thegreekdog wrote:In order for corporations to be responsible, their owners (i.e. shareholders) must be responsible; therefore, I think it remains personal responsibility. For example, if I was a shareholder in a company that was revealed to poison babies, I'd sell my shares (among other things), showing my distaste for the practice. There are other ways for a person to voice dischord for a company. For example, I do not shop at Walmart. That likely has no effect. However, if a lot of people stopped shopping at Walmart, it would have a great effect (or stopped buying stock in tobacco companies, or stopped purchasing cars from a company that made gasoline inefficient vehicles). Unfortunately, I believe people in the United States have gotten so lazy and uncaring that they won't actually do these sorts of things; instead, they whine about these companies and want the government to take care of it, which in and of itself is wrong, personal responsibility being a primary value in my mind. Additionally, the government's not going to hurt a company that gives it tons of money in the form of campaign contributions, so the people who rely on the government are relying on the wrong entity. Again, we're back to personal responsibility.
Sorry for the rambling.
Not rambling, good points.
The problem is that right now, even WITH all the required transparency, finding out those details takes time. And, with families, work, etc. finding the time requires impetus. It is far easier just to "let someone else worry about it" OR, to pick one news source that seems to have ideas like yours and basically follow. Add in a clergy or even someone you look to as a "spiritual leader", whether your clergyperson or not .. and you have a lot of ignorance making pretty important decisions.
As for the government.. the thing is that while Walmart is Walmart, the government now is NOT the government of just 1 year ago. Long term in a corporation is roughly 5 years. "Long term" politically is 2. Also, while your not buying and my not buying from Walmart (except when I really and truly do not have an option.. not often, but occasionally) doesn't matter that much because, (at least in my case), I never bought that much anyway, my vote is equal to anyone else's vote., in the polls.
I also think, when it comes to purchasing choices, part of the problem is that we often don't really have a free and open choice. Monopolies were outlawed, in part, because Rockafeller gave Kerosene away until he drove competitors out of business. Even knowing the result, it would have been hard to resist taking that kerosene if it made the difference between being sure you had enough fuel and food and worrying if you would. Crayons for 25 cents are pretty tempting when you have kids. A friend of mine flat out tells me that if she did not shop at Walmart, she could not buy the mangoes and such her kids like (lots of issues there, but I don't want to get off in a tangent). More ironically, the wife of my husband's former boss bragged about shopping at Walmart almost exclusively. Yet, then in almost the next breath she would complain about contracts being shipped down south, etc. In a not-so-ironic twist, my neighbor went on welfare, but still insisted her kids had to have new clothes, etc. Yet, my husband's former boss's wife went to the same garage sales I did much of the time. (though she was kind enough to pass by cloths that fit my son, even though he was the same size as hers-- if I was there when she was)
) and a lot of folks who, well, consider going 100 miles to be a "big adventure". (I do exaggerate a little, but only a little) There are a few others more like myself, but not many. And, when its winter, and funds for gas are heavily limited, particularly.. it can be hard to get out.
