Thread: Can humans be trusted...

to know, and thus do, what is best for themselves? Some people think Wal-Mart is "evil" because of their profit margins and labor practices. If this is indeed true wouldn't enough people stop shopping there which would force them to change or go out of business? If people in general can't be trusted then how can a democratic republic function?


Sent from Uranus using Tapatalk

Are we talking individually or collectively?

And how would how a company treats it's labor force impact the person shopping with business if, they themselves, don't work for said company? In other words, I don't see the correlation.

If we're talking collectively, I would say yes. I would think that a group of people with a common interest would understand what's in there best interest. Take for example the teachers in Wisconsin. They collectively agree that bargaining as a group with a common interest serves their needs compared to doing so individually. Unfortunately, a singular corrupt Governor disagrees with that. Another example are the employees that banded together at Wal Mart to demand better working conditions. Unfortunately, a large corporation with money to burn and little regard for it's work force disagreed with that.

If we're talking individually, I would say that in the long term the average person does not do what's best for themselves nor to society to which they belong. You can look at the nation's saving rate as an example. One function of a government of a free society is to take a long term view knowing full well that it's citizens generally won't. This means making painful decisions for both businesses and individuals alike. Such as higher taxes and making the right to bargain collectively...a right.

It's a matter of education. When it comes down to it, most people rely on their local newspapers and TV stations to be educated about the news and issues. Those sources typically operate at a an 8th grade reading level and often feature opinion pieces.

It should be the goal of those who educate themselves well to educate others. Until then, no people cannot be trusted to do what's best for themselves.

Take proper nutrition. Most people do not know how to eat well or how to eat well economically. As a result, the majority of Americans are overweight, out of shape, etc. Imagine the world of difference that showing people how to make a salad that tastes good would do or showing people the wonders of lentils.

On these forums, we are pretty spoiled. We are used to dealing with people on all sides of the spectrum who actively seek to educate themselves from a variety of sources and on a variety of topics. We are the type of people who can spread knowledge to our friends and neighbors.

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

This is where I disagree with a company like Wal Mart. While I'm totally in favor of them making a profit, they get to do so in a functioning country and society and in my opinion, that comes with a price. Since they insist on using that society's possessions (infrastructure, labor force, laws, etc...) they must give that society a measure of say in how they operate.

To me, that means that the collective work force has a say in the conditions and renumeration in which they operate. Whether or not they needed that meat dept. misses the point. They closed it not b/c it made profit or not but in order to shirk their responsability to the society that gives them the wherewithal to conduct their business. It must be a two way street or all you end up with is a run down society that is currently America. Depressed wages, high inceration rates, menial to no health care for millions and so on.

Sure Wal Mart didn't need that meat dept. to survive but they show they're lack of respect to a society by thumbing their noses at those that allow them to exist in the first place.

I think the people should be able to collectively bargain, but when your cards arent enough to beat their cards... I think the business has every right to be that way. Not ideal but, I believe places like walmart will eventually fall. They have gone so far cutting corners society will take notice and eventually stop shopping there. Should they be more responsible, yes, do they have to, no. I feel any company who has workers go on strike should be able to fire the workers and hire new ones. It may work for the company and it may not, but it should still be their choice to make.

Yes people will figure it out, but it is a slow process. Other big retailers have gone and are going out of business. They didnt adapt to a changing market and paid the price. Walmart will get theirs too. Yes they are big and have great prices, but the service sucks, the workers arent happy and it shows. I was a reg. walmart customer at one time. Cheap convenient what I needed. Now you cant find what you need, they dont have enough employees working to provide service, and the prices are not always better. Others will take their business elsewhere and walmart will fade, in time.

So yes people can be trusted to eventually figure it out. As I think we as society should. It is this freedom that makes us what we are. Even if we make the wrong choices for a few years(decades)

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

Are we talking individually or collectively?

And how would how a company treats it's labor force impact the person shopping with business if, they themselves, don't work for said company? In other words, I don't see the correlation.

If we're talking collectively, I would say yes. I would think that a group of people with a common interest would understand what's in there best interest. Take for example the teachers in Wisconsin. They collectively agree that bargaining as a group with a common interest serves their needs compared to doing so individually. Unfortunately, a singular corrupt Governor disagrees with that. Another example are the employees that banded together at Wal Mart to demand better working conditions. Unfortunately, a large corporation with money to burn and little regard for it's work force disagreed with that.

If we're talking individually, I would say that in the long term the average person does not do what's best for themselves nor to society to which they belong. You can look at the nation's saving rate as an example. One function of a government of a free society is to take a long term view knowing full well that it's citizens generally won't. This means making painful decisions for both businesses and individuals alike. Such as higher taxes and making the right to bargain collectively...a right.

So is collective bargaining what is best for the people paying their salaries, so in this case the taxpayers in Wisconsin? While I agree it is best for say the teachers are the teachers being shortsighted, selfish, whatever you want to call it in regards to the rest of the residents? It would be in the best interest of Texans to have residents of Texas get a lower federal tax rate, but would that be in the best interest of the collective of the US? To me it seems that MOST people want what they think is best for them at the moment with little or no regard for the rest of society other than the portion of society that agrees with them, or that will receive the same benefits.

Originally Posted by DJ Mr. White

It's a matter of education. When it comes down to it, most people rely on their local newspapers and TV stations to be educated about the news and issues. Those sources typically operate at a an 8th grade reading level and often feature opinion pieces.

It should be the goal of those who educate themselves well to educate others. Until then, no people cannot be trusted to do what's best for themselves.

Take proper nutrition. Most people do not know how to eat well or how to eat well economically. As a result, the majority of Americans are overweight, out of shape, etc. Imagine the world of difference that showing people how to make a salad that tastes good would do or showing people the wonders of lentils.

On these forums, we are pretty spoiled. We are used to dealing with people on all sides of the spectrum who actively seek to educate themselves from a variety of sources and on a variety of topics. We are the type of people who can spread knowledge to our friends and neighbors.

Last I checked they still taught the four basic food groups in every public school. Quit blaming someone else for every problem that people have, and require some personal responsibility out of people for a change.

Originally Posted by CivilWars

So is collective bargaining what is best for the people paying their salaries, so in this case the taxpayers in Wisconsin? While I agree it is best for say the teachers are the teachers being shortsighted, selfish, whatever you want to call it in regards to the rest of the residents? It would be in the best interest of Texans to have residents of Texas get a lower federal tax rate, but would that be in the best interest of the collective of the US? To me it seems that MOST people want what they think is best for them at the moment with little or no regard for the rest of society other than the portion of society that agrees with them, or that will receive the same benefits.

The group that is collectively bargaining has their interests in mind. The other party sitting across the table has theirs in mind. That is why it's called bargaining. It would pointless if the teachers based their position on what the taxpayers wanted when it comes to their salaries. That would be silly.

Originally Posted by CivilWars

Last I checked they still taught the four basic food groups in every public school. Quit blaming someone else for every problem that people have, and require some personal responsibility out of people for a change.

Yeah, they teach the food groups at school, but what do kids see when they go home? McDonalds or healthy food? Parents are the prime source when it comes to teaching good habits especially eating ones, and that is partly society's fault.