Rights of a Business

[rahmota]

Just what rights does a business have. How far do their rights extend before they encouched upon the average citizens rights. Is what they have even rights or is it just legally recognized "special priviledges"?

This is based on the rant on CS about this very subject.

Personally I do not feel that businesses have any rights whatsoever. not to make a profit, not to be above the law in certain aspects etc... They have the special priviledge of being able to barter a good or service for something of value usually money or credit.

[CancelMyService]

Well I wouldn't call them rights in the constitutional sense, but a business does have the right to set their prices (as in they don't *have* to match the competitor's price if they don't want to), or refuse service to someone who's only goal seems to be to give everyone a hard time.

Actually those are things that shouldn't need to be stated as "rights" or any other term you'd like to use. They're things that should be common sense and/or the basis of decent human behavior, but we all know how SCs require things to be explained to them.

I don't think being in business is necessarily a special privilege either, it's just someone providing goods or services. Anyone can do it if so inclined, so if anything they're making it easier for people by providing things so they don't need to do the work required to make them (like baking bread or whatnot).

[SuperB]

I just want to comment on one thing from the closed thread since I can't respond there:

Pedersen said:
"I wonder, do any of those above have issues with entitlements of some sort? Let's check:"
"Quote:
Quoth SuperB
I have a guy that's been coming in who seems to think that because he has a cup and bought a cup of coffee somewhere at some point in his life, that he's entitled to a "refill" anywhere he goes. "

Hmm, seems that they're all very much like me and much of the rest of the forums: Few (if any) like it when customers earn the label "Entitlement Whore". And yet, since it would be their business that's impacted, suddenly having an entitlement is a good thing. Sounds like a double standard to me.


The difference here is the right a business, anyone actually, has not just to make a living (also known as a profit for the business owner and self-employed) but using my statement doesn't exactly fit in with his point because I have the right to not be ripped off as a business just as anyone on the street. Hence laws against stealing, fraud, etc. Something the man from my post above was attempting. (and since catching him, surprisingly, he hasn't come back)

I won't argue the use of the term "right" because it would go nowhere. My thoughts on this won't change. But my statement doesn't fit Pedersen's attempt to prove a "double standard" unless anyone thinks that a business has less rights to be protected against theft than an individual on the street.

[rahmota]

Yes but on the other hand a company has the responsibility not to set their prices so high that people cannot afford their services or to have their services they must sacrifice another vital aspect of their life. I am of course referring to those companies that hold monopolistic or near monopolistic collusions like the oil and gas companies.

Companies must be responsible to their customers, communities, and humanity in general. Companies should do this out of common sense and not a sense of greedily raping pillaging thievery. But then again this sort of decency must be explained to capitalists.

Perderson made an interesting point on CS

Finally, corporations are starting to make, through case law, a "right to profit". Check this link: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&s...it&btnG=Search Dangerous precedent is already being set. And allowing regular people to use the phrase that "Businesses have a right to make a profit" can only accelerate that. They don't.

Business have the right to try to make a profit. Exercise that right. Refuse to sell to people below cost. Make money hand over fist. Make enough that you would make Scrooge McDuck jealous. I really don't care. What I do care about is allowing people to genuinely believe that companies have a right to profit. If they did have such a right, then the SCO Group would now be able to demand the government do something, since their stock is dangerously low, and they are in real danger of going out of business in the near future. Look them up if you want more information as to why, they're just a formerly large company that I happen to know is failing due to watching bits of the technology news sites.

While I do care more about the amount of profit a company makes. If its too unseemly or excessive they should be brought into more morally correct levels I do agree they do not have a right to make one slim penny of profit. Not even 1 cent of profit is a right. It is a priviledge to be able to operate a business for profit in this country. To callit a right or to allow a company to claim it as a right is a dangerous step into a dark and unholy world.

[Pedersen]

To callit a right or to allow a company to claim it as a right is a dangerous step into a dark and unholy world.

I fully intended to stay out of that thread on CS, I really did. People saying I was playing word games, though... Well, it got my dander up.

Businesses already have far too much power in this country. For one person to be able to stand up to a business steamrolling over that person requires two things:

1. The person has nothing left to lose.
2. The person has a case so iron clad that it fight a battle against the US Navy and win.

