Self Regulation in 1819

On By southwerkIn business ethics

Self Regulation in 1819

Labeling poison as, well, poison, might strike you as an obvious social good. That wasn’t always so obvious as the selection below indicates –

Stratmann’s portrait of the age of arsenic (by far the most frequently used poison) is more than a string of grisly tales, and more relevant to our age than you might think. Two hundred years ago, lethal substances were readily available in a way that now seems utterly perverse. Arsenic was used widely in medicine, agriculture, industry and the home. It was employed to dip sheep, kill rats, anoint fly papers, and could be purchased in powdered form from grocers, no questions asked. In 1819 a bill was introduced that would have made the labelling of deadly poisons compulsory, but it was opposed by the Society of Chemists and Druggists as potentially damaging to their business. It never passed.

From http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/18/poison-arsenic-gun-control-crime

Has it always been this way and will it always be this way? Every attempt to do the most obvious necessary thing that might conceivably cost a business man money will be opposed by trade organizations, corporations, chambers of commerce and laissez faire conservative of all stripes regardless?

!!@@#dddddd444hmlbr49
Self Regulation in 1819

Yes, the dollar always has a constituency and never lacks for friends. Even in the face of overwhelming evidence of wrong, the dollar will still scream out in pain and let us all know of its suffering.

But we have a responsibility too. The dollar has friends but so does humanity. Humankind is not always valued as much as money but should be and if money always has friends the some brave souls will have to volunteer to stand up for all of us and sometimes the least of us.

James Pilant

2 thoughts on “Self Regulation in 1819”

  1. It’s like Forrest Gump replies when he’s told he “doesn’t have to worry about money anymore”: “One less thing.” As in there are for the average person plenty of other concerns.
    Of course people with or who represent people with more than enough money will worry about it less, but protect it more fiercely when it’s under threat than anyone else, regardless of the negative consequences – most likely to anyone but them.

    Like

Comments are closed.