& Society
The Private Sector
within the Moral Social Contract

In brief, the Moral Private Sector...
  would follow the moral public sector politically while leading it economically. Within the moral social contract, it would do so from the true rule of law and not of any man or privileged interest group of men in its guise. This would begin with the authority of a constitution which expresses the formative truths and facts which clearly also distinguish these two politically-involved sectors socially. It would not do so from anyone's self-interests which form divisively within his or her own unique mind if he or she socially would have standardized "political authority." There and then, that constitution- and only that constitution- also could and would preserve and promote the fullest possible range of our private rights disinterestedly and commonly as equally applied.
  The private sector then would include consumers whose private rights are greater than the secondary rights of their custodians who politically serve an economic purpose. Therefore, they have a first right to know in advance the rationally-possible consequents for what they'd purchase. This also brings up the question of the currency they'd choose to use for payment in producing new wealth for the provider within a moral banking system.
  Standardizably, their providers as businesses share the political-economic purpose to create new wealth for themselves. This is one of many-possible positive life options which would be available to all the enfranchised, and it would not be forced upon any consumer-citizens as a rational precondition to their social advancement much less survival. Given a moral social contract, there'd be no plutocracy to control the lives of "wage slaves" where and when increasingly fewer among us rationally own the very lives of most others through their control of the money-concept. There'd be no standardized "oligopoly" which even now we can know to exist globally and internationally within that plutocracy of rational fact.
  Those geopolitically within the borders of a nation-state ruled under a moral social contract could avoid this and set the moral example internationally. They'd do so not only through their bank and other standardized "economic" means but through their standardizations for a truly free and open business enterprize first within an economically-leading private sector. 
  There'd be but two classes of business. One standardizes to be a "sole proprietorship" and the other a "corporation." Anyone who transacts a good or service with the purpose of obtaining new wealth as denominatable in a standardized "currency" is a sole proprietor. Anyone who combines with another or others ultimately with that purpose as an interest group secondarily also transacts within a corporation.
  Those within a corporation form to be equal co-owners of the joint enterprize, and the distribution of its collective new wealth must be equal if the performances also are equal. Because politically they are equal, they'd have an equal vote in determining the corporation's outside operations. As to the internal ones of hiring and firing, they may so vote to leave the "dirty work" of filling their authorized new positions and executing the termination of a co-owner to a designated manager. Regardless, any standardized "manager" having any job description himself or herself must be hired or fired by the same rules which apply in essence to those he or she also might hire or fire. That is, those within a corporation also are political and must observe the rule of law and not the self-interests of any individual- managers included!
  That rule requires job descriptions which disinterestedly address the job to be performed and the criteria for selection as separate from the secondary human characteristics of the applicant. Moreover, the first applicant who appears and meets that description must be hired where and when all presently within the corporation first must have equal notice of the opening as a minimum precondition. This would prevent the use of privileged "inside information" as otherwise it would serve the rule of men.
  Firing similarly only can occur if the co-owner doesn't meet her or his job-description criteria which explicitly she or he would know by contract in advance of her or his hiring. The corporate whole otherwise must retain her or him while corporate profits- even if reduced- still would distribute to all equally. In this way, the truly free, consumer-based and "demand-side" market would prevail morally to deny any individual or interest group the ability to rule as men and rationally own the lives of others. That co-owning employees likely would quit during hard times then not only would evidence their equally-primary right to do so but also would tend to move them into more-productive, consumer-determined areas.   

     Home    Contents    Communication    Top    

Thanks for visiting The Formation Quest
Last modified on June 9, 1999