Private Versus Public Enterprise for Change?

I think that you should well consider the risks of private enterprise for social change before considering it as the best route. The "public" meant as the state apparatus is obviously problematic as well, and as you mention, it could be practically slower because overly bureaucratized.

However, I think its is a better route both in principle and, to an extent, in practice. In principle, I think that the government as such, especially when of a democratic form and accountable to its people, should be taking responsibility and demonstrate that the reasons for the legitimacy of its existence are beyond the exercise of control and power of the elected ones over the "demos", but they actually include a resourceful promotion of change for the good of the community. Although I personally generally doubt the legitimacy of government's existence and power to enforce rules, I would argue that this is the only facet of its ruling functions that are fully justifiable and useful to a population, in so far that, I believe, they are what, outweigh government's oppressive authority in the public opinion's eyes, allowing the governments to stay in control. So perhaps, considering this specific consequence, it would be more desirable not to have government's invested in promoting change, but my argument would rather regard not having governments at all, and I doubt that this was the point of your question.

On the level of practice then, I still believe that, having accepted the existence of governments, they are still preferreable to private enterprises in enacting social actions, as they are indeed politically accountable through laws and elections, at least in the case of fully functioning democracies. This is never the case for private enterprises, which are only accountable to their own interests for maximing their profits, and which would likely enact change only for "marketeable" aims and through profitable means, while also hiding the need for structural, political and long-lasting change. You may argue that governments are as well tied up in corporations' and their lobbies' interests and would not necessarily act for the common good, but that would refer us to my first argument of discussing the existence and functions of governments in today's world.

Private and public enterprises complement each other in their advantages and disadvantages and our society needs both of them, in my perspective. Private organizations stimulate the economy on a micro level and prioritize in maximizing its profits, which is not to say that it will seldom serve the common good. For example, a lot of positive social events are funded by private companies and I feel we should not ignore their contribution due to their money-drive nature. Another benefit of private enterprise is that they really contribute to social innovation and creation. The example of Starbucks staff refer to customers by their first name can be considered as a social innovation, which enhance interpersonal warmth and may help decrease life pressure in a small way. This is something that public organizations may have a lot of difficulty doing because they aim at bigger picture of communal and societal change. Hence, they often would not bother making small changes that they do not see the longer effect. In a word, we can combine the public and private enterprises to make a better change in our social action after we consider how and to what extent we are going to utilize both of them.

Hi Emma and Miaoting,

Thanks a lot for responding. Emma, I think you are right about how the slow and steady movement of the government is actually full of checks to ensure that they are serving the public well. We both agree that private enterprise is better for social change and innovation but is fettered by the hunt for profit and the M'.

Miaoting, I like your Starbucks example and want to challenge the social innovation of using the customer's first name. I feel that this mechanism being a friendly gesture is illusory and more so yet another mechanism to capture profit and that ever sought after M'. I feel that by writing first and more importantly writing the name INCORRECTLY is to make the customer post or share their cup on social media like snapchat or instagram. . Thus, using the customer as a free advertisement or billboard for Starbucks. It is similar to clothing stores that do not ask if you need a bag but pack one for you without hesitation. You will walk down Robson Street or 4th Avenue as a human, moving advertisement for that store. All this in an effort for profit.

Hi Hugh. I am sorry but I would rather not be misunderstood. I see all of your points, but it is a misreading of my argument to say that we both agree that private enterprise is better for social change and innovation. As I wrote in my previous comments, I see the flaws you point in the government, but I still believe it's better than private enterprise, at least assuming that it's a functioning democracy and in a realm where we have already agreed to the fact it exists. In simpler words, that is to say that if we could get rid of any form of government and be sufficiently evolved to coexist peacefully in anarchism, I would be happiest. However, as we daily prove not to be even close to any communitarian utopia, I think that an accountable and elected government is a much better option than a profit-driven private company to promote social change. Not only the latter will base its actions on individual interests related to market profitability, but developing a societal expectation for social actions to come from private institutions further delegitimizes the state and lets the market aquire even more power, while hiding the political nature of structural problems which need political and communal, accountable intervention for change.