The Instigator
Colin501
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
Sky55Anchorage
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points

Corporations need more government regulation.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Colin501
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/23/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 858 times Debate No: 60856
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

Colin501

Pro

Corporations are in the business of creating profits. This is their sole purpose and profit is what drives all of their decisions. Corporations are not in the business of making moral decisions and if they engaged in moral decisions they would be betraying their shareholders. Moral decisions and decisions regarding quality of life, safety, or environment are the business of governments and by letting corporations self-regulate we are putting our survival and quality of life at risk.
Sky55Anchorage

Con

I gladly accept this debate on Corporations need more government regulation. It's a great topic in which I am very intrigued. I look forward to my opponents reasons for increased government regulation; and I also look forward to expressing my reasons against more regulation.

Let's begin!

Sky55Anchorage
Debate Round No. 1
Colin501

Pro

My position is a simple and logical one it is based on the following:

1.Many businesses actually list in their mission statement that their primary objective is shareholder returns or building shareholder value. There is no reason to doubt that they are being honest when they say this and I hope that all are in agreement on this point. Example: Lantic Inc, a Canadian Sugar producer, lists as its mission statement, "Our mission is to maximize shareholder value by being a high performance organization, supported by proud employees and focused on operational excellence and customer loyalty." It has to be noted that absent from the business"s mission statement is something like: Our mission is to get to the bottom of the thousands of mysterious early deaths and appalling working conditions that are occurring in sugar-cane farms in developing countries as well as researching the link between sugar and poor youth health outcomes in developed countries.

2.Further to this, many shareholders are foreign in relation to where business activities take place and therefore do not have a stake in the long term health of the communities where business takes place. Example: Many people with shares in apple are not aware of the fact that in one of the factories in Asia, nets had to be installed on the building in order to stop workers escaping poor working conditions by jumping to their death.

3.Businesses do not employ moral philosophers to make decisions but instead employ accountants, actuaries, engineers, and business administrators to make decisions. The decisions made are made for the benefit of shareholder returns. If you consider that psychopathy in CEOs runs at about 4 times what it does in the general population, and that CEOs are rewarded financially when shareholder returns go up, and that CEOs make important business decisions, it isn"t hard to see the need for tight government regulations. Example: The BP disaster has now been found to be the result of a company self-regulating and a lack of government regulation.

4.If shareholder returns are the primary objective, then it follows that it is necessary for a business to exploit any possible loophole in, or absence of, regulations in order to maximize profit. Example: Joe Fresh clothing line and the Bangladesh factory disaster.

I have yet to hear a fund manager stand up and say "I"m sorry about the low returns this quarter, but our factory workers in XYZ Banana Republic are reporting much more satisfying lives with our new work/life balance program and new dental and pension programs. Or, "Sorry about the low returns this quarter, but we managed to cut our mine site in half and save a rare turtle species."

Where else can the really important regulations come from other than government?
Sky55Anchorage

Con

Sky55Anchorage forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Colin501

Pro

There was no challenge to my second-round submission and therefore I suggest that nothing contained within it is challenged.

I will now move to the well documented fact that mining and other companies that are based in Western Democracies behave in ways that plainly demonstrates that they require more government regulation.

It is a fact that a company based in Britain, Australia, the United Sates, or Canada etc, will behave one way in their native country (because of government regulation) and an entirely different way in, say, Africa or the Philippines (because of a lack of regulation). The fact that these companies will follow labour and environmental laws in their own countries and then involve themselves in disgusting practices abroad proves that the only thing stopping corporations from descending into slavery, land theft, child labour, and other profitable enterprises is government regulation. In fact, they have been credibly accused of some of these very things in developing countries.

I think it can be accurately asserted that any corporation"s behavior will only be as elevated as the government regulations that they operate under. Corporations do not even behave as well as they should in modern democracies and their behavior can be appalling and ruthless in countries where there are no enforced regulations.

For the above reasons, I submit that government regulations are the only thing that can protect people, property, human rights, the environment, animals and their habitat, quality of life, and corporations, from corporations.

