO get passed are ones that enjoy broad popular support (from CONSUMERS, who it turns out are also VOTERS). They pass because this is how consumers respond to the fact that they can’t have perfect knowledge about the companies they’re doing business with.
Free market systems are great, but the claim that everyone who bought Martha Stewart’s clothes knew that they were made by children in sweatshops and approved of that practice is obviously ludicrous. And yet that is the exact claim you are trying to make.
Some specific rebuttals:
“Because capitalism does not use coercion, it is the best measure of the people’s will.”
It’s certainly the best measure of which computer or clothes or television station the people want. But there are areas it simply doesn’t address. How does the free market tell you about the people’s will in terms of internaional politics? How does the free market tell you about the people’s will in terms of liking hikes in the forest vs. walks along the beach? The free market simply doesn’t address these types of issues, and it also doesn’t adress issues like employee rights, environmental policy, etc.
“In the case of Darwin, he supports jailing people that believe in the value of self protection by firearm. ”
Thanks, lieing about my position always increases my respect for your arguments and your skill as a debater.
“No doubt you will want to counter by stating that the SUV is bad for the environment”
Consumers actually buy SUV’s, so I think the free market does control this, as long as the companies are truthful about their emmission levels. However, I recently bought a new DVD player, and I had to decide whetehr to buy from SOny or Samsung. Now, I have NO FUCKING IDEA which of these two companies produces more pollution when making a dvd player, and I have no way to find out. So I want a government agency making sure that the amount of pollution they produce isn’t over some democratically agreed-upon limit, so I ddon’t have to worry about it. I’d be fine if instead they put that information on the box, but then we’d need an equally large beuaracracy to make sure they were telling the truth, so it’s a wash.
“But let’s say that with use of the expert, the environmentalist wins the day and state legislation is passed increasing the tax on SUVs….
Something tells me Darwin would oppose the state forcing this Christian value down the throats of single parents. But on what grounds? ”
Gee, I don’t know, maybe on the grounds that single parents are ACTUAL REAL LIVE HUMAN BEINGS, and that corporations are ABSTRACT CONCEPTS?
Yes, I want individual human beings to have more rights than corporations. I guess that makes me some kind of monster. I’m sure you think corporations should be allowed to get married, adopt children, get a driver’s license, etc, etc.
“Highly vocal critics of some corporations always seem to forget that in many cases there is a much larger silent consumer base that does not object to the company. ”
You have a major problem in your reasoning here, where you seem to be cliaming that as long as there are enough consumers that want something to support it, then the rest of us should let them do it. I assure you, if there was a company in the US that abducted people off teh street and sold them into sexual slavery, they’d have enough customers to stay in business. By your argument, this means the rest of us shouldn’t try to use the law to stop them.
“In the end, its not that the activist lacks control over the company, it’s that the activist lacks control over the consumers that support that company. ”
You still seem wedded to this insane notion that the governemnt never does anything unless it’s supported by only a tiny number of activists. Certainly this sometimes happens, nd when it does, I’m against it too- but the vast majority of the populace is against sweat shops and child labor, against unregulated pollution and destruction of ntural resources, and in favor of universal health care. In these cases, YOU are the activist, a disenting minority who wants to go against what everyone else wants.
“Its not that the consumer doesn’t have control, its just that they don’t care about the activist hang up towards this company and continue to support it”
I’m arguing that its not that they don’t care, it’s that they don’t know. If I’m wrong, then again, please tell me the labor relation policies of the last 20 comapnies you did business with.
March 15th, 2008 at 9:05 am
“consumer support, which is a much better determinant of the people’s will then a democratic vote.”
I didn’t know you hated democracy so much. I’ll have to keep this in mind, it could be useful later.
“Because capitalism does not use coercion, it is the best measure of the people’s will. Activist that don’t like the people’s will seek the coercive force of the state to format people’s will to be more consistent with their own values.In the case of Darwin, he supports jailing people that believe in the value of self protection by firearm.”
