Maybe I misinterpreted your post, then.
If so, my apologies.
Even if not for you, then, a whole lotta’ “gummint” types fail to understand that no end of choices that Business makes translate into required actions and costs by the government.
I see that a lot. Usually when someone says, “Alexa. What is the weather in Madrid like?” and then out of nowhere Google starts popping up ads for flights to Spain.
I also think no discussion of this sort is complete without the unmitigated genius of this sentiment:
Folk who complain about government interference in their lives are free to move to places where there is less stringent local regulation. And then complain about the crappy services, and their neighbors’ choices.
Ayup. One of my little pithy, ‘canned’ posts from another forum:
You know those things that you think Make America Great?
They’re not all just empty bumper-sticker slogans.
Most of them cost money. We generate that money through taxation. Somebody who puts a profound amount of effort into NOT paying their fair share is a freeloader … a leach … a drain on society. The more they do that, the more the rest of us have to foot the bill.
And slashing the federal government could very well reduce spending and result in lower taxes, just as running bald tires on your car when you load it up and take the travel trailer to the mountains for the weekend. But bad things could happen. That’s called being ‘penny wise and pound foolish.’
Is that REALLY the way to “Make America Great Again?”
[It reminds me of the cynical ‘definition’ of a Libertarian: somebody who wants everything, but doesn’t want to pay for it]
As Keyser Söze put it, paraphrasing Baudelaire, “The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist.” The notion that somehow business–capital, the market, call it what you will–doesn’t oppress people, that only the state does, that the economic sphere and the civil sphere are entirely separate and only the latter can be effectively criticized, is a great trick indeed.
Try this simple experiment. Write down the nastiest, rudest, crudest thing you could say to your congress person, MP, whatever. Now imagine saying that to your boss. Now consider the consequences from telling off both people. But heck, only the government gets on your back, right?
Yes, and folk who complain about folk who complain about — hang on; this might take a minute.
OK, how do you give Archer Daniels Midlands “no” for an answer? Or any of the oil companies?
Meanwhile, all of the examples people come up with for government oppression always seem to be local government, and the more local the worse. And yet, this slogan always seems to come up in the context of Presidential elections. In what way is the federal government on your back?
Depends on what they ask me to say “yes” to, I guess; sometimes businesses ask me to say “yes” when they want me to buy the product they’re advertising, and if it doesn’t interest me I say “no.” So if this or that oil company wants to make me a yes-or-no offer, I might say “yes” and I might say “no.” I guess that’s how I’d give them “no” for an answer: by saying “no” if they ask me a yes-or-no question.
From time to time, a business asks me if I’d like to pay for something — and if I have no interest in it, I say “no” instead of paying up. From time to time, the federal government asks me to pay for something that I have no interest in, and I — pay up anyway, because that wasn’t a yes-or-no question.
You’re right, of course. The notion that power relations don’t exist in the market is just a smokescreen and anyone who has to enter the labour market to sell their labour to the employer learns this in a flash. We may have some choice as consumers (though hardly as much as we’re told) about how to spend our money, but we have much less choice in how we will be exploited by employers. That we have been trained and taught to think of ourselves as consumers rather than workers is another “Keyser Söze moment.”
Above all sucks folks.
I’ve worked for county government for 32 years. And our rule is we don’t work for our bosses, or the commissioners.
We work for the public. THEY pay our wages.
::shrugs:: I don’t know what to tell you, man; I’m both a consumer and a worker, and I think of myself as both, and sometimes people ask me whether I’ll give them X amount of money in exchange for something, and sometimes people ask me whether I’ll give them something in exchange for Y amount of money, and sometimes I say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to the former offer, and sometimes I say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to the latter offer, and sometimes the government says Z.
What if the X, Y, or Z that the business wants to do is dump toxic wastes* into the body of water from which you drink, upstream from where you get that water? Can you say “no” to that?
* And now, since Trump is willing to get rid of Burdensome Regulations (to any business that offers him the right, er, tribute), you may get to find out! After all, profits are harmed by processing toxic waste-products of production. (We can’t have profits being harmed by Burdensome Regulation if we’re to make America great again.) It’s much more profitable to just dump it in the river! And all the exec’s homes are upstream from there, so it’s all good!
Get that government off the backs of our toxic-waste producing** businesses!
** The toxic-waste-dumping is intended as a stand-in for all business-created externalities: a developer doesn’t put out money to provide roads and other amenities necessary to support a new development, because providing them would cut into profits; big employers don’t pay wages that people can live on, meaning that government has to pick up the slack for housing, medical care, etc.; industrial farm-animal production increases the numbers and strength of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, which in turn increases medical costs; and so on.
This discussion would work better over a drink or three, I think.
Do we not agree that there should be zero tolerance for government corruption? An inspector taking payouts or gifts— sacked. Allegations that the mayor has shady (w.r.t. conflict of interest) investments— resigns.
Why stop there? I can’t exactly say “no” to even a single person punching me in the nose — or robbing me at gunpoint — or dumping toxic waste into that water. And so, in all of those cases, I would say “no” if it were put to a vote; I’d vote to get the government on their back, if the law weren’t already written that way.
Someone upthread talked about businesses “trying to change our views, trying to sell us crap we don’t need.” And, well, I don’t want the government getting on their back for that; I want those businesses to be free to talk at me, but not free to dump toxic waste. This being the SDMB, I’ll now say “subtlety and nuance” in hopes of relaying I’m not in favor of all government on-backing but I’m also nor in favor of a zero amount of on-backing, and you and I probably agree that the appropriate amount is somewhere in between, and we’d probably draw that line in a different place, and we’d probably say something about how reasonable people can disagree, and so on and so forth.
Ohhh, it’s not like there isn’t a long history of Chicago politicians and bureaucrats getting fired, or even going to jail, for it. Doesn’t mean it stops it, or even materially slows it down.
What they want you to say “yes” to is buying their products. How do you survive without buying food or oil?
Okay, then. (I’m not sure if that position was clear from the earlier discussion, which had only gone so far, it looks, as to cover ‘advertising’ and related concepts.)
Heh.
Well, sometimes I go to a grocery store or a restaurant or whatever, and see whether the prices they’re asking strike me as reasonable for the food they’re offering; when they do, I say “yes” — and when they don’t, I cheerfully (a) say “no,” and (b) look to see if someone else is offering something I’d say “yes” to — and sometimes I’ve been the one selling food, and people have said “yes” or “no” to me! Anyway, survival has ensued, and, uh, so on, I guess?