If you have anything you want to keep, you're screwed. If you have any deep dark secrets that you don't want getting out, you're screwed. If you have even one microscopic hole in your case, you're screwed.

In this country (USA), money equals power. And big companies have way too much of both. If you take them on, they will find ways to make you lose everything. In some cases (see http://www.lightlink.com/spacenka/fors/ for example), the corporation can have you arrested, tried, and convicted. In the case of Randall Schwartz, this wound up costing him over $170,000 to get things set right.

Another example of their phenomenal power can be seen in the case of Dmitri Sklyarov, a Russian programmer who wrote a program in Russia that was perfectly legal in Russia (in fact, under Russian law, what he did would actually have been encouraged), then visited the USA to talk about the program he wrote. While here, he was arrested, held, and tried, all at the behest of Adobe Corporation.

The corporation has enough money and power to bend US law, and actually bring criminal repercussions against ordinary people. I didn't mention these cases in the CS thread, and I should have. Unfortunately, I didn't think of them until now.

And people wanted to give businesses extra rights? What delusional mindset would let them think this is a good idea?

Personally, I'm in favor of an amendment to the 14th amendment which specifically states that any artificial person is not provided the protections of due process, may not own property, etc. In fact, put in a time limit. Require that the corporation "die" as often as people do (every 70 years or so now). That oughta make the pharmaceutical companies find ways to genuinely prolong life, if they know that they've only got the next 30 or so years before they "die", and have to will all their assets to a new company, which gets to start again after paying a huge inheritance tax.

Big companies are responsible for much of what we have now. But they are also too powerful, and need to be curtailed, desparately. Not granted more rights.

[Pedersen]

The difference here is the right a business, anyone actually, has not just to make a living (also known as a profit for the business owner and self-employed) but using my statement doesn't exactly fit in with his point because I have the right to not be ripped off as a business just as anyone on the street. Hence laws against stealing, fraud, etc. Something the man from my post above was attempting. (and since catching him, surprisingly, he hasn't come back)

Actually, that just proves the point even more. Go back, and re-read the quote. "that he's entitled to a "refill"". He's saying he should have every right to, basically, pick your pocket. As a business owner claiming a right to profit, you are saying that you should have every right to pick his pocket.

Both statements are, at best, wrong. You, as a business owner, have the freedom to choose the price at which you will sell something. He, as a "customer" (in quotes, since him stealing makes him not so much a customer), has the freedom to decide whether or not to pay that price.

If both sides agree that the price is fair, then a deal is done, and you, the business owner, have made some profit. Not through any "right" to make a profit, mind you. The freedom to make a profit.

You may very well feel that I'm still wrong, but the point is made even more strongly by trying to differentiate your two statements: His entitlement is stealing, and yours is not.

Admittedly, his was actual stealing. I simply settled for one quote of yours. I don't doubt that I could find others. In fact, I seem to recall seeing another one, but thought the one I chose was better, since you used the actual entitlement word. Yes, I did go through posting histories, looking for people complaining about customers demanding special rights.

Don't give yourself new rights. Don't give him new rights. Get rid of the entitlements entirely, and enjoy your freedoms which are becoming all too preciously few in this country.

[SuperB]

Actually, that just proves the point even more. Go back, and re-read the quote. "that he's entitled to a "refill"". He's saying he should have every right to, basically, pick your pocket. As a business owner claiming a right to profit, you are saying that you should have every right to pick his pocket.

Both statements are, at best, wrong. You, as a business owner, have the freedom to choose the price at which you will sell something. He, as a "customer" (in quotes, since him stealing makes him not so much a customer), has the freedom to decide whether or not to pay that price.

If both sides agree that the price is fair, then a deal is done, and you, the business owner, have made some profit. Not through any "right" to make a profit, mind you. The freedom to make a profit.

You may very well feel that I'm still wrong, but the point is made even more strongly by trying to differentiate your two statements: His entitlement is stealing, and yours is not.

You're right that mine is not. When I pay for the product he wants, and my income is dependant on working 11 hours a day, I have every right to make a profit on that cup of coffee he was trying to steal and "picking his pocket" makes absolutely no sense in your argument.