This is a pointless characterization - you’re just using inflammatory language to tone it strangely. I could just as easily say that you support jailing people who believe in the value of self-protection by rocket-propelled grenades. By your own argument, doesn’t this make you an -activist that doesn’t like the people’s will-?
“shove one group’s value down another groups throat”
As I demonstrated above, you are comfortable with using the state to shove your values down the throats of others, since you accept that the state must enforce laws. Therefore your characterization is pointless and your argument is moot unless you wish to accept the charge that you are a hypocrite.
“Something tells me Darwin would oppose the state forcing this Christian value down the throats of single parents. But on what grounds? The experts have determined the ‘truth’. Single parent households are harmful to children. When ‘experts’ use ‘science’ to determine ‘truth’ there is no more debate. Those that oppose the legislation must relent because the ‘truth’ has been settled.”
I happen to prefer arguments - from any sort of politics - that are supported by expert analysis over those that are produced extemporaneously.
“We would prefer to simply vote for government agencies to monitor this shit for us, so we don’t have to worry about it when we go to the store”
This is a horrible idea, Darwin. I work in animal research, and activists have led to the creation of a gigantic morass of regulatory oversight. The end result of this are bundles of paperwork making everything less efficient, and ‘animal violations’ tend to revolve around people filling out the paperwork incorrectly, so it isn’t really a valid measure of how well the lab treats their animals.
“I’d be fine if instead they put that information on the box, but then we’d need an equally large beuaracracy to make sure they were telling the truth, so it’s a wash.”
This is a somewhat more realistic idea, but it could get expensive. Moreover, if (as you have argued earlier) the regulatory bodies are put in place by politicians who are to a certain extent indebted to corporate campaign donors, why should you believe they could be trusted?
“Gee, I don’t know, maybe on the grounds that single parents are ACTUAL REAL LIVE HUMAN BEINGS, and that corporations are ABSTRACT CONCEPTS?”
Shareholders are human beings. For that matter, so are customers who might have to pay more for SUVs.
“I’m arguing that its not that they don’t care, it’s that they don’t know. If I’m wrong, then again, please tell me the labor relation policies of the last 20 comapnies you did business with.”
If they -really- cared, wouldn’t they bother to find out?
March 15th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
” I work in animal research, and activists have led to the creation of a gigantic morass of regulatory oversight”
Yeah, as I said many times in my argument, I’m not interested in giving activists whatever they want, I’m interested in upholding what the voting populace emocratically agrees on. That would probably be a lot less beauracracy and legalese than the current system entails. Obviously reform is a good idea when the system isn’t working, but is it better to have no laws at all?
“why should you believe they could be trusted?”
They probably can’t be totally trusted, but they’re more trustworthy than the corporations themselves. And as I said elsewheere in the post, at least then we just have to investigate that one government organization if we suspect corruption, instead of investigating every corporation seperately.
“Shareholders are human beings. For that matter, so are customers who might have to pay more for SUVs.”
Maybe, but corporate law is written to apply to corporations, not to individuals. You could make an argument about changing this fact, but it would require re-writing all the laws on the books relating to corporations, and all the new laws would probably become unenforceable (imagine a contract that, instead of naming a corporation, had to name every single employee in the corporation…. or worse, only those who were aware of the contract and approved of it before signing. Not really workable.)
“If they -really- cared, wouldn’t they bother to find out?”
No, because much of the information simply isn’t available without a court order in most cases, and few people have the resources neccessary to do the research even if they were willing to spend months doing research before going to the grocery store to get ready for dinner. Instead, they vote for people who will pass laws doing teh things that they want- if they didn’t care, they wouldn’t vote for those people.
March 15th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
“But let’s say that with use of the expert, the environmentalist wins the day and state legislation is passed increasing the tax on SUVs….
