We live in a society that respects majority rule, both in politics and elsewhere.

If a majority of people decide that certain kinds of businesses should stay open, they will elect people who reflect that view. If a majority of people needed by a business stay open disapprove of that business, the business will shut down. This is exactly why a business must make the case for its existence and for free enterprise. Businessmen like Tbone and my dad are the best face of free enterprise. Sure, Rombo is welcome to do Bain, but let’s not kid ourselves into thinking that the way you do business is insulated from real world consequences.

‘What should become of the ones you don’t like and who decides?’

I pointed out to you what actually happens and answered the ‘who decides’ part of your question.

Nowhere did I mention robbery. I didn’t say Bain was a crime. In fact, I’m not sure how bad it is, if at all. So I’m not sure what you’re getting at.

Your ‘OWS’ citation makes an implicit connection between attacking certain business practices and Marxism, which is the philosophy of OWS. That is absurd on its face. And it’s that sort of hyperbole, in conjunction with not recognizing the realities of business practices and the political reaction to it, that hurts free enterprise. We would be much better served by making a moral case for free enterprise and by defending Bain capital in a rational way ( go through the argument point-by-point) rather than making the blanket defense ‘you’re attacking free enterprise’.

I didn’t say it was a good thing. That’s why I put ‘for better or for worse’.

It’s just the world as we find it, in my humble estimation.

But I know that the methods you’re using are the methods the right’s been using for years.

And now we have the very real prospect that Obama may get reelected.

I’m defending the notion that we can critique particular businesses or types of business from an ethical and moral standpoint without channeling the ghost of Marx.

About the only thing I’ve vociferously defended Newt on is the idea that his marriage issues preclude him from office. I did say, and I stand by it, that it’s ludicrous to assert that he’s a Marxist/socialist/anti-free enterprise guy because he’s taking political advantage of a populist time to beat his opponent. His record just doesn’t bear that out.

I haven’t seen the ad you’re referring to, though. That might well change my mind. Is that his lastest one? I’ll search for it.

And if that one man (the majority of your customers) decides to quit on you, unless you find another, you’re out of business.

I’m not arguing that.

from what i wrote, your conclusions in no way follow.

for instance, if Tbone or my dad or one of a myriad of businesspeople I know were in office, i’d have full confidence in their willingness to repeal Obamacare. The way they’ve decided to practice business tells me they consider the well-being of others in their community. I can’t say the same for Romney. The quote you pulled out refers to the fact that if he sees it’s to his advantage (politically or whatever) to not repeal Obamacare, he won’t, based on the way he has made decisions before that have put individuals out of work (no matter how noble a function this may serve in the economy). He put profit (advantage) over the well-being over certain individuals, which is his right, and probably not even wrong in a moral sense, in business. However, this same approach is unacceptable wrt Obamacare, imo.

And btw, I do question the assertion that a businessman is always a good choice for governing. Many businesspeople are fine with public-private partnerships, which are nascent fascism. Many see to take the approach that their role in office is to grow the economy of wherever it is they are running. Their role, in America, is to shrink government and extract it as much as possible from private industry and affairs. In my own town, we have a mayor who was an accomplished businessman. Since he started, he has been the most progressive politician our area has ever seen. He has grown government through public-private partnerships and other types of crony capitalism; he has railroaded private property rights with eminent domain to hand in the name of ‘development’; he has even unilaterally limited the amount of trash we can put out on dump day in the name of economic/financial efficiency. THAT’S the sort of ‘business decision’ that has no place in government.

Another great businessman-turned-politician? Michael ‘the Nanny’ Bloomberg’.

I should have put in ‘or perhaps even the vast majority of time’; in fact, I knew this when I was typing it, and laziness got the better of me. I was wrong to do so.

(That’s as close to an apology as you’re getting. You weren’t slighted personally. Grow up and quit being ridiculous.)

The question is not one of firing people absolutely speaking. My dad (and I’m sure Tbone) has had to cut hours and even lay people off, and definitely fire people for bad behavior. I never claimed otherwise. ( I supposed I should ask for an apology now/sarc.) Nevertheless, (I’ll not speak for Tbone) my dad’s business model uses firing as a last resort, not a regular practice.

Bizarre? This is the man who signed Romneycare into place (did he decide that was unsustainable? Did he show regard for the federal deficit, as Gov. Walker did recently, by not relying on federal money to subsidize Romneycare? Not much fiscal responsibility, or business acumen, worked into Romneycare.). This is the man who nominated liberal judges in Mass. This is the man who did other, equally idiotic things, all while hiding behind ‘it was Massachussetts, it was the best a Republican could do’. Add to that his proclivity for changing positions, mid-debate, as he did in ’94 with Ted Kennedy, and all of the sudden the scenario I painted is not only not bizarre, but concerningly all-too-possible. Indeed, this behavior is illustrative of exactly what I’m concerned about.

The funny thing about all the time I’ve wasted going back and forth with you is that I stated way upthread that I didn’t even know if Bain did wrong or not, and that that was not the point. I didn’t argue that defending Bain or any other business was wrong. Rather, the point was that dogmatism has taken hold on our own side to the point one cannot even level criticism at a business or industry without having the most ridiculous charged leveled at them. Make a rational, point-by-point case for your position (which, to your credit, you have, unlike many defending Bain), but don’t resort to flinging loaded terms with dogmatic zeal, like many have done on this very issue.