Government and Regulation of Companies

Governments have a responsibility to regulate companies that provide necessary services to citizens. Describe a specific situation in which a government might not have a responsibility to regulate a company that provides a necessary service to citizens. Discuss what you think determines whether or not governments have a responsibility to regulate companies that provide necessary services to citizens. In the United States, the government plays an integral role in maintaining order and protecting the lives of its citizens. Foundational documents, such as the Constitution and its Bill of Rights, help outline some of the responsibilities that the government owes to the people. One of among many include the duty to ensure the welfare of the people. In this sense, the government has taken the role as regulator of industries that provide necessary services to citizens. "Necessary services" may defined as services deemed crucial to the well-being and survival of citizens. This may include water, electricity, road safety, etc. In contrast, services, such as hair styling and dance lessons, would not be deemed necessary. Many of the necessary services have been heavily regulated by government as a way to ensure that most, if not all, people have access to the goods and services. If private companies were completely unregulated, only the upper crust of society would receive benefits. Indeed, most businesses are motivated by profit and will do what makes sense for them economically --even if that means causing harm to society in large or depriving services from those who really need them. The government plays a crucial role in making sure that these necessary services reach a wider population who would not otherwise afford them. The government also helps maintain the quality of necessary services. For example, the FDA promotes public health through supervision of food safety, prescriptions drugs, medical devices, etc. This government entity has the power to regulate US industries and keep them accountable to the public. Without the FDA, businesses would be producing goods and services at the most optimal cost in their view--often without taking into account the safety of their customers. When businesses do not abide by FDA rules, they are penalized and cannot continue to do business. In the couple of decades leading up to the financial crisis of 2008, government underwent a period of "deregulation"--especially in the finance industry. This occurs when government reduces its role and allows the industry greater freedom in its operations. An example of this was the 1999 Graham-Leach-Bailey act which took down barriers to competition between traditional banks, investment banks and insurance companies. Some pundits believe deregulation of the financial industry contributed to the crisis of recent years. Some people love to hate government for role that it takes in every day lives. They feel that it is oftentimes overreaching---violating personal freedom and preventing businesses from operating optimally. Indeed, advocacy groups and citizens play a crucial role in making sure government does its job to protect people while, at the same time, honoring individual rights as stated by the Constitution.

Public's Right to Know v. Individual's Right to Privacy

The public's right to know must sometimes take precedence over an individual's right to privacy. Describe a specific situation in which an individual's right to privacy might justifiable take precedence over the public's right to know. Discuss what you think determines when the public's right to know is more important than the individual's right to privacy While privacy is not explicitly covered by the Constitution, the US Supreme Court has recognized it as a right enjoyed by citizens. Specifically in Griswold v. Connecticut, the Court found that the Bill of Right has "penumbras" that create zones of privacy. This includes, among others, the First Amendment right of association and the Fourth Amendment right to be secure in one's home. Of course, the most famous case guaranteeing the right of privacy is Roe v. Wade which legalized abortion. Since the Constitution does not explicitly cover privacy, a series of court precedence has come to define the contours of the type of privacy protected by the government. One of these issues involves whether a public's right to know takes precedence over an individual's right to privacy. Court cases have specifically drawn a distinction between types of citizens who seek recourse for violations of privacy. Namely, there is a difference between how regular and famous people are treated. When raising a defamation lawsuit, famous or public persons must prove an additional element of malice on the part of the defendant. The regular person filing suit need to only show that his name was defamed without looking into the intentions of the defendant. Therefore, those holding public office or having high-exposure professions (such as athletes and actors) will find it harder to sue when the press publishes something unfavorable or detrimental to their image. Some of the most famous cases regarding a public person's right to privacy involves politician sexual indiscretion. At first glance, it would seem that what a politician does in his private time has no consequence on his public duties. However, citizens and the nation of the whole demand their right to know about actions that reveal their representative's real sense of virtues. The distinction between regular and famous people in the Constitution, in a way, ensures that the public has a right to know about these indiscretions revealing hypocrisy. However, even a public person's right to privacy has to be protected to a certain extent. For example, there are certain subjects that most people agree should not be touched. This includes respecting the privacy of a public person's children. In general, the press will honor requests not to cover the activities of those minors who have not done anything to put themselves in the public limelight---other than have a parent who is famous. In the new age of the internet, it has been more difficult for citizens, both regular and famous, to enjoy any sense of privacy. Anyone can publish information online---true and untrue---that will be difficult to erase. The public has greater access to information and it is challenging sometimes to ascertain what is real and relevant. In the process, individuals now more than ever expect to encounter violations of privacy online where there it is virtually impossible to control the posting of information.

