Philosophy Now Forum

Private Enterprise
A typical definition of this is: Business or industry that is managed by independent companies or private individuals rather than being controlled by the state.
But an ethical definition of private enterprise, or private ownership, may find problems with this. Particularly in an age of globalisation and bodies such as Amazon and Microsoft.
The question is not two sided but three sided.
It is not simply the ownership but the purpose which matters.
The term private is vague, and terms like individual and social should be employed in addition to state.
1/ A business may be owned by the state for its purposes. It may ostensibly be privately owned but serving the state. It may be so all embracing in its scope as to have become the state.
2/ A business may be owned by an individual, or small partnership, purely for their own profit and benefit. Every individual may be a business concern in his own right, for his own benefit, on an egalitarian basis. The proverbial corner shop.
3/ All business may be for social benefit, either managed and nominally owned individually, or managed under the aegis of social control. Society not as individuals in mass, but as individuals corporately and holistically.

i think the state created private enterprise so as to dissociate itself from it, but it is still very much a part of the state

and i believe it coincided with 'development' and modernization.

basically, a mark of a developed country isn't just government funded healthcare, labour rights, or any of that stuff, it's essentially a population that at least partly believes in the moral good of authority. rather than authority just being 'i have the power; do what i say or i'll kill you/you can go elsewhere' as it is in 'underdeveloped' countries, or moreso, in 'developed' countries the the population is more likely, and they are raised this way, to more or less believe in the moral good of the state and want to comply, support it (pay taxes), and be upstanding contributing citizens because they believe it is right, not because they are being forced too.

so to protect its image, and thus the 'moral fabric' of society that becomes in part the motivation of citizens (and they are more effective this way, easier/cheaper to control, etc.) the state had to dissociate itself from businesses, but not all businesses...

those deemed essential the state will tend to hold on to. like police force, utilities, perhaps the the internet will be next?

i notice the internet and telecom companies are getting real close to the state recently, and i've seen debate in the news of the state possibly regulating these soon. basically, telecommunications will become a 'utility' and a 'necessity'

basically, the state does this to protect itself, if a particular business becomes too powerful it will be absorbed.