Social responsibility and Conglomerates in a free market

[Democracy_for_Breakf]

So, I have a situation in mind on the issue of a business’ Social Responsibility vs making a profit.

Lets say an Entreprenuer wants to start a Business, and needs to receive local funding. The Entrepreneur would use the resources offered by the free market and local citizens to fund the beginning of his Business, on the contrary that it would be beneficial the community(create jobs, more revenue, sell a demanded product). However, the Community also expects that the Company will give back to the community, and be responsible for the property damage of the community, by lets say not dumping toxic in the local pond.

Now, if that company which was locally funded to start, the owner should feel like he is at the communities mercy, even if it would be more profitable to do Business at the communities expense if it means profit.

However, lets say Business goes well, the company grows and then a Corporation comes in and offers to buy the company. The owner is offered a deal that he can’t refuse, so he takes the money and then hands over the company.

This Corporation which is not at the mercy of the community has incentive to violate property rights. Even if it is illegal to dump toxic in the local pond, they will do it because 1. they can afford a good lawyer, 2. because its profitable, and cheaper, and 3. because they don’t owe the community anything.

The legality of dumping toxic in someone’s backyard or local pond requires the State to be enforced. Even if they are sued by the Community, the Corporation has the funds to hire a way better lawyer . If they lose the case, they will ask the State to do something about it.

Now without a State, and without a Judicial enforcement, how the heck would you prevent this scenario? How would a free market or free society give incentive for honest business?

[mootxico]

If the corporation in question does not own the pond, then they can’t dump anything into it without permission; if they dump something into it anyway, they get sued. If they do own the pond, they can whatever they please with it.

[Democracy_for_Breakf]

@mootxico

If the corporation in question does not own the pond, then they can’t dump anything into it without permission; if they dump something into it anyway, they get sued. If they do own the pond, they can whatever they please with it.

But there isn’t a counter to that situation. Being sued is nothing, if they can hire expensive lawyers to defend them, and if they owned the Pond it would cause massive environmental damage until is unusable, then they would need to find more property to destroy.

[Caley_McKibbin]

You have to destroy a thing to create another thing. In this particular universe there are always downsides.

[mootxico]

@Democracy for Breakfast

@mootxico

If the corporation in question does not own the pond, then they can’t dump anything into it without permission; if they dump something into it anyway, they get sued. If they do own the pond, they can whatever they please with it.

But there isn’t a counter to that situation. Being sued is nothing, if they can hire expensive lawyers to defend them, and if they owned the Pond it would cause massive environmental damage until is unusable, then they would need to find more property to destroy.

If they owned the pond and their destruction only affected the pond itself, then I don’t see what the problem is, are you saying that an individual does not possess the right to destroy his own property or at least not naturally occurring property? If their destruction somehow affected things outside of the pond, then the people that own the affected things could sue the corporation. If they don’t own the pond and dump anyway, how could they possibly do that in secret unless the pond is completely unguarded?

[Democracy_for_Breakf]

@mootxico

If the corporation in question does not own the pond, then they can’t dump anything into it without permission; if they dump something into it anyway, they get sued. If they do own the pond, they can whatever they please with it.

Because of the massive environmental damage, the life destroyed in the pond is an overall ecological effect. Are you saying the environment isn’t important? If its just the pond effected, which they own they could poison it and destroy aquatic life which could then pass on fumes that make the community sick.

@mootxico

are you saying that an individual does not possess the right to destroy his own property or at least not naturally occurring property?

It isn’t a good idea, but people do it, because they know they can just get more property. It will cause widespread environmental damage, it will be more then one individual doing it.

@mootxico

If they don’t own the pond and dump anyway, how could they possibly do that in secret unless the pond is completely unguarded?

If they make an appeal to the local senator or selectmen such as through lobbying, he will tell the community it was financially beneficial. Or, if they do it in public but get a top-tier business lawyer to defend them when they get sued, they win the case and are off the hook.

[mootxico]

Because of the massive environmental damage, the life destroyed in the pond is an overall ecological effect.

Your original post never specified if the pond had anything living in it or if it was man-made or natural. In any case, if you own the pond then you also own whatever is in the pond, living or not.

Are you saying the environment isn’t important?

Non sequitor; how does it follow that if I think someone can destroy their own property, I don’t think that the environment isn’t important?

If its just the pond effected, which they own they could poison it and destroy aquatic life which could then pass on fumes that make the community sick.

If the pond emits hazardous fumes, then it isn’t just the pond that is being effected, the people damaged by the fumes can sue the corporation.

It isn’t a good idea, but people do it, because they know they can just get more property. It will cause widespread environmental damage, it will be more then one individual doing it.

If the property is obtained either through homesteading or voluntary exchange then I don’t see what the problem is, the property owner can damage it if they want, natural property or not.

If they make an appeal to the local senator or selectmen such as through lobbying, he will tell the community it was financially beneficial. Or, if they do it in public but get a top-tier business lawyer to defend them when they get sued, they win the case and are off the hook.

Your original post said that there wasn’t a State in this scenario, how would the corporation make an appeal to a local senator or selectman in a Stateless society? Even if we assume there was a State, what you are describing is a problem with Statism in general (You can just lobby for whatever you want if you have a lot of money and political connections), not voluntaryism. As for the last situation, sometimes the guilty go free regardless of what legal system you have, if a court can’t figure out who committed a crime then the accused gets away with the crime, you’re describing a problem with criminal justice in general, not voluntaryism. By the way, how exactly could the corporation secretly dump things into a pond they don’t own if the pond and surrounding area is guarded? The guards would be within their rights to stop the corporation from entering the property. If the pond and surrounding area is completely unguarded then the people who own that area are basically asking to get victimized, that would be akin to leaving your house unguarded while you were on vacation then wondering why you got robbed and why the police can’t figure out who robbed you. Yes, it was wrong for the robber to rob your house, but you were also foolish for leaving it completely unguarded.