Originally posted by ilikecomics
I don't deny those things are deleterious. I am claiming that a company, who did something harmful, can only continue to exist via being subsidized by the state, because the state is force incarnate. And obviously a state can do anything with total imputiny because, again, they have the guns.In response to how long it took to fix those problems, that's because the state monopolized environmental catastrophe response also the EPA, this people are disincentivized to create private entities to compete with the state, who has infinite funds. Additionally, due to the state being bloated with bureaucracy it doesn't have response time like a private entity would.
In a free market a company that does something deleterious would have to accept responsibility and fix it, otherwise they would shit down because there would be no state to bail it out and they would have to exist solely on merit/reputation.
We've had this discussion before. It simply isn't true that in a free market, companies that conduct deleterious acts would have to accept responsibility and fix it. Even in the modern age where you have access to information on how companies conduct themselves across the globe large corporations, in the absence of a functioning state, act with impunity and would never alter their behaviours if not forced to do so.
Oil companies shipping millions of barrels out of Iraq without paying any tax on it because the iraqi government is too weak and ineffectual to do anything about it. In fact its even worse than that because those same oil companies force the Iraq government to use its meagre resources to spend money creating a military force whose sole purpose is to guard the oil pipelines those companies use to remove the oil from the country tax free.
Or take Africa. Collectively the most resource rich continent on the planet being absolutely raped of its resources by predatory corporations because almost none of its governments have the power to prevent it. The situation is actually worse now than during colonialism. Back then, European countries extracted $4 from Africa for every $1 they invested in Africa. Now they extract $20 for every $1 spent. Here's a specific example of what I mean.
YouTube video
The problem is connection and consequence. How many consumers even know how massive technology corporations like Apple and Samsung obtain the materials they need for manufacturing? Even if the local effects in Africa of Cobalt mining were widely known around the world how many people would care enough about it to give up their cell phones in order to force those companies into more ethical practices?
How often have we seen the same pattern? Diamond mining, deforestation to grow palm oil plantations, factory farming and battery hens. Everyone knows about the unethical and locally damaging practices but no one's giving up their jewellery, cosmetics and cheap food to do anything about it because the average consumer doesn't equate those things when doing their weekly shop. In a globalised world reputation isn't linked to conduct but end user experience.
The exact same problem in reverse exists at the end of life of a product. The consumer thinks they're being responsible citizens by recycling their old technology but their actions are so far removed from the actual practices of recycling that it equates to the same ultimate thing...
Out of sight, out of mind
Here's Joe Scott again with the example
YouTube video