Something tells me Darwin would oppose the state forcing this Christian value down the throats of single parents. But on what grounds? ”
“Gee, I don’t know, maybe on the grounds that single parents are ACTUAL REAL LIVE HUMAN BEINGS, and that corporations are ABSTRACT CONCEPTS?”
“Shareholders are human beings. For that matter, so are customers who might have to pay more for SUVs.”
“Maybe, but corporate law is written to apply to corporations, not to individuals. You could make an argument about changing this fact, but it would require re-writing all the laws on the books relating to corporations, and all the new laws would probably become unenforceable (imagine a contract that, instead of naming a corporation, had to name every single employee in the corporation…. or worse, only those who were aware of the contract and approved of it before signing. Not really workable.)”
You’re missing my point, which is that it’s not very good reasoning to say that the state can do whatever it wants to corporations because they aren’t human beings. Things that influence corporations will indirectly influence human beings as well.
“No, because much of the information simply isn’t available without a court order in most cases, and few people have the resources neccessary to do the research even if they were willing to spend months doing research before going to the grocery store to get ready for dinner. Instead, they vote for people who will pass laws doing teh things that they want- if they didn’t care, they wouldn’t vote for those people.”
If you -really- cared, you wouldn’t sit on your hands and wait for legislation to solve this problem for you. You’d set up a firm that investigates products/companies (and is contractually obligated to keep trade secrets while doing so), and assigns them a rating, which can then be sold to customers who wish to make purchasing decisions in line with their social/environmental/whatever values. Such customers could boycott companies that refuse to comply with the investigator firm on the grounds that such companies must have something to hide. This way, people who want that service can pay for it while those who do not want it are not obliged to contribute to it.
“They probably can’t be totally trusted, but they’re more trustworthy than the corporations themselves. And as I said elsewheere in the post, at least then we just have to investigate that one government organization if we suspect corruption, instead of investigating every corporation seperately.”
The solution I proposed above has the same advantages. Really, I’d be surprised if someone hasn’t already set up something like that.
March 16th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
“Things that influence corporations will indirectly influence human beings as well.”
I understand, but I never said that teh state should be able to do whatever it wants to corporations- I said that I want individual people to have more, and more closely guarded, rights than corporations. Remember I was refuting a claim by Steve that pollution regulations are MORALLY EQUIVALENT to taking children away from their single mothers.
Any time you phrase a corporate law in terms of how it affects the individual persons in that corporation, then you should judge the law based on the effects on those individuals. But it’s rarely going to be very clear-cut, and in general, I’d like to trend towards protecting obvious and directs rights of individuals, over rights of corporations which theoretically and somewhat opaquely trickle down to eventually having consequences for individuals.
“You’d set up a firm that investigates products/companies (and is contractually obligated to keep trade secrets while doing so), and assigns them a rating, which can then be sold to customers who wish to make purchasing decisions in line with their social/environmental/whatever values.”
You seem to be under the impression that every person in the US has the training, investment capital, and skill to set up a major consumer advocacy corporation. This is not true. You alos seem to be under the impression that if you ‘care’ about any topic at all, then you should devote your entire life to crusading on that one topic.
For people who don’t have the means to start up a major corporation whenever something bothers them, and who care about issues but not enough to devote their entire lives to them, we already have a convenient, universally accessible way of expressing that concern and bringing about change: it’s called ‘voting’.
” Really, I’d be surprised if someone hasn’t already set up something like that.”
Which proves my point- many such companies exist, but given the number of companies you interact with on a daily basis (50 items at the grocery store = at LEAST 50 companies, probably more with shipping advertisement etc), there’s just no way to do all the research neccessary to make only moral buying decisions without devoting your entire life to it. This is further complicated by having to research whetehr the different companies providing tehse services are THEMSELVES honest,up-to-date, etc.
The fact is, few people use these types of services, but many many more people express concerns over these topics and vote accordingly. That seems like a very strong indication that they want to use political means to address these issues, rather than economic means… I’m not sure what the problem is.