In brief, the Moral Private Sector...
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.