[SuperB]

Something that just occured to me regarding this discussion is perception. You mention large corporations in your arguements. As a Mom and Pop business, when I work 11 hours or more and this is the only family income, I (anyone who does this actually) will definitely see things differently because I'll be damned if I'm going to work 11+ hours and break even or worse. I can't tell you how many times I've been in the doctors office and overheard someone mention how their insurance sucks because they're self-employed and don't have access to a better insurance through a large business.
Let me put it this way, if an employee has a right to his paycheck for doing a job, I have a right to mine.

[rahmota]

Well while there may be some perception differences the problem is still the same. A business, not a individual does not have the right to a profit.

While I'll agree a family or small single site mom n pop business is more deserving of a degree of profit there is no constitutional or moral right to having a profit.

Part of the problem with need to have more money is that big business keeps raising the price of items so they can have bigger profits. If a company doesnt post bigger profits than they did last year then the stock holders get all bent and dont see that the company is still viable and productive. All they see is that they didnt make more money than they did last year and the company didnt rape people more than they did last year.

I run the family farm, I do oddjobs. I have trouble charging anything beyond just enough to cover my bills and have a little bit set aside for later. Its just not right or morally correct to me. I work from sunup to sundown or later on somedays. The problem I have is prices of goods and services keep going up due to the companies thinking they have a right to a greater profit than they had last year. Which leads to people demanding higher salaries and needing to go on welfare and get assistance and the stock holders think that companies are doing great when they have higher profits but dont look at or care that the reason they have that higher profit is because they fired hundreds of workers and raised their prices so that other people cant afford their stuff as easily.

l'd love to see price controls installed on goods and services as well as minimum and maximum wages. And you know what the government would have a right and legal leg to stand on to do that, but companies would have no legal leg to fight that wonderful piece of useful legislation.

Companies have no right to a profit.

[AFPheonix]

Companies have a right to pursue a profit. That fact is evident by the very language we use, ie "earning a profit". One has no need to earn that which they are entitled to. They have to work for it.
Companies also have a right to defend their profits when they are earning them, ie SuperB's bitching out the idiot who expected free coffee just because he happened to have a cup with him.

Companies have to be relevant enough, price their product to what the market will bear, and be economic to survive. Owning one's own business, either a mom & pop or a huge publicly traded company is not easy, it's not something everyone can or should do. My hat's off to the people who can do it and be successful.

Now as for raising prices: This is part of being in a free market economy. Companies have to raise their prices to reflect their costs to do business, or else they'd be operating at a loss and would not be able to offer that product anymore. It's not just "big business" that does it. Smaller ones do, too, and I understand why. Hell, my farrier had to up his rates because fuel and steel costs for him were just to much to absorb and he had to pass some off onto his customers so he'd have enough money to support his family. I don't begrudge him or any other entity that. True price gougers obviously are breaking the law and are usually called out and prosecuted on it.

[rahmota]

Yes companies have the "right" to pursue profit just like you and I as humans have the "right" to pursue happiness. But if there is something that gets in the way of that pursuit there is no legal form of redress to gain compensation for that lost profit or happiness. I cannot sue a person or company because they interefered in my pursuit of happiness unless they broke one of the other laws. This is going into the land of what is a right though. And who or what can have rights. A rather fundamentally basic question that is at the root of if businesses have rights and what they are. Which I say businesses do not have ANY rights.

Now as for what I was saying about raising prices. Much of that is false or needless profiteering. Say a company sells enough stuff to make a 50k profit. If they make 50k again next year but keep all the costs the same or even lower their costs the stock holders wonder why the company did so poorly as all they see is that the company did not increase its profits. even if the companny in that second year does 53k in profit the stockholders still get bent because the company was an underperformer. Basically a lot of companies get pressured into raising their prices and cutting their costs by any means necessary so that the board can go to the stockholders and say we had a 80k profit this year after only having a 50k profit last year. Greed is the evil root of that issue. One of the reasons it would be better to institute price controls and set things so that there is a fair and reasonable degree of profit. After all profit is just the money left over after all expenses have been met.