So, here's a question. It is ... inspired ... by recent events.
To what extent, if any, can a private corporation have responsibilities similar to a government?
I'll put my first thoughts in the comments, and will be hoping for disagreement!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Answer: They can be held to the same responsibility, as it is not the private/public distinction that matters towards responsibilities. That is a red herring that allows private companies to do what they will.
ReplyDeleteInstead, a corporation accrues responsibilities as its size and market share and importance grow. A billion-dollar home heat monopoly cannot shut off the gas in the winter, even if you do not pay. That is, they have a responsibility similar to that of a government, in making the citizens (and residents) do not die of the cold.
That is, greed is an insufficient excuse to allow people to die in this situation. The corporation has a responsibility similar to that of a government: to promote the general welfare, or something very similar.
As size, importance, and marketshare diminish, so too goes the similarity to government. I hold that it never goes away entirely -- which is why, initially, corporations had to show they existed for the public welfare. (at least, if the history channel taught me correctly).
That is, even small businesses in unimportant domains that have small market shares have some responsibility to act with decency. As these variables increase, so too goes the similarity to a government.
Online RPG pdf publishing is, to put it mildly, not important. I mean, its important to my happiness and to the livelihood of some really clever and creative people -- but its not exactly heat. A dominant player in such a marketplace would have a greater responsibility than a small one. Due to the industry, the relationship is quite small -- but extant.
(Also, I've stolen the Mallet of Loving Correction and will delete anything that supports rapey crap because I don't want to deal with it. This is meant to be a conversation of ideas, not necessarily of specifics.)
ReplyDeleteAre you talking about legal responsibilities or moral responsibilities? Because if you are talking legal responsibilities, you are incorrect. Corporations have no responsibility for the general welfare. That's something the Constitution tells the government it has to do. Corporations have responsibilities to their shareholders by virtue of their incorporation articles, and to their customers, employees, and others under state and federal laws that apply to them.
ReplyDeleteVivian Spartacus on the contrary, that's exactly why we have anti-trust laws and a variety of other corporate laws: to prevent corporations from acting strongly against the public interest. And yes, that's a lot of simplification, but that is the basic intent of these laws: to produce a marketplace in which corporations work in the public interest.
ReplyDeleteI think the case of a monopoly that provides an essential service is fairly straightforward, and is why heat companies must provide heat to those unable or unwilling to pay for it.
We have laws made by the government to protect the general welfare. But corporations don't have that general responsibility, they only have the responsibility to follow the laws that the government has made. And no, the intent of the laws is not at all to make a marketplace where corporations work in the public interest. The intent is to allow corporations to maximize profits, just not to the extent that they break the country entirely. Corporations are generally allowed to act in very unrestricted ways.
ReplyDeleteEssential services are more highly regulated, not because they are monopolies, but because they are classified as utilities. Special laws apply to utilities that don't apply to other corporations. Even those laws are a) not very restrictive and b) not well enforced.
Anti-trust laws are mostly designed not to protect the consumers, but to protect the marketplace. Monopolies are anti-competitive and the free market requires competition to function.
Yeah, I worked for a home heat company and we had no issues shutting off gas if people didn't pay, regardless of how vulnerable the customer or horrendous the weather.
ReplyDeleteThat, of course, is bad business. We cared only for the welfare of customers insomuch as happy, living customers spend money and attract more customers. Moral responsibilities are only there to protect capital at the end of the day. I don't work there anymore.
I think I have more thoughts on this, but I'm going to take time to parse.
Vivian Spartacus In any event -- and i realize this may come across as a terrible rhetorical trick, for which I apologize -- this isn't really meant to be about laws as written, despite my initially heading down that road.
ReplyDeleteRather, about our expectations of corporations and to what extent we can -- and maybe should -- hold them accountable. Whether that's through legal action, social action, or the expectation of a different standard.
And, yes, to what extent do we reasonably (which is very different from legally) expect corportations to act as an extension of the government.
Especially given the close relationship between our corporation and our government (again, blackwater), those companies that are often indistinguishable from the government have a strong responsibility to act a specific way.
One of the things government does well (at least according to Debt: The first 5,000 years) is to create markets. Corporations that create markets are treading onto responsibility of government. As such, again, other specific rules take place.
Also, I am more tired than I expected after PT. Please read with a charitable interpretation.
ReplyDeleteAgain, I'm not sure what sort of responsibilities you mean... You don't mean laws as written. But you are talking about reasonable expectations and then you are also talking about what we can do to change corporate behavior.
ReplyDeleteReasonably, we can expect corporations to act with no morality whatsoever. We can expect them to be short-sighted, even in regard to their own best interest. We can expect them to obey the law only when it is strictly enforced, and attempt to subvert it at all times, through fraud as well as through political lobbying and outright buying of votes. This is what happens today.
What tools do we have to change corporate behavior? Voting. Political lobbying of our own. Education. The free press. Boycotting. Class action lawsuits. Those are the big ones, really.
This is getting a bit far afield tho... I know you want to avoid detailed discussion of the current issue, but let's talk about a hypothetical small business that has cornered a very, very small niche market. First, there are no special laws that affect them due to their "monopoly" because it really isn't a monopoly as the law sees it. They aren't stifling competition, it's just a ridiculously small and unprofitable marketplace. Of the tools we have at our disposal, the big ones appear to be boycotting and the free press. We can talk about the problem in our community, and we can decide we don't want to be customers of that business.
We could also set up a rival company and use the dissatisfaction of the customer base to try to get them to come over and be our customers.
That's pretty much it. If we have expectations of the company beyond that, they are not terribly reasonable. They will only act to protect their own self-interest, and even then they will be short-sighted in doing so.
Vivian Spartacus That is a level of reference that is fine. I want to stay away from the situation at hand, primarily to avoid dealing with defensiveness on this particular issue. I'm much more interested in whether a corporation can censor, if this is censorship, and whether that is a bad thing than, say, any justification of the title that was removed. I think of each of those as separate questions, and this thread is meant to veer mainly towards the responsibilities of those who create a marketplace.
ReplyDeleteSo, I suppose, the question morphs into: When corporations act in the way Vivian Spartacus suggests, are they shirking an unwritten obligation?
ReplyDeleteLet me tackle that from a slightly different direction, if I may. Most of what I have said in this thread is pretty common knowledge among lawyers, politicians, and business folks. None of it is controversial. But it doesn't get talked about much, because there is a façade, encouraged by businesses, that companies care about their businesses, they care about their employers, and some of them care about other things, like the environment or America, etc. The truth behind this is that individual people who work for companies care about those things. But companies are not people (Citizens United notwithstanding). And when people act through a company, their individual ethical beliefs are often eroded, distorted, and pushed aside.
ReplyDeleteSo the question really is better stated, I think, are the employees and/or owners of a company shirking their obligations when their corporation acts in an unethical way? That's a really tough question. I think that the folks who run companies should be held responsible, yes. But should all the employees? No. Should the stockholders? Well, some of the time! It's very complicated to show where the blame lies, because the entire purpose of a corporation is to remove personal blame from the individuals that comprise it for anything the corporation does.
Now when our hypothetical small business is pretty much run and owned by a single person, it is easy to conflate the person with the business. And we can hold the person to an ethical responsibility that it is unreasonable to hold the company to. But we should be clear what we are doing.