Pro/Con Government regulation of Business closure?
968036
Government regulation of business is valid so that regulations will be properly implemented.
140223
Would you prefer weak corporations that cannot sustain their customers, shareholders and employees? In the free market, or the close approximation in the United States, consumers vote with their dollars-- don't like a company, don't give them your money. \n\nIf your problem lies with how government is bought and paid for by "big business", perhaps you should recognize that companies go through the motions and write the checks only because such a demand for graft exists. Don't like that? Stop giving these corrupt politicos arbitrary authority to determine what's right and wrong in the marketplace.\n\nSimple solutions: Ban tariffs, abolish the Interstate Commerce Commission, and stop granting arbitrary power to money-hungry bosses to rule our marketplace. \n\nThe general sentiment is that business corrupts government, but reality is the reverse. You remove government regulations from the marketplace and you would discover a huge decline in payoffs and bribes. -Why would businesses waste their money if they didn't make it worth their while?\n\nOut of curiousity, I'd like to know what country you are comparing the US to... \n\nAnd "get control back...?" \n\nMy yahoo question to you is: "What the hell are you talking about?"
537688
Privatization allows for private companies to own industries instead of the public.  Some people think that this is bad but let me give you an example; The Fishing Industry.  Okay take a group of people seated in a circle and pass around a cloth bag full of chocolate candy kisses.  Tell everyone that they may each take as many as they wish and when the bag gets back to you, you will double the number of candies inside the bag and pass it around again.  I guarantee that the bag won't make it around the circle once before all the candies are gone, each person thinking that everyone else is conserving, so they can take a few extras.  Now give everyone there own bag of candies and tell them to take as many as they want and you'll double whats left.  This time everyone will have candy in their left in their own bag.  This is privatization.  This is an example of the fishing industry, now that some parts are privatized no one over fishes because then their area won't have any left for next year.
573902
Heh.  People complain when the stock market does well, and they complain when it doesn't do well.  *shrug*\n\nIt's the nature of corporations.  If they all closed shop, the stock market would go down, yes, and many people would be out of jobs.
715521
Honestly and integrity. With the Democrats in power now, though,. businesses are not going to be able to succeed or grow and people will be stuck in 7 dollar an hour jobs instead 5 dollars. \n\nWhat a stupid bunch.
195829
The government is not responsible for being the public's personal bank. And when mortgages are not being paid, foreclosures happen, that does what good for the government.\n\nHell... not only am I against something like this. I am against the majority of the $$$ the government lends out to other countries and institutions. And I am definately against the government being used as a charity by the lazy.
1153129
Yes- no downside to that idea.\n\nTac-cuts have historically invigorated the economy.\n\nHe who governs least governs best.
528121
Continually look for the best company to provide your goods or service.  We are in this state because people just accept it.  If everybody shopped around for the best deal then businesses who remained complacent would go out of business.  By having to compete in the market place their prices would fall.  \n\nAs for the government and their stealth taxes, we all have to vote to get rid of Labour and keep the Tories out.  I doubt the Lib Dems will be any better but at least the big two will get the message that we are sick of being ripped off by their policies which are pro big business.
1032899
each company can make their own policies.  In the state of Washington, one can be terminated for any reason without just cause.
1170549
Unless it is due to problems similar to "the problem of the commons," where the problem cannot be solved by the members without engaging in activities prohibited under the anti-trust laws, it should be to manage the bankruptcy process.  Otherwise, it should be uninvolved entirely.  It should allow the weakest to fail and allow the industry to determine its own course.
1108586
If a restaurant fails a health inspection, it should be closed until the violation is corrected.  If the owner cannot or will not correct the violation then the restaurant should be closed permanently or be sold to another owner who is responsible for correcting the problem.\nThe failed owner should have to take some kind of training course in how to keep a restaurant at code and if a future restaurant also fails, that's it, the person can't own or partially own a restaurant, or manage one, ever.
283983
The big issue in the eBay v. MercExchange case is whether or not courts should automatically issue injunctions against patent infringers.\n\nThe law