Government Should not interfere with Business affairs.

December 14, 2019, 4:13 pm

Agree55 Disagree104

35%
65%

The debate "Government Should not interfere with Business affairs." was started by marky on December 14, 2019, 4:13 pm. By the way, marky is disagreeing with this statement. 55 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 104 people are on the disagree side. That might be enough to see the common perception. It looks like most people are against to this statement.

marky posted 17 arguments to the agreers part.
TheExistentialist posted 6 arguments, Nemiroff posted 3 arguments, Allirix posted 2 arguments to the disagreers part.

Nemiroff, Rosu, ShayGP, jrardin12, safalcon7 and 50 visitors agree.
Facundo4261Arg, Entropyrose, SayanDutta, TheExistentialist, marky, shadab_ansari, Juwilson, Dij748, Allirix, StrangeTime, Thandaza3, historybuff, Dez000, m_ahmed, Sparkytusk, Zucadragon, Anonymous42, eli, chinexs1ng, PisalRT, Fezile and 83 visitors disagree.

Allirix
replied to...

I mean, there are so many examples of businesses trying their hardest to avoid basic worker protections. I'm not sure what utopian fairytale you're living in.

The interests of the employee are not all the same as the interests of the employer. It's far too idealistic to assume a fair arrangement will be reached when most employer-employee relationships have an asymmetrical power balance. The employer has far more leverage over the lives and well-being of the employees.

1 week, 2 days ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

what are you basing the belief that most companies would take care of their workers on? wouldnt companies that try to take care of their employees suffer because competitors that don't care about their workers have lower costs and can offer lower prices?

what happened in the past before regulations or today in industries that arent regulated? do companies without mandate usually care for their customers and workers?

1 week, 5 days ago
marky
replied to...

Ok I do agree that workers should be safe, I do not agree with the fact that (some companies will take short cuts.) Most do try to make sure workers are safe. Those regulations would not interfere with there business cause its not controlling how they do business. I do think some is necessary but not all.

1 week, 6 days ago
TheExistentialist
replied to...

There is no problem in my book; however, you should have a problem with them since they're government interfering with business. Forcing a contractor to build a roof to certain snow load tolerances definitely interferes with their profit margin, forcing them to insulate electrical wires cuts into their profits, having to have inspectors come out for each stage of foundation setting, framing, and finishing, etc... causes delays in the build and can eat into profits, etc....

Also; how do you feel about anti-discrimination laws in business (i.e. you can't fire a pregnant woman because she takes maternity leave, you can't fire someone because they become ill, you can't discriminate based on sex, religion, race, sexuality, etc...)? These are all examples of government interfering with business.

"Safety regulations don't actually help businesses. They help a worker"
They help the workers, but not the business. They add cost to business. In the days of no-government regulation, work place injuries were very common. It was better for business since they could simply fire an injured worker and replace him with a new one. So, in terms of profit, it was better for a business to not worry about safety regulations.

The same goes for environmental regulations. It's a lot cheaper to just dump waste into the rivers than dispose of it properly.

4 months, 1 week ago
Allirix
replied to...

A regulation is an artificial limit (the free market wouldn't impose) placed on an activity to achieve a specific goal. Safety regulations restrict freedom to maximise safety.

You're right. Safety regulations help the worker and the customer, but hurt a business's bottom line. That's why safety regulations must be enforced by a government, otherwise businesses would take shortcuts. That's why we're discussing them in a debate about government interference.

Safety regulations aren't the training certifications, they're the requirement to have certification. They're the building codes that protect us from houses collapsing 5 years after they're built when the business that built them no longer exists. They're the drug protections that let us know the stuff we're putting in our body has medically active ingredients and is not just a placebo. Theyre the food protections that help us eat healthy. And so much more.

If you're against government regulation in all its forms you're against safety regulations, customer protections, and employee protections. Absolute rejection of government interference leads you to anarchy, a dysfunctional and unstable political structure that has a power struggle that inevitably leads to serfdom.

