At 11:53 PM 10/4/98 -0500, Jim Choate wrote:

Now in a free-market, by definition, there is no law. What then is the responsibility of businesses other than the pure unadulterated pursuit of profit?

None whatsoever.

If this includes lying, denying consumers information, etc. what harm is done, they have fulfilled their responsibility to their shareholders (potentialy quite lucratively)

While there is a sucker born every minute, the strategy you describe is for the most part unlikely to be profitable.

Within this environment it follows that a primary strategy for such executives is the elimination of *all* competition.

Fortunately the most cost effective method of eliminating all competition is that followed by Alcoa, to deliver a satisfactory product at the cheapest possible price. In the cocaine market a number of organizations have attempted to employ other methods for eliminating competition, but here in America these methods have generally proved not only unprofitable, but also for the most part fatal. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG GyHvJ0Mh5TLXWeuRFFAMR+C9RlwfJf71h1IZ/fFt 4+Ev0QZVg+BYgSXjL4IgOBonA/OwuM11NaPGTgMxr ----------------------------------------------------- We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state. http://www.jim.com/jamesd/      James A. Donald

On Sun, Oct 04, 1998 at 11:53:28PM -0500, Jim Choate wrote:

Now in a free-market, by definition, there is no law. What then is the

no in a free market there is no state there are laws based on natural rights -- pgp 1024/D9C69DF9 1997/10/14 steve mynott <steve@tightrope.demon.co.uk> the chief value of money lies in the fact that one lives in a world in which it is overestimated. -- h. l. mencken

At 11:53 PM 10/4/98 -0500, Jim Choate wrote:

Milton Friedman won the Nobel price in 1976 in economics. One of the questions he asked was:

Do corporate executives, provided they stay within the law, have responsibilities in their business activities other than to make as much money for their stockholders as possible?

His answer was 'no', they have no responsibility outside of those two considerations (ie the law, stockholders expectations of profit).

Now in a free-market, by definition, there is no law. What then is the responsibility of businesses other than the pure unadulterated pursuit of profit? If this includes lying, denying consumers information, etc. what harm is done, they have fulfilled their responsibility to their shareholders (potentialy quite lucratively) and broken no law. Within this environment it follows that a primary strategy for such executives is the elimination of *all* competition. And since there is no law other than the measure of profit all can be justified.

Just because he won a Nobel prize does not mean he was correct, it means those bestowing the prize on him agreed with him. business/economic right vs wrong is a different game from moral right vs wrong. for instance, suppose there was a great demand for analog watches with luminous dials. would it be right to flood the market with luminous dials that were also highly radioactive, because those isotopes were less expensive than luminous substances that were not radioactive? (this presupposes that no rules were broken AFA selling watches with radioactive luminous dials). are you saying that the proper business solution is to throw public safety to the wind, and never mind possible consequences of wrist cancer 10 or 20 years down the road? what would the companies bottom line be after the ravages of the eventual class action suit? Reeza! "I'm desperately trying to figure out why kamikaze pilots wore helmets." - Dave Edison