A Business' Main Purpose is to make a Profit

A business' main purpose should be to make a profit. Describe a specific situation in which the main purpose of a business might justifiably be something other than making a profit. Discuss what you think determines whether or not the main purpose of a business should be to make a profit. In a capitalist economy, business owners enjoy private ownership of the means of production and create goods and services for profit or income. The overall health of businesses is a good sign of a nation's economic health and governments often set policies that encourage the success of businesses. On the other hand, governments also regulate businesses in order to stem activity that is adverse to the public interest. Indeed, the majority of businesses exist to make a profit. People, in general, find the promise and realization of profit as an incentive to work harder and find ways to improve a business'efficiency. In a few instances, however, some businesses mainly exist to advance a cause in society. In a world of scarce resources, people need to find a means of survival and that often means getting a job. Governments that adopt a capitalist model use the incentive of profits to ensure that people work hard and develop entrepreneurial mindsets. In socialistic governments, where the means of production is owned or shared by the state, people lose the incentive to work at their optimum levels since they cannot realize profits. While a capitalistic model improves the efficiency of businesses, there also exists the downside of the majority of people working long hours to make low wages while a minority of owners reap the benefit. Such regulations, such as minimum wage, help protect lower-end workers in a capitalistic economy where the promise of profits pave the way for exploitation of humans. A few businesses, however, exist for purposes other than making a profit. Entrepreneurs, who already have made their money through for-profit businesses, hope to leave a positive mark in the world and start businesses for the sake of improving humanity. These type of businesses exist for an array of purposes, including providing poor people with free legal advice, advocating for improved environmental health and educating others about methods of sustainable development. These businesses do not seek to make a profit but rather make sure they have just enough to fulfill their raison d'etre. Indeed, the existence of for-profit businesses help drive the economy by putting people to work, encouraging new innovations and increasing efficiency. They provide essential services and goods to the public and are able to improve their means of doing business through the incentive of making profits. However, the world becomes a frigid place when the only businesses that exist seek to make a profit. A human element is added to a capitalistic world when non-profit businesses can co-exist. They help provide services that bring awareness to those who are left behind in a profit-minded world, including the very poor, disabled and the environment in general.

The Study of History as an Art

The study of history is more an art than a science. Describe a specific situation in which the study of history might be more of a science than an art. Discuss what you think determines whether the study of history is more an art or a science. It is often said that those who fail to learn from the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them. However, what is considered a "mistake" depends on the point of view of the historian or the source of the history lesson. Indeed, the study of history is more an art than a science. Unlike math or science, there is no one correct interpretation of history. The historian, as objective as he aims to be, will always bring in his biases and background into the analysis. Since each person is unique with varying experiences and education, the product of a historical study will differ from historian. Granted, not everything in the study of history is subjective. All historians, for example, agree on the dates of certain events. No one will contest the fact that Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492 or that World War II occurred between 1939 and 1945. Sometimes finding out when a historical event could be considered more as a science since there exist black and white techniques, such as carbon dating, that help facilitate that goal. However, the critical analysis of such events---for instance, why certain events occurred at the time that they did--is more of an art. Each historian has come from a unique place, having studied various interpretations in history and experienced different training in schools. What he chooses to include or exclude in his analysis is a matter of personal preference and bias. For example, a liberal-thinking historian might come up with a whole different take on matters related to 9-11 from one that is more conservative. Even two historians who agree on political and philosophical matters will each offer something different for minds to absorb. Like a good artist, an accomplished historian is able to demonstrate superb technical techniques. This includes an ability to effectively communicate his thoughts in the written word and absorb analysis from the different works used for research. The development of these skills is a work of art in itself since this type of critical thinking involves creativity and interpretation. One who approaches history from an entirely "scientific" point of view will not be able to inspire new thought and captivate his audience.

Politicians Achieving Goals by Ignoring the Public's Needs

Politicians often achieve their goals by ignoring the needs of their constituents. Describe a specific situation in which a politician might achieve a political goal without ignoring the needs of the constituents. Discuss what you think determines whether or not politicians can achieve political goals by ignoring the needs of constituents. Staying in power as a politician involves playing a game of strategy. He has to appeal to constituents by addressing (or appearing to address) their needs and at the same time, gain the support of powerful entities that help fund his campaigns. Indeed, money talks and politicians will ultimately answer to those who financially support his goals to maintain power. In the process, the politician is unable to effectively address the needs of his constituents. Running for office in the United States and in most nations requires gaining a lot of financial support. To get elected, one must be able to afford the propaganda, whether they be television ads, internet websites, and newspaper editorials, to muster the majority of votes. While some politicians on a local or smaller level may successfully get into office using their own financial resources, most need to launch a major campaign initiative. This often involves attracting support of moneyed entities, such as mega-corporations and extremely wealthy individuals. These donors, of course, expect to curry favor with the politician in some manner. Politicians are, indeed, beholden to the wishes of their donors while publicly proclaiming to serve the public good. In the past few years, we witnessed Wall Street banks and mega unions-auto industries being bailed out by the government although they have taken business risks adverse to the public interest. These powerful entities enjoy lax rules and regulations that allow them to act in a feckless manner knowing that the politicians they have put into office will answer to them. In the process, the politician´s constituents---made up of Regular Joes---suffer in the process through unemployment, unfavorable interest rates, etc. At times, a politician might achieve his political goal of maintain power without ignoring the needs of the constituents. For example, when a national or high profile disaster strikes a region, the politician cannot simply ignore the crisis. He has no choice but to make decisions that help rescue victims and get them back on their feet. This can be done by, for instance, supporting pro-FEMA legislation, etc. By addressing the needs of the people in a national crisis, the politician gains popularity and has a greater chance of staying in office come election time. Granted, some of the laws in the United States are designed to keep politicians from being "too beholden" to moneyed entities and individuals. For example, a whole range of campaign finance laws exist to limit the amount of funding that these entities and individuals can donate to politicians. However, these politicians and lawyers often find ways to circumvent the laws and get themselves into a situation where they still answer to the needs of their donors. Indeed, money and special interests will most likely continue to play growing role in politicians' decisions and the workings of the government as a whole.