If there are government interferences you agree with, and ones you don't agree with then you have a more nuanced and balanced view of government. But that's not the argument your posing. Your arguments are confusing and give the impression you don't quite understand what government interference is.

4 months, 1 week ago
marky
replied to...

Safety regulations don't actually help businesses. They help a worker.


"You also haven't addressed building codes (wind tolerances, snow loads tolerances, foundation regulations, electrical insulation and codes, etc...)"

What is the problem with them?

4 months, 1 week ago
marky
replied to...

it is not... It's training people so they can be safe. Even if you thought it helps Businesses it's not interference with what deals they make. Rather than telling them who they can and can't hire. Rather them giving workers an advantage. Plus, with or without it. They would receive training anyway. Just not as beneficial.

Also not interfering of whom people hire. As long as Gov. It's not a regulation made specifically for business. Rather for the people just for a little more work experience.

4 months, 1 week ago
TheExistentialist
replied to...

How do safety regulations help business? It's much more profitable to just skip safety equipment and make employees pay for their own safety equipment.

You also haven't addressed building codes (wind tolerances, snow loads tolerances, foundation regulations, electrical insulation and codes, etc...)

4 months, 1 week ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

arent certification requirements a form of government interference?

4 months, 1 week ago
marky
replied to...

Same thing as I said to Allrisk. It's rather helping and individual not interference with a business.

4 months, 1 week ago
marky
replied to...

You mean when people get there training right, I will admit it does help people. It's not a regulation that really interferes with a business but rather an individual training.

4 months, 1 week ago
TheExistentialist
replied to...

It sounds like you just don't know what government's role in regulating business actually is,

OSHA is a government entity that has inspectors on staff that come in and evaluate safety precautions mandated by them. They also have staff that studies rates and causes of workplace injuries and come up with solutions to fight those.

As for building inspectors, the code enforcement is usually done my the municipality in which a building is erected and are staffed by the local government. The contractors pay a portion of the cost.

" Isn't ocean dumping caused by the U.S? Yes we should stop Ocean Dumping"
Sure, but it's illegal and if inspectors catch you, you will be paying huge fines for the cleanup. No system is going to prevent 100% of all "bad" actors, but it can curb them. EPA inspectors can trace sources of contamination in order to find perpetrators. Go look up The Cuyahoga fires to see what unchecked pollution can do. Arguably the EPA's success is it's biggest hurdle since we don't often think that we need it anymore. But if we look back on a time before the EPA we can clearly see how impactful it's work has been.

"Some may does that mean they should stop making what they make cause one person got sick? You don't know until you realise how many accidents or sickness happens within that company. Guess what, You can get sick from eating healthy too. To much of something is bad for you. Coffee, water etc. None of these things are guaranteed to be safe completely. Now amount of government control can save that."
again; I don't think you understand how things like OSHA work. When we talk about workplace safety we're talking about things like forklift operators have to have certain licenses in order to operate them, construction companies must provide safety vests and helmets for employees, guard rails for highway construction project have to withstand "x" amount of force before failure, electrical workers must be provided with safety equipment, air testing must be done in coal mines, etc.... OSHA studies work place injuries and accidents and then uses industry experts to come up with solutions to prevent these types of injuries. They're not there to protect you from the flue or too much coffee. They are there to prevent catastrophic injuries or accidents.

4 months, 2 weeks ago
Allirix
replied to...

That last point your made is the entire reason proactive safety regulations exist.

4 months, 2 weeks ago
marky
replied to...

I'm not entirely sure, but they aren't paid by consumers or the owners. Home inspectors are paid over 50.000$ I believe. They aren't paid by the one being inspected but by the one wanting to inspect them. So It depends on who hired them. As for Occupational health and safety specialists, they earn over 60.000 I don't know who hires them. Not by a random consumer.


"--So you'd have things like FDA food inspectors, FDA cGMP inspectors, EPA inspectors to check dumping, OSHA to check worker safety, etc... How is this any different from what is happening now?"

