Marc2b
Posts: 6660
Joined: 8/7/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
..this is the critical point. Does a cell phone company, or any other company, have a responsibility to society at large in addition to its need to turn a profit....or is the very concept of a responsibility to society at large wrong-headed?
If profit is all that one can resonably expect of a company then why bother with laws preventing, say, the dumping of toxic waste next to schools? It seems to me unarguable that a responsibility to society at large exists.....and additionally is vital to the general well-being. So why not require cell phone companies to provide comprehensive coverage? Makes those 911 calls a bit quicker, saves a few lives and has less impact on the bottom line than you'd think.......
The concept of responsibility to society at large is not wrong-headed but your interpretation of it is. Responsibility is, in fact, the very foundation of society – the fact that we have responsibilities to each other. For example: don’t kill each other. The question is where do we draw the line? As I see it, our primary responsibility is to respect the rights of others – to respect their freedom of choice. That’s not good enough for some people. They want to compel others to be charitable, giving no thought to their ability (to say nothing of their freedom of choice) to fulfil such arbitrary (and usually unknowledgeable) demands.
Dumping toxic waste next to a school would be a gross violation of other’s rights for obvious reasons but it is not in the same category as forcing cell phone companies to provide service to a particular area because somebody thinks they should.
I am part of a family company that makes it’s money renting space for two art galleries, 30 artist studios and a gift shop. We also rent space for art teachers to hold art classes. Not every artist who would like a studio can afford one. Should we be forced to lay aside two or three studios and give them to poor artists free of charge? Some people would advocate a law forcing us to do so. "It’s your social responsibility," they would say, "to help out poor artists, and it will benefit society by allowing these poor artists to create works the rest of society can enjoy, works society would not otherwise get to enjoy."
Sounds good, doesn’t it? I mean what decent, caring person wouldn’t be in favor of such a law? Mean, money grubbing, landlords like us should be forced to give back to the community if we are not going to do so on our own, right? But there are two problems with this. First, there is the simple oversight that our business does benefit the community. We provide space for artists that they otherwise might not have. They produce fantastic works that might not otherwise be produced. People come to the gallery and derive enjoyment from viewing them and some of them buy the art – thus providing some extra income for the artists. Adults and children alike have the opportunity to learn from established artists.
More importantly is the fact that we couldn’t afford to give away studio space, a fact that those in favor of the Free Studios for Poor Artists Act probably didn’t consider (or more likely, having a bias against businesses, wouldn’t believe). To make up the loss from this forced charity, we would have no choice but to raise the rents on the other studios. Some of the paying artists would, no doubt, be unable (or unwilling) to pay the higher rent. So they loose out on studio space and we loose even more money. If we can’t attract new artists able and willing to pay the higher rent, we’ll go out of business. That means five people out of full time jobs and three people out of part time jobs (and that’s not counting the art teachers who rent the classroom space). That means less property and income taxes for the government. That means twenty-seven artists we rent to, as well as the three artists in the free studios, will be out of a studio. That means artists without a space to display their work for viewing and for sale. People who enjoy coming to view the galleries will have that enjoyment taken from them. People who wanted to take art classes will be denied. I see a lot of losers in that scenario but no winners – except for the smug morons who deem themselves morally, intellectually, and socially superior because they supported the Free Studios for Poor Artists Act. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – it is easy to have high moral values so long as the consequences don’t affect you.
This applies to any business. Sinergy is whining because he can’t find a cell phone company that provides decent coverage where he works (maybe they’ve decided there are two many whiners in the area). He is demanding that the government come in and rig the situation to his benefit despite having no knowledge of the cell phone business (I presume, but even if he does, the overall point reamins) and giving no thought to the possible effects upon either the industry or it’s customers. If cell phone companies are forced to provide coverage where he works (possibly at loss) might that mean the companies will have to cancel planned expansions somewhere else? What gives Sinergy the right to deny service to those new areas just because he isn’t being served? What gives him the right to deny local contractors the business they thought they were about to get (and how will the loss of that business affect them)? What gives him the right to interfere in the decision making process of the cell phone companies just because he presumes himself more intelligent than they when it comes to operating a cell phone company?
There was a time, not that long ago, when we did not have cell phones. We do now because some smart people (looking to make money!) invented them (I wonder if we would have cell phones if Ma Bell was still the only game in town, after all they had no competition so they had little incentive to offer new services – something else to consider with socialized medicine). They offered cell phones and cell phone service for a price. People looked at the situation and some decided the really like the service (or at least were satisfied with it), others did not. There were enough of the former to allow the cell phone companies to make a profit. Now some people have decided that cell phones aren’t just a tool, a service, that make some aspects of life easier but a right. I just don’t understand that sense of entitlement.
< Message edited by Marc2b -- 9/7/2007 1:17:13 PM >
_____________________________
Do you know what the most awesome thing about being an Atheist is? You're not required to hate anybody!
|
RE: Edwards wants to force you to see a doctor - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread