Published on May 2, 2008 By Artysim In Politics

Many folks like to harp against the evils of big government and how all it does is create a stumbling block for industrious private business with endless reams of red tape, taxes and laws. In some regards, these complaints are entirely valid. But government organizations play a crucial role in our society. They exist to ensure the protection and best interest of the public, both physically and financially.

This necessity exists for a simple reason- someone's gotta be the traffic cop and private industry is too busy doing it's thing to worry about regulating itself. Most private businesses actually are very conscientious corporate citizens... they do indeed care about the big picture and the good of the nation. This mirrors private life- most citizens are good people who just want a good life for themselves and their loved ones. Just as police are necessary for general law and order in public, so too are they necessary in the corporate world. This is so for a couple reasons-

1) You will always have bad apples in any crowd. Basic human nature. Take a group of 100 people at random, most will be good but there will be a couple out there who, if given the chance or the knowledge that they would get away with it, would screw you over in a heartbeat for their own personal gain (many would argue that most lawyers and politicians fall into this class) In the business world when you have people breaking the rules it can oftentimes be significantly magnified by the vast sums of money involved- ie; Enron, their criminal actions in California and the thousands of employees and investors they knowingly lied to and mis-lead. The impact of hanky panky in a private company can have drastic negative consequences for the public sphere.

2) Quite often we can get so wrapped up in what we are doing that we don't notice the wider impact it's having. I like to think of this as the clueless driver who realizes they took the wrong exit and suddenly slows to a crawl on a freeway as they're trying to figure out where they are. It's not that they want to break the law, they're just so consumed with what they are trying to accomplish that they don't notice they are endangering the public. In this case enforcement isn't there to punish the clueless ones, but to hopefully educate them and most importantly to protect the public. Quite often this is a discovery process, as new technologies and techniques rolled out in the private sector can have unforeseen consequences.

Theory's all fine and well. Blah blah, lots of words. Let's see how it plays out in the real world. This week in Canada there were two instances that illustrate both points for the necessity of government regulation.

The 'bad apple' example occurred off the coast of Newfoundland, and the perpetrator was an international shipping company. A cargo hauler was found to be dumping their bilge oil directly in the ocean right off the coast. This is a bad thing because it screws up the marine ecology, kills birds and pollutes the shore line. When the vessel was boarded, a special pipe was found to have been installed that bypassed the bilge tank to dump directly in the ocean. A little explanation is in order- quite often, most developing nations will purchase bilge oil from tankers and use it for fuel. Here in Canada, it's too dirty for lawful use as a fuel so the ship has to pay a charge to have their bilge oil disposed of safely.

Rather than obey the law and pay a fee for waste disposal, they knowingly harmed the environment and dumped their sludge near the coast. This is an example of a guy who will screw you over if he can get away with it, and is why we need things like the coast guard and monitoring agencies to ensure the public is being protected from private interests that are only concerned with profits, all else be damned.

The other example occurred in Alberta's oilsands. This week hundreds of ducks and other birds have been found dead- after landing in tailings ponds from oil operations that lie along their migratory path. This isn't just affecting birds but other wildlife as well and there is always concern about things like water table contamination. These are tailings ponds for the effluent from Syncrude facilities, a major oil company that has invested billions in the oilsands project. Syncrude didn't create these ponds knowing that it would impact the local ecology this way (if they did, then that is a different story) and they are working in tandem with environmental agencies for a solution. This was a case in which Syncrude was busy doing what they do best, producing barrels of oil. In their drive to expand, there wasn't very detailed consideration given to the location and nature of the placement of these tailing ponds, and so now there is a negative impact on the public sphere. This further reinforces the need for impartial government monitoring and oversight- a private company may think it's operations are running just fine with no consideration for how they are affecting the bigger picture.

Does this kind of regulation apply across the board? No. Every industry is different, but still requires a third party to keep an eye on it!

 


Comments
on May 02, 2008
I totally agree. In many of these cases government is the only organisation we can legitimately trust to keep an eye out for the extreme cases. It may not be perfect, but it's better than nothing.
on May 02, 2008
I totally disagree (SHock!)

Seriously though, there is a fine line between regulating for the common good, and abusive regulations. For the most part, the functioning governments of this planet are abusive. Some regulations as you point out, are good - when the people consent. WHen they do not (as is the case in all governments today), they become abusive and anti-freedom. Governments by definition ARE the antithesis of freedom. A necessary evil, but one that should be very tightly regulated themselves.

Sadly, we have lost sight of that, and allow them to run our lives to the detriment of our freedom.
on May 02, 2008
WHen they do not (as is the case in all governments today), they become abusive and anti-freedom. Governments by definition ARE the antithesis of freedom. A necessary evil, but one that should be very tightly regulated themselves.


But if you look at countries where governance is weak (such as Sierra Leone, East Timor, etc) freedom is worthless because petty warlords and crime make commerce difficult and life incredibly harsh.

Government isn't the antithesis of freedom, but the vehicle through which freedom is given meaning and value. Without structure freedom is just the freedom to die a horrible and pointless death. It is, in sum, the freedom to live nasty, brutish and short lives.

Not many people would choose unbridled freedom over freedom given meaning through the social contract.
on May 02, 2008
"The government is best which governs least"

Regulations are necessary in order to prevent a revolting haves and have-nots situation. But the fewer of them needed to maintain a happy populace, the better. They hurt the economy.
on May 02, 2008

Not many people would choose unbridled freedom over freedom given meaning through the social contract.


I couldn't agree more.


Excellent.



I do think there is a middle area not covered here, to some extent.

I think a group of a hundred people with a few bad apples will work against those bad apples to get them in line when they can without gov intervention.

For example, JU. Lets say the Admins are the gov (sorry guys) and we the people of JU blog our little hearts content. Everything is going along well until a troll comes along, or someone starts acting out, whatever, but to the community's detriment.

The group will help weed out the trolls long before the Admins get involved.

Now when the group starts taking rights away, or getting cliquish and not allowing new members to prosper, then the gov comes in and monitors the situation, and sanctions when necessary. An unbiased 3rd party.

In the case of businesses, people can discipline a company by not buying their products.

I do believe the gov should be used as a last resort...but def has a role in public safety especially.
on May 03, 2008
But if you look at countries where governance is weak (such as Sierra Leone, East Timor, etc) freedom is worthless because petty warlords and crime make commerce difficult and life incredibly harsh.


THe ends meet in the middle. Look at France? WHere stating your opinion is met with jail terms. As I said, government is necessary, but IT should be tightly controlled. Sadly, that apathy of the people allow a few bureaucrats to indenture the population at large. It is happening in all the "free" countries, incrementally. Each time we pass a "feel good" law (Hate speech, safety, etc.) we lose a little more freedom. IN time, we have none.
on May 03, 2008

WHen they do not (as is the case in all governments today), they become abusive and anti-freedom. Governments by definition ARE the antithesis of freedom.

I'd rather be screwed over by big government than a corporation. Big government screws you over, there are all sorts of official channels and means of addressing your grievances. Corporation screws you over, they will deny any wrongdoing on their part as long as possible. Once a court case begins, they will draw it out in court as long as possible.

The key behind why government regulatory bodies are necessary is because they are accountable to the public... that means everyone. Private companies are only accountable to their shareholders, hence why a body is needed to make sure they don't screw over the public in the drive to bring about greater returns for their shareholders.

A couple weeks ago I was in Kingsville, Texas. Apparently there's uranium contamination in the water tables from a mine that's in the area (this is what I was told by the people I met who lived there, and there was an advisory notice in the hotel I stayed in Rivera stating that the water might not be okay to drink) basically they said there had been issues with spills and contaminated water leaking out. Their solution was that they don't drink the tap water and bring in bottled stuff. In a case like that, a private corporation endangering the well being of the public at large, that company should have been shut down! Instead they are still there, pulling in profit while the affected communities are now contaminated.

on May 03, 2008

I have no problem with governance as long as common sense is applied, what I have a problem with is handing my tax money over to people that for the most part never had to budget a thing in their lives. Could you imagine a person like Ted Kennedy worried about an electric bill? Lawyers are deciding where our money goes; I'd be more impressed if an economics or business degree were required for senators and congressmen, though that's no guarantee either. Let them make their never-ending list of laws as long as there are no monetary transactions involved. I know some coupon-cutting housewives that would do a better job with appropriations spending.

Oh and let’s give them an hourly wage, not to exceed the average amount in the state they are supposed to represent. Maybe that would cut down on the overly generous vacation time. Politics should be a service not a lucrative career. Some people might need their lives regulated day to day, I think most don’t.

on May 03, 2008
reedom is worthless because petty warlords and crime make commerce difficult and life incredibly harsh.


As opposed to now where petty Republicans and criminal Bush cronies make commerce difficult and life incredibly harsh.
on May 03, 2008
Big government screws you over, there are all sorts of official channels and means of addressing your grievances. Corporation screws you over, they will deny any wrongdoing on their part as long as possible.


Actually, it is just the opposite. You have redress against corporations (even if they out weigh you). YOu cannot sue the government. Not here, or in Canada.
on May 03, 2008
Actually, it is just the opposite. You have redress against corporations (even if they out weigh you). YOu cannot sue the government. Not here, or in Canada.


Of course you can. You can take nearly any government decision to the courts, and mostly you won't even have to pay for it. You can also change a government decision via the media, or via lobbying representatives directly. It's much harder to affect the course of a corporation.
on May 04, 2008

cacto-

Of course you can. You can take nearly any government decision to the courts, and mostly you won't even have to pay for it. You can also change a government decision via the media, or via lobbying representatives directly. It's much harder to affect the course of a corporation.

bingo!

Nitro

Oh and let’s give them an hourly wage, not to exceed the average amount in the state they are supposed to represent. Maybe that would cut down on the overly generous vacation time. Politics should be a service not a lucrative career

I agree with you one hundred percent. But they should also give up whatever income they are getting from big business so as to not cause a bias in their decision making process. I wonder if Cheney would be happy on an hourly salary with no access to his millions from Halliburton?

on May 04, 2008
Of course you can. You can take nearly any government decision to the courts,


Not here. YOu can take some, but most are beyond the law as they are the law.
on May 05, 2008
Not here. YOu can take some, but most are beyond the law as they are the law.


Why not? At last resort you can challenge on constitutional grounds. There's no guarantee you'll win, but you can make a challenge. You can also go the long way round and get yourself elected with a mandate to change the law.
on May 05, 2008
At last resort you can challenge on constitutional grounds.


You can challenge the law, but that is not redress. Big difference. Even if you suceed in that venue, that does not give you redress against the government, just prevents the injustice from happening to future people. You have already been screwed (or you would have no legal standing and could not challenge the law).


If they change a law, and you were caught under the old law, so sorry. We just had that fiasco here. They had to pass a second law to refund the removal of the first law (actually the second since the first law unfairly penalized some people and not others). Just the removal of the law was not enough to get the money back to the people who had paid under the original law.

Bottom line, corporations do not make laws and have to abide by them (that is not to say they do). Governments do pass laws, and do have to abide by them, but see previous. If they do not follow the law, you have a case. But even then the government owns all the cards. At least in the case of corporations you do hold a few cards.