I'm not sure what you are getting at. What is happening now? Isn't ocean dumping caused by the U.S? Yes we should stop Ocean Dumping. I am not saying they are different. It's what they are there for. Are you saying you don't trust them? That's fine, but how can you prove a work environment isn't safe if you're not working there. Or your food that your eating is bad but your not getting sick from it. Some may does that mean they should stop making what they make cause one person got sick? You don't know until you realise how many accidents or sickness happens within that company. Guess what, You can get sick from eating healthy too. To much of something is bad for you. Coffee, water etc. None of these things are guaranteed to be safe completely. Now amount of government control can save that.

4 months, 3 weeks ago
TheExistentialist
replied to...

"No, Inspectors are not paid by consumers."
---Then who are they paid by? Businesses? Why would they pay for inspectors? Will they be mandated by law? Isn't that government "interference"/regulation?

"They are only for public services to insure you that what is being sold is ok"
--So you'd have things like FDA food inspectors, FDA cGMP inspectors, EPA inspectors to check dumping, OSHA to check worker safety, etc... How is this any different from what is happening now?

5 months ago
marky
replied to...

"So you're proposing that for every purchase, every consumer has pay an inspector rather than requiring businesses to produce safe and reliable products?....That seems like an insane amount of resources needing to be spent by the consumer for every purchase. So under your model I'd have to have every piece of food inspected, every car inspected, every electronic inspected, every restaurant inspected, etc.... Furthermore, I'd have to have every inspector inspected since there would be no actual safety standard and so we'd have to verify the inspection process of every inspector first and the standard to which they hold every product. What's to stop an inspector from telling you a house is OK to buy even though it has tons of mold?'

No, Inspectors are not paid by consumers. It's not insane to have an inspector to observe every car and every food Inspected. To say that's absorbed and yet complaining about business not selling safe products or not having a safe work place yet complain about Inspectors inspecting these products are inspected to see if they can harm the other person. If it doesn't then its safe. The inspector does not buy or sell. They are only for public services to insure you that what is being sold is ok, they may miss something.

5 months ago

rather then debate hypotheticals, we can look to a time during the second industrial revolution when laissez faire policies were actually the policy.

chalk in milk
fake medicine
child labor
workers losing limbs with zero compensation
contruction site fatalities

that is what a 3rd world country looks like.
its very easy to use shortsighted logic to suggest oversimplified solutions, but reality is rarely so simple.

5 months ago
TheExistentialist
replied to...

"The consumers choice if the actually want to make a deal or buy a product that they want. That's why there are people called inspectors. They can inspect wether if the product is safe or not. That's why they are around"
So you're proposing that for every purchase, every consumer has pay an inspector rather than requiring businesses to produce safe and reliable products?....That seems like an insane amount of resources needing to be spent by the consumer for every purchase. So under your model I'd have to have every piece of food inspected, every car inspected, every electronic inspected, every restaurant inspected, etc.... Furthermore, I'd have to have every inspector inspected since there would be no actual safety standard and so we'd have to verify the inspection process of every inspector first and the standard to which they hold every product. What's to stop an inspector from telling you a house is OK to buy even though it has tons of mold?

How about financial firms? You'd have no such thing as fiduciary responsibilities, so every investment firm and bank could do what is best for their bottom line not what's best for your financial future. You'd have to hire someone to verify every transaction they make on your behalf.

"They are easy to tell off anyway. If they come to your house and ask how your water is, you can either say yes or no. You can deny the service of others. We have these things called contracts. They can have you sign a contract agreeing to the terms on the paper your signing. If you didn't sign the paper, you haven't agreed."
Since we have LLC's, the owners of contracting firms are protected from liability. So any contractor you hire could simply do shotty work and leave you stuck with the bill since if they close up shop, you have no legal recourse.

"Would a child have to drink the paint, or the paint have a strong smell for them to be effected by it?"
lead paint is usually harmful when ingested (pain flakes etc...). Asbestos causes cancer by inhaling the dust.

