Corporations need more government regulation.
Debate Rounds (3)
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 forfeited this round.
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".
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?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Relativist 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||2|
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.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.