Anonymous #1 21h

I wonder how they did things before capitalism then, business major

7

Anonymous #2 21h

The government oppressed their citizens heavily because there was 0 incentive to protect their rights and not even a common understanding that people deserve human rights

-3

Anonymous #1 21h

Brother’s never heard of the Magna Carta 💀

9

Anonymous #2 21h

Oh yeah I forgot that England stopped oppressing their own citizens in 1200 AD 🤦‍♂️

-2

Anonymous #1 21h

Governments have stopped oppressing their own citizens now lol, I’m just showing you an example of how rights don’t simply exist due to financial incentives If anything, it’s financial incentives that allow for the exploitation of poorer workers for the sake of corporate profit

9

Anonymous #2 21h

Financial incentives or, like in the case of the Magna Carta, force. I guess you could say that both are a form of force in a way.

-1

Anonymous #2 21h

I also think you're misunderstanding in that I'm not saying freedom comes from capitalism, I'm saying that capitalist values are a tenet of freedom. If I can't trust the government to keep the market free, I don't trust them to keep me free.

-1

Anonymous #1 21h

Capitalism inherently trends towards consolidation and monopolization. Without active government regulation, competitive markets decay into monopolies which ultimately stifle innovation and limit consumer choice. Private corporate entities answer to shareholders, not voters. A government acting as a democratic check prevents private concentrations of wealth from dictating who has access to healthcare, housing, or free speech. Freedom without the ability to thrive is not freedom.

7

Anonymous #2 21h

You do realize that private corporations needed government intervention to be forced to answer to shareholders instead of their customers and employees right? Dodge vs Ford 1919

-1

Anonymous #1 21h

First, you’re probably gonna frame the case as a noble corporate leader being punished for wanting to do right by his employees, right? In reality, however, the Dodge brothers, who owned 10% of Ford but used their profits to build a competing car company, were effectively being starved of cash by Henry Ford’s dividend cuts. The lawsuit was an act of corporate self-interest by the Dodge brothers to drain Ford’s cash revenues, rather than a definitive philosophical statement on who corps serve.

8

Anonymous #1 21h

Secondly, the Michigan Supreme Court’s famous line that a corporation is “organized and carried on primarily for the profit of the stockholders” is legally classified as “dicta” (commentary not essential to the ruling). Because it was a ruling from a state supreme court dealing with a close-corporation dispute rather than a federal standard, it has limited overarching weight, especially given that modern courts heavily defer to business judgment.

4

Anonymous #2 21h

No I think Ford was acting in a very smart manner against his competition as a businessman, and may have also happened to benefit employees and customers as a benefit. Dodge sought to get some legal reprisal for Ford's actions and we're stuck with the unintended consequences way later down the road.

1

Anonymous #1 21h

Thirdly, corporate law has moved well beyond the 1919 ruling. Today, over 30 states enacted “constituency” or “stakeholder” statutes. These laws explicitly grant boards of directors the legal authority, and sometimes the mandate, to consider the interests of employees, customers, local communities, and the environment.

1

Anonymous #1 21h

Which illustrates my exact point, the government intervention and heavy regulation is what led to mega corporations flourishing.

0

Anonymous #1 21h

Ford’s “charitable” defense in court was mostly a PR strategy to protect his monopoly though. He squeezed out the Dodge brothers’ startup by lowering car prices. He stopped employee turnover and neutralized unions with his famous $5 day. Ford wasn’t a saint; he was a brilliant capitalist who understood that investing in his ecosystem yielded massive long-term profits. Also, the next 60 years were far more balanced towards communities in terms of decision-making as compared to now.

1

Anonymous #1 21h

Unchecked corporate power drives consolidation, not regulation. When the government abandons its antitrust duties, large corporations use their size to buy out competitors, lower wages, and write industry-friendly rules. Without strong oversight, markets eventually monopolize which leads to price gouging and extreme wealth inequality.

1