How do you address worker safety? labor laws (wage conflicts, child labor laws, etc...)?; how would monopolies be addressed without government oversight?; how would consumer protections be in place since obviously having every piece of food you ever eat inspected and tested is not feasible.? How would you address national embargos? How do you keep companies from polluting the environment and local drinking waters (we'd get more river fires like we had in 1969)?

5 months ago
Allirix
replied to...

Inspectors are either optional or government enforced.

5 months ago
Allirix
replied to...

Very few boycotts have led to changes. Most boycotts lack a sustained effort and people lose interest or stop paying attention.

In practice, most boycotts achieve the more modest goal of attracting media attention. There are, however, hundreds of calls for boycotts each year, and most accomplish very little.

Boycotts are rarely the precipitating factor for change. Rather, they bring attention to an issue and signal the magnitude and intensity with which a group feels a particular way. If a group isn't large enough to have an economic impact on a business and their trading partners there's not going to be a change. We see that already. It will be worse if we removed the government as a watchdog

5 months ago
marky
replied to...

"How would you possibly protect consumers under your model from unethical business practices? How would you possibly keep companies from destroying the environment? How would you enforce national security interests like trade embargoes? How would you protect labor from being exploited? How would you curb monopolies? How would you ensure medications are safe and do what the company says they'll do? How would you keep buildings up to a safe living standard without building codes? How do you keep banks from becoming predatory?"

The consumers choice if the actually want to make a deal or buy a product that they want. That's why there are people called inspectors. They can inspect wether if the product is safe or not. That's why they are around

5 months ago
marky
replied to...

"Water treatment plants wouldn't be required to actually treat the water, they could charge you a fee and send sewage through your pipes.

Contractors could come in without license or insurance, ruin your house, close up shop, reopen under a different name and you'd have no recourse."

They are easy to tell off anyway. If they come to your house and ask how your water is, you can either say yes or no. You can deny the service of others. We have these things called contracts. They can have you sign a contract agreeing to the terms on the paper your signing. If you didn't sign the paper, you haven't agreed. As long as you didn't sign anything, You haven't agreed.

5 months ago

"Water treatment plants wouldn't be required to actually treat the water, they could charge you a fee and send sewage through your pipes."

The idea would be they can charge how much they want. Depending how much plumbing cost. we're do waters for home owners come from anyway?

5 months ago

"They'd even be allowed to put asbestos into your building and wouldn't have to tell you, use lead based paint, etc... And you couldn't do anything about it when your get cancer or your children have severe brain damage."

Would a child have to drink the paint, or the paint have a strong smell for them to be effected by it?

5 months ago

wether its liability or not, government can only get involved if a law was broken.


your second paragraph, what is the argument... is it that people would not afford enough do to Government would not interfering on how business handles there customers?

5 months ago
TheExistentialist
replied to...

You can only Sue if you can prove liability. If there is no building code, ordinance, worker safety regulations, then there is no neglect or wrongdoing by the company thus no liability.

This applies to all industries. You could buy a house that is literally built on no foundation, with cardboard insulation, no code compliant electrical work (since there would be no building codes), a leaky roof, or a gas line that's leaking and too close to a stove, etc... Your entire family could die and you'd have absolutely no recourse.

They'd even be allowed to put asbestos into your building and wouldn't have to tell you, use lead based paint, etc... And you couldn't do anything about it when your get cancer or your children have severe brain damage.

Water treatment plants wouldn't be required to actually treat the water, they could charge you a fee and send sewage through your pipes.

Contractors could come in without lisence or insurance, ruin your house, close up shop, reopen under a different name and you'd have no recourse.


How would you possibly protect consumers under your model from unethical business practices? How would you possibly keep companies from destroying the environment? How would you enforce national security interests like trade embargoes? How would you protect labor from being exploited? How would you curb monopolies? How would you ensure medications are safe and do what the company says they'll do? How would you keep buildings up to a safe living standard without building codes? How do you keep banks from becoming predatory?

5 months ago
marky
replied to...

No, That would be a case of accident and the persons family would probably sue. Sense this was probably an accident the killing was not intentional. Government might get involved only by Sueing the company that was responsible for the wall falling.

So, Government interference would only require about how the murder would happen. nothing to do with business. If you thought the crime was committed on purpose, that would only be speculation. Plus, was it a by standard that died? If so, then Government can only get involved with the killed person and why that person died. This is a case of an accident. Certain regulations that keep companies from making the best move is bad. Which is government interfering with business. The killing of that person wasn't may involve the business. It's only gonna be an accident. So, Government should not I interfere on what they do, cause maybe that guy wasn't being safe and should not have been so close to the wall in the first place.

5 months ago

i remember reading the other week about a person killed when a piece of a building broke off and crushed them. the building owner was even ordered to make the repairs, and put up a scaffold, months prior, but did not.

without government intervention, this and worse would be a far more common occurrence. complaining about certain regulations, like affirmative action, is certainly valid, but dismissing government regulations of businesses altogether is naive and ignorant of history. laissez faire was the government policy of the second industrial revolution.

5 months ago
marky
replied to...

OK, so you agree?

5 months ago

Some people don't believe in God. They believe governments are gods and will commit suicide if the government they worship collapse. They would force all of mankind to work for their government if they could.

5 months ago

now for example.

You ever heard of Affirmative Action? This allows a black person to be hired despite they may not be qualified. This was established by the Government. Which means if there is a spot open for hire. And this was established in the 1960 and still around. The idea was sense the colored didn't have any rights, I guess they couldn't get hired cause they weren't white.

Now sense we past the civil right movement, its still around. Not to mention it was only gone to blacks and not other colored people. The black weren't the only ones without rights in the U.S in the 1960.

Now fast-forward 2019, if a company has a job open. The one with the most experience and knowledge and are good at there job should be hired. Yet the other person gets hired cause he's black. All because Affirmative action is there saying that you can't hire the other guy because by affirmative action the Black has to be hired all because Government implemented it and it actually effects the persons life that actually deserve the spot. No matter there colored.

this is Government interference and disallowing the business to make the best move for their Company by hiring the more qualified person yet is stopped by a rule placed by the Government in which the aren't allowed too. That's bad.

5 months ago
marky
replied to...

I believe it to be good because any government interference can screw anything up. People were allowed to make there own choices as they choose to pick their product. If Government should not interfere with Businesses because you would be disallowing them to make a product based on the idea of competition. Which means that Businesses would be competing for a certain thing they are trying to cell to a consumer that is better and at a lesser price. One of the reasons Capitalism is good for our country. Allowing business owners to make a profit not only in this country but out side of it.

Even if the government believed that they were selling something Illegal. They would have to have the proof to know that and if they don't and only speculation then the Government should not interfere. Also why back then, people can pick and choose what they want. Whether its a deal, to buy to sell, or to be hired. The idea of profits or the Business people establish and make policies and deals with others is all supported by freedom of choice. People should be smart enough to make there own decisions. If Government interfere on who they can hire or what they can sell, your actually disallowing them to actually make the best move for there company to make which they may think is best suited for them.

5 months ago

If we didn't have government interfere with business, we'd be back to laissez fair markets.

That means no consumer protections (predatory lending would be legal, etc...); We'd have no health department that regulated restaurant safety; no OSHA for worker protection, no labor laws (child labor would be legal); no guarantee for maternity leave or disability, etc... No regulations on pharmaceutical claims (i.e. I could sell sugar pills and claim their chemo drugs, claim that magnets are clinically proven to cure autism, or any other wild claim); toxic industrial waste could be legally dumped anywhere; monopolies would be legal; companies could do businesses with enemy States so the US couldn't enforce trade embargoes with countries like north Korea; military weapons manufacturers could sell weapons to anyone; unsafe/undisclosed chemicals/materials could be in our foods, cleaning products, etc....

Yeah this seems like a bad idea

5 months ago

Why do you think Government should interfere with Businesses.

5 months ago
Discuss "Government Should not interfere with Business affairs. " others politics
Add an argument!
Use the arrow keys to navigate between statements. Press "A" to agree and press "D" to disagree.