Re: the good fight

[Greg Brown <gregb@alaskapacific.edu>]

Stephen Cooke wrote:

> 3) Re. Alturus business park. I suspect that it is not considered liberal by
> some to support business. This is a mistake for liberals and for business in
> my view.

   As an avowed liberal, I'm decidely not anti-business.  I fully
supportsustainable businesses and (ironically) pay more to do it because
these businesses do not live off the dole.  Good examples...the Co-op,
Paradise Farms, Ken's Stationary, Bookpeople, etc.

   The trouble occurs when the roles of the guardian and commerce merge.
They need to remain separate as much as possible.  Business is no good
at governance, and government is no good at commerce.  For elaboration
of this concept, a must read is Paul Hawken's "The Ecology of Commerce."


> It tends to violate "goosian's law" i.e., don't kill the goose that
> lays the golden egg. It can be argued that businesses have life cycles.
> Community nurturing of businesses particularly early in their life cycle is
> helpful to them and to the community.

   I agree, but businesses should enter the communitythrough the front door, not
the back door.  Why should a community
embrace a business enterprise that is birthed in deception?  Can
anyone give me one example of a large business that come into
Moscow through the front door?

> As with anything, the nurturing can be
> abused. But I do not believe that public support, including dedicated tax
> support, for new startup businesses is bad per se.

   I think one needs to be extremely cautious in this area.  Onemust carefully
define the "public good" that is being
undersupplied that requires government subsidy.  The reality
is that taxpayers end up subsidizing big business, not the
little guy.  How are the guardians to know who and what
to subsidize? What concept of the "public good" should drive
this decision process?


--
Greg Brown, Associate Professor
(gregb@alaskapacific.edu)
Alaska Pacific University
(907) 564-8267
Fax: (907) 562-4276