Finally, I believe that I have established that corporations do require government regulations. And from the track record (recent and past) of many large corporations, it is doubtful there would be a credible argument stating that more regulation is not required. I don"t think anyone can say that we have just the right amount now, and I really don"t think anyone could produce a credible argument demonstrating that less regulation is required now.

In order for my opponent to defeat my argument, he will have to show that all corporations currently conduct themselves in a manner that is for the greater good and are so endowed with an innate sense of conscience that further government regulation is not required. I assume he will not attempt to defend the likes of BP - a corporation that was found guilty of lying to congress and plead guilty to 14 criminal charges related to the deaths of 11 workers and one of the worst environmental disasters in history.

Do corporations need more government regulation? The answer is yes. Please vote to support to support the PRO side of "Corporations Need More Government Regulation".
Sky55Anchorage

Con

I only have one side to make. Most people would argue that Corporations own large parts of Government. The US Government, States Governments, and even Governments overseas. Why? Because only government can legally create a monopoly, control prices, hinder competition, and garner favors. So why would anyone think that giving governments more power would make things better? Giving government more power only gives the corporations who control it more power. There is a false idea that the major corporations, the ones you are referring to, hate any regulations. That's not true. The hate regulations that interfere with profit. However, no matter how costly regulations may be, they are no match for the largest and most powerful regulation in the world: competition. You see, Mega Corporations love regulations that prevent competition. How does this work? Take the new Affordable Care Act or ACA/Obamacare. It was sold to the public that it would protect people from the evil and greedy insurance and pharmaceutical corporations. The ACA is hundreds of pages long. Guess who wrote it. Politicians? Doctors? Consumer advocates? Nope. The insurance companies themselves. Think about it. The Federal Government mandated that EVERYONE purchase healthcare. What company wouldn't want to control that power? Environmental laws? Written by the very companies who violate it. Why? Why would an Oil Company support a law that would force them to pay millions if not BILLIONS in fines? Because they know only they could and survive. Small and even moderately large corporations would go bankrupt, or refuse to take the risk. That's the biggest problem. Regulations prevent people from taking risks and creating new companies. I understand the fear of removing all regulations. The Fear that Exxon or General Electric would start creating even more massive environmental disasters than they already are. My main point is that if the Government had not gotten involved long ago, corporations like Exxon and General Electric would not be as large as it is today.

So what do we do? We need to remove all regulations that hinder start up companies. ALL of them. Throw competition into the market. Scary sounding of moving from 6 Oil Companies, to hundreds. But we need to realize that these hundred oil companies would be 1/1000th the size of Exxon or BP. Individually they would be insignificant. But together, they would give the major oil companies a run for their money.

Environmental Regulations? Keep them the same as it is. Anyone, not just corporations, need to be responsible for damaging property they don't own.

Start removing power over businesses from the Federal Govenrment. You stated that BP was caught lying to Congress. Nothing happened? Why? Because companies like BP own Congress. Why would you want to give Congress more power?

http://bastiat.mises.org...
http://archive.mises.org...
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Relativist 3 years ago
Relativist
"Lantic Inc, a Canadian Sugar producer, lists as its mission statement, "Our mission is to maximize shareholder value by being a high performance organization, supported by proud employees and focused on operational excellence and customer loyalty." It has to be noted that absent from the business"s mission statement is something like: Our mission is to get to the bottom of the thousands of mysterious early deaths and appalling working conditions that are occurring in sugar-cane farms in developing countries as well as researching the link between sugar and poor youth health outcomes in developed countries"

Good alternate. LOL
Posted by YYW 3 years ago
YYW
Excellent topic!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Relativist 3 years ago
Relativist
Colin501Sky55AnchorageTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:42 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct was for the forfeit. Pros case was based on disasters made by the companies all across the world, which Pro uses this to support Pro's argument. Con forfeited, as such allows Pro to expand his case towards the ecological sphere. Con's last attempt was by using the elitist theory, but without a full fledged rebuttals, Pros case stands. Cons contention was in the last round which pro is unable to due to round limits. The forfeit gave pro a slight edge in arguments for 2 reasons (a) Pro is unable to respond to cons last case (b)word limit(prob) limits cons ability to refute. As for sources, con had more accessible ones though the use of examples by pro was nevertheless a compelling one.