Should corporations serve human need at the cost of private profit?

Michael Albert argues the problem with the response to New Orleans is not just racism. We have sold our souls to the free market where corporations rule no matter what. He argues the response of a Democratic administration would not have been adequate either because it, too, would embrace our extreme form of capitalism. I think he underestimates how much better the Democrats would have done, but it's worth noting the funding for necessary improvements to Louisiana's wetlands and infrastructure has been ignored by both Democratic and Republican administrations. The article is worth a read even though I'm sure there are many here who won't agree with some of its harshest judgments. The point worth considering is whether or not we need bandaids to fix our system of government or whether we need genuine, massive change.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=72&ItemID=8655

<edit>

Yes, the Bush administration worships market fundamentalism beyond all reason which makes them even more guilty than a Kerry or Gore regime, which would not have so drastically cut security measures for New Orleans, a hub city of the U.S. and world economy, and might have signed the Kyoto Accords, paying more attention to global warming, a likely cause of growing hurricane severity.

But even if Kerry or Gore wouldn’t have done as badly before the fact as Bush, nonetheless, if the storm had hit head on, Kerry or Gore in office would have faced a situation little different from what we see now. Kerry would have put on a more sincere looking smiling face, no doubt. Gore would have delivered more caring and coherent homilies, I bet. Kerry would have set down the plane and rolled up his sleeves to hand out water bottles to suffering crowds - can’t you just see him in your mind’s eye? But neither Kerry nor Gore would have issued orders to bus companies, hotels, and pharmaceutical, food, and water providers to immediately aggressively alleviate people’s suffering. Why not?

For Kerry and Gore, as for Bush, to issue such directives would challenge the private pursuit of profits.

But, you say, this is a calamity. Bush could interfere as an emergency act and could then soak up gigantic public thanks and avoid the gigantic public recrimination he is now suffering. Even if Bush doesn’t give a damn about the people who are suffering, how could that not be better for his stature and even for his market fundamentalist agenda?

The answer is, I think, while such a choice would be in elites’ short-term interest, it would not be in their interest over the long haul. Over the long haul, it would be okay for elites to volunteer aid, yes, though incredibly few seem to be doing so, but the government telling private corporations that they must serve human need at the expense of private profit is unacceptable because, heaven forbid, it might cause too many people to perceive the obvious.

more...

. . .they would be doing something.

And if they will not do so voluntarily, must be forced to it by the government acting on behalf of the citizenry.

Maybe ignorant question.... isn't there something in the state charter for a corporation about public welfare. (I don't mean they have all the same responsibilities of say the gov, but *something*) I may be thinking of times long past.... ? Sorry I don't have the words to ask the question better than that... words are failing me.

But it seems doubtful. There is, however, such wording in broadcasters' lisences, and perhaps that is what you are recalling. Since the airwaves are deemed a public property, private entities allowed to use them for profit are charged with the duty to do so in the public interest. It is, of course, wholly disregarded as a practical fact....

That is probably what I am thinking of. And in any case, as you say, it is wholly disregarded.

ps I'm a ma'am :)

Since citizens in general have duties to the public good, there
is no reason that government chartered entities of all stripes should
not also, and of whatever sort seems necessary.

major political parties currently suffering a fairly significant downturn in influence hasn't thought of making this one of their issues.

They would be responding similar to Nagin in that they would be calling for every god-damn bus and water bottle in this country to get the hell down to the Coast. They would be demanding everyone not affected by the flood to DO SOMETHING, that includes corporations.

Another great article:

Hurricane Katrina – View From Asia

By Andre Vltchek


-snip-

In Thailand, dozens of hotels (and private homes) opened their doors to survivors and to the family members (local and foreign) who were searching for their loved ones. Was it lack of solidarity of corporate America that prevented this from happening in the United States? And if it was, why didn't the government force these hotel doors open for refugees - through an emergency decree? Or is this just another proof that private sector and private property is sacred; more sacred than human life? Should it be taken as a warning: that from now on things will become this way?

For several days, there were countless images of the Coast Guard helicopters rescuing residents in the flooded areas from their rooftops and from their damaged homes. Helicopters were dropping baskets, pulling victims on board. Most of those rescued did have home as they lived in the residential areas. In the same time, we were learning that people elsewhere were starving, literally dropping dead in the middle of the streets in the centre of New Orleans.

New Orleans is no doubt a segregated city. While it is surrounded by posh neighborhoods (inhabited mainly by the whites), the city center and several suburbs are homes to minorities. Some people living there are poor; others very poor. Could it be possible that even during the tragedy rescue operations are treating differently rich and poor, black and white? Is there really a lack of helicopters to airlift everyone; to bring them promptly to safety, to give them decent temporary accommodation, private bathrooms and showers?

No matter what are the reasons, response to the tragedy in the Gulf of Mexico was inadequate, scandalously slow; unforgivable. The mightiest military power on earth couldn't (or refused to) deploy soldiers right after the tragedy; it stood-by as people were dying in the centre of New Orleans which was just a few hours after the hurricane definitely reachable from the air. The government of the United States failed.

-more-

http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2005-09/03vltchek.cfm

Private corporations should feel the moral obligation to assist.

However, I believe that their participation should be voluntary. If the government has emergency needs they should be permitted to demand services ON AN EMERGENCY BASIS and should then later compensate the companies.

so if they are to be considered citizens, then their first duty IS to their fellow citzens, IMO.

businesses are "allowed" by govt to exist in the first place. it is because the social contract that yields society grants govt to make the decision on what is allowed to exist. if the govt does not see corporations bring value to a society they are not granted the right to function under the law.

right now the value that corporations can render to society may be directed to the common good instead of merely making money for the owners of those entities.

profits are not supposed to run counter to producing value for the common good.

under the busheviks this is exactly what has happened and it runs counter to what is supposed to happen

classical political thought says that the purpose of government is to do justice for its citizens. part of this obligation is to foster conditions in which wealth is produced. the obligation is not met by substituting the wealth-producer for the government.

This is what I was trying to get at in my poorly worded question above in this thread.

Profit is not a dirty word, and corporastions should make money.

But over the last 30 years our priorities have become so screwed up that profit has become the ONLY social value.

You hit the nail on the head about a President Gore or Kerry. They too have been complicit in the complete abandonment of a balanced approach to society in which we either support or at least condone and excuse behavior that is totally unacceptable by the corporate sector -- and have allowed too many of us ordinary people to buy into the same set of values.

serving human needs.

of private profit?

Should sole proprietorships?

It's always instructive to remember where the profits from corporations go, in the main. Executives get a small portion of them.

and he was right.

Where I part company with him is what to do in response.

If we don't have democratic governments and international organizations with the power to make and enforce laws we would get the same kind of results we'd get if we didn't have enforcement of rape and murder laws for individuals. Not everyone would commit crimes, but those who do would cause a hell of a lot of damage.

of making private profit. It's called taxation. Something corporations know nothing about under this administration.

"You guys wanna make a profit? Then pay up!" But they'll never hear that...