Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
(a) different conceptions of the relationship between economic activity and politics (conservatives would have economic activity be wholly separate from politics, following from their insistence on the public/private split as absolute--so there is nothing to be done by anyone--stakeholder or not--in shaping corporate action--which is assumed to be necessarily for the best in this the best of all possible worlds. needless to say, i think this view worthless--indefensible analytically, disastrous politically)
|
Apologies if I missed it, but did you ever explain
why you find it worthless?
Also:
Quote:
|
--so there is nothing to be done by anyone--stakeholder or not--in shaping corporate action--
|
If I'm understanding this correctly - it isn't even the business of stakeholders to shape corporate action - then I don't see where anyone advocated this position.
Quote:
|
and so we would never dream of telling you, holder of capital, what to do because, well, you are better than most people: wiser, possessed of a broader view, acting with collective interest at heart."
|
It's my impression that right-wing economic ideology calls for low or zero regulation NOT because the capital-holders are necessarily wiser than the rest of us, but because they are the owners of that capital. Because they have a right to use that property as they see fit, even if the use is foolish, as long as that use does not steal from the health or property of others. Now, it wouldn't shock me if you took issue with this view as well, but it looks like you're currently attacking a strawman.