Yes. You are correct. From a practical standpoint, (1) regulation is not going away and (2) the law needs to differentiate between the two. Unfortunately, no one is really calling for that because big business is what funds their campaigns.

Often, I am speaking from an ideological standpoint. I should do a post from a practical standpoint, ie the practical steps toward less intrusive government that we can take in the real world situation we are currently in.

I have to say, if most cons thought that way, this country would be a much better place.

Yes, corporations are composed of people, but the corporation acts as an entity unto itself. And often in the quest for profit, these are not people that have society’s interests at heart, especially when it conflicts with the bottom line. The actions of an organization of people is not necessarily the same as the people themselves. I mean no offense, but you sound naive about this, especially for the fact that you had your own crappy experiences. The real bottom line is that as history shows us time and time again, many big corps cannot be trusted to do the right thing, and if they could be, yues, we wouldn’t need regulation.

And, regarding small business.. in light of the fact that regulation is not going away, the regulations could be fairer in the way they differentiate between big and small business.

I said, “To some extent, the government is protecting us from pollution the way it protects us from foreign invaders or thieves, etc.”

Meaning: there has to be some way for the government to protect us from the very real harm of pollution. I don’t have all the answers, but I would probably take the form of criminal and civil penalties for causing the harm. As with other crimes that harm people, the perpetrator of said crime is punished when the crime is committed.

“And by that logic, should people’s behaviors not be regulated either?”

This is why people have considered my views “libertarian.” I do not think behavior should be regulated, if you are referring to the hot-buttons of gay marriage and abortion, which I assume you are.

Bottom line, I have the typical conservative views (abortion is murder, marriage is between a man and a woman), but I do not think the government should be the tool used to force those views on other people.

The one area that I am typical conservative on is parental notification because I view that as a parents’ rights issue.

It’s funny to me that you keep separating corporations and citizens. Are not the people who run corporations citizens? I guess where we differ is that I still see them as people. Which is funny considering how crappy I was treated as an employee at a certain mega-bank that I used to work at. Man, those people were heartless.

I know that people keeping their eye on the bottom line can do really bad things, but the system should be set up to punish the wrong doers, not everyone.

It’s the same with homeschool regulation in VT. We are all seen as abusive, educationally-negligent parents, until we prove otherwise.

Laws should be written in favor of innocence, unless proven otherwise.

And it is totally false that regulation does not punish small business as a norm. Regulation is what causes starting a business to be so costly in the first place. Until the internet came along, Average Joe could not just start a business. Now the government is starting to regulate that.

My husband’s uncle said at Thanksgiving that I should start selling baked goods out of my home, since they were so good. Well, I can’t. The cost of meeting all of the regulations would make it impossible for someone in my situation.

There is also this post and this post that I did on two other examples.

Granted, those are anecdotal and could be viewed as exceptions, but the fact is, government regulation adds a cost to doing business that hurts small business and start-ups more than the big guys.

Try looking at it like a regressive tax. Now does it make sense?

Now as you might have figured out from some of my writings, I’m hardly a typical thought police/we need to protect everyone from themselves kind of liberal. But, like pure socialism, what you espouse goes under a flawed human assumption: that people will always do the right thing. Corporations don’t exist for the common good (they used to: and they could have their charters revoked if they screwed up). They exist for profit, nothing else. And when in the pursuit of profit with no regulation, the sky’s the limit in the bad behavior that can happen. Are you not concerned about this? And by that logic, should people’s behaviors not be regulated either?

You are so close to getting why I think the way I do. (That’s not to say you will agree.)

“Yes, but when corporations have a huge part in drafting those very laws that govern them, you don’t see a problem there?”

The only way to get the corporations out of the process of drafting law is to get the government out of the process of regulating corporations.

When someone is affected by a law, that person or group should have a say. I see nothing wrong with that. Their interests need to be heard. The governed be heard by the government.

On a local level it works that way. If there is a zoning decision or a regulation that will affect a certain group, they get to testify. As it should be. (Yes, I know there is often money involved on the federal level, but it is the same principle.)

The problem is that the corporations are then able to help craft the law in a way that it does (sort of) do what the government wants, but it also gives them the advantage over small business.

The system does not work. Getting corporations out of the process is not the answer. For one, it would mean regulations and laws that would impact them that they would have no say in and be unable to offer their perspective on. That is wrong. It gives the government too much power. The second problem is that the regulation is the problem. The government would still be attempting social engineering through law, which doesn’t work! It would still have all of the unintended negative consequences that are characteristic of our government bureaucracies.

And, you’re right, I am opposed to government money for R&D or any other reason – bailouts, whatever.

It seems like you don’t feel threatened by the ever increasing corporate power and the danger is poses, and that they should pretty much keep doing what they’re doing, regardless of how it affects society.

Does big Pharma deserve the R&D subsidies it gets from the govt? I would assume you’d be opposed to that kind of govt handout, right?

A corporation is still bound by law – as are the people that make it up. The government makes the law and can change it to suit the needs of those in power.

Yes, but when corporations have a huge part in drafting those very laws that govern them, you don’t see a problem there? The government can change the law to suit the needs of those in power? Who is in power? Certainly not the interests of ordinary citizens.

If you get a chance, hop over to my blog and check out the link to the David Sirota article on the free-market fundamentalism you seem to be so fond of; it’s pretty interesting.

“Well, many multinationals are more powerful than the government.”

I disagree. A corporation, no matter how big, is just a business that relies on consumers to purchase their products or services. A government can take property – a corporation cannot. A government can imprison – a corporation cannot. A government can lawfully kill – a corporation cannot.

A corporation is still bound by law – as are the people that make it up. The government makes the law and can change it to suit the needs of those in power.

Apples and oranges.

Consider this: Think about the biggest, baddest, most powerful corporation. Got it? The government right now can freeze all of its assets, seize all of its property, and imprison all of its shareholders. Who’s more powerful?

And “Big Pharma” is a producer of products – products that have a cost to them. The government has no right to force by rule of law any individual company to sell its products at a price the government determines – especially if it is below the cost of the goods.

Besides, Wal-Mart (and some other retailers) already has shown that an individual business can negotiate prices without the force of government. There is no need for it.

Of course the real problem is that the government is a mass purchaser of drugs in the first place.

Price gouging and environmental protection are two different things.

Price gouging:

There is no such thing. A price is what it is – the amount people are willing to pay for a good or service. When circumstances dictate a higher price, a higher price is the result.

Although there are times when it might seem wrong for a higher price to be charged – as in a natural disaster – more often the price caps set by the government make that problem worse.

I would suggest reading anything on the subject by Thomas Sowell for my view on the subject. After all, he would be the one with the Ph. D. in Economics, not me.

Here’s a link to get you started.

Environmental Protection:

Here it gets a little tricky. In this case, individuals can cause harm to people in a hard to measure way. To some extent, the government is protecting us from pollution the way it protects us from foreign invaders or thieves, etc.

The problem comes from the fact that regulation also harms the individual’s liberty. I am especially concerned where legislation designed to protect us from big companies hurts small businesses.

I am by no means an expert in free-market environmentalist thought. The fact is though that the government is extremely limited in what it can – or will – do, and even more limited in the efficacy of what is does do.

I have no doubt that more productive, useful, practical, and effective solutions would come from the market. People, not governments, are the innovators. People today care about the environment. (Even a staunch conservative like me.) Why do you think the only way people will do something about it is through power of government?

Ok, so, being so anti-regulation, how do you propose we reign in corporate abuse? How do we keep them from polluting and price gouging? Please don’t say ‘voluntary’ measures, those are a joke. This free-market fundamentalism b.s. goes under the assumption that somehow corporations will ‘do the right thing’ and we will all benefit. How much longer do you propose we wait for that to happen? Or is it just something we just have to tolerate?

Do you agree with the idea of corporate ‘personhood’, i.e. that corporations have the same rights as real people?

p.s. How was your holiday?

That is so funny. I was just doing yet another post about big government and big business.

Who are these libertarians? You have said that before. From what I see, libertarians still understand that government regulation is part of the problem.

And exactly how are corporations as large of a threat as the state itself? I don’t see that as a statement that needs no further support.