Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: neolib who wrote (7867)	12/21/2005 8:38:06 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542060

But defining good greed vs. bad greed provides no mechanism for achieving one over the other I don't think there is good greed and bad greed. IMO, and according to the Webster definition, all greed is bad. That article notwithstanding, Rand is not about greed. I read the good greed bit as tongue in cheek. Note the praise of corporations, and the bashing of governments. The reason corporations are praised is that they produce stuff. This is a good thing. The reason government is bashed is because it over-regulates. This is a bad thing. If you think that making profits is somehow inherently bad, and a lot of people do, then you're not receptive to libertarianism. Corporations have a role to play. They play it by maximizing profits. People judge them on other criteria but other criteria are peripheral if not irrelevant. Corporations are like defense lawyers. Lots of people don't like criminal defense lawyers, either, because they defend guilty and sometimes horrid people. But that's their role to play. For corporations and defense lawyers, there are other checks and balances and they do their jobs best if they play their roles to the hilt while others play theirs. It's no more bad than a cat chasing a mouse is bad. It's simply what they do. If by some magic we could make everyone good, we would not need laws. No one is suggesting that everyone needs to be good and no one is suggesting we do not need laws. It's a question of which things are the province of the government and amenable to laws. Of course we have laws to protect people against violence and fraud. But when you start thinking about the government's role in keeping your kid from choosing a career in prostitution, you're into over-regulation, collectivism, social engineering, nannyism and the rest. The government has no proper role in the career choice of individuals.

To: neolib who wrote (7867)	12/21/2005 8:43:00 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 542060

If by some magic we could make everyone good, we would not need laws. And if by some magic we could make everyone good we wouldn't have to worry about people apply laws against us. Its not only the people the laws apply to who are flawed but also the people making the laws. . Yet our government is democratic, while corporate leadership is much less so. Corruption can exist in either place, but I would suspect more where there is less accountability. If a corporation doesn't do a good job you can usually give your business to its competitor. That isn't as much of a factor with a government. Sure you can elect the current politician's opponent but you have to wait for awhile to do that, and you have to get enough people to agree with you. And even then you are not going to a competitor government but rather just getting rid of one crocked, incompetent or otherwise bad politician. You can sue a company for abuses and illegal activity. You can bring suit against the government, but your ability to do so is somewhat limited and if you do win a judgment it just gets paid with tax money, in other words everyone pays not the guilty party. Tim