Do Democracies reward Mediocrity?

It is in the nature of democracy to reward mediocrity. Describe a specific situation in which a democracy might not reward mediocrity. Discuss what you think determines when democracy rewards mediocrity. By definition, a democracy is government "of the people, by the people and for the people." Essentially, the citizens of a nation have the opportunity to be involved in the decision-making processes. While the people do not play a direct part in running the government, they have the right to elect their leaders to represent their interests. In a democracy, these leaders are voted into office by majority vote. This system rewards mediocrity in the sense that interests of the majority comprise of "regular" people. Indeed, the interests of the majority do not necessarily reflect what is best for a nation. When voting, most people do not critically analyze the issues nor do they closely study the candidates vying for office. In fact, these candidates know they can sway people one way or the other by paying millions to run negative campaign ads on television. Unfortunately, most people vote based on superficial matters, such as whether they feel they can share a beer with the candidate or whether the candidate professes the same religious beliefs. The system of majority vote, thus, rewards those who think like the masses and this rewards mediocrity. The masses will also support policies that do not necessarily encourage enterprise and economic independence. For example, politicians had been somewhat cautious regarding the issue of benefits. For years, especially in states such as California, the government has been enabling people with welfare payments and supporting policies that encourage the lower classes to choose state checks over working. Part of this cycle had continued because politicians relied on certain segments of the population to get re-elected and maintain power. The situation is slightly different now that most people are cognizant of the government's economic bind and rising debt levels, and are, therefore, more supportive of state cuts on all programs. In other senses, democracy does not necessarily reward mediocrity. While majority rules during election time, the intelligent, enterprising citizens still have a leg-up over the rest. They are able to use their brains and resources to lobby for changes they want in their favor. They, indeed, have more access than "regular" people to leaders in office. They know how to navigate through the political system to fill up their coffers even more. The masses may vote for their representatives but these leaders most often still answer to those who rise above mediocrity.

Can a Democratic Government keep Secrets from the People?

A democratic government is never justified in keeping secrets from the voting public. Describe a specific situation in which the government of a democracy might be justified in keeping a secret from the voters. Discuss what you think determines whether or not a democratic government is justified in keeping secrets from the voters. Democracy is sometimes summed up as a phrase coined by Abraham Lincoln---that is, it is government of the people, by the people and for the people. Citizens to not have direct control over the laws and processes of government; however, they vote for leaders who they think will best represent their needs in the public sphere. In order for a democratic system to work, leaders need to maintain a transparent system where the people are aware of the hard-pressing issues, voting records, etc. Of course, there exists instances where keeping certain secrets from the public is necessary to avoid harm to the people and government.  In order to vote responsibly, citizens need to have access to information from a free press. The ubiquity of news information via the internet has helped people become more aware of the workings of government and how their representatives are performing. This transparency of information has, indeed, helped leaders become more accountable to the people. Their dissatisfaction with outcomes in government is likely to reach the ears of the decisionmakers who can then decide how to proceed in the future. Moreover, citizens can use information from the government to make better decisions for themselves and their families.  At times, the government may be justified in keeping information from the public. For instance, national security concerns allow leaders to label information as "classified." Other times, information may be kept secret to help maintain relationships in other nations. In the Wikileaks scandal, released diplomatic cables may have strained political relations and perhaps even placed lives in danger. Indeed, determining whether a government can keep  matters from the public is a subjective issue. While the functioning of a true democracy depends on an open society, there are certain instances where the government may hide information from the public. It has many interests to take into account, including maintaining order in society and protecting people from terrorist acts. Sometimes the release of information could pose serious obstacles in achieving these goals. It is important, however, for advocacy groups, such as those supporting Wikileaks, to keep government in check and make sure that it does not fail to release information that the general public could use for their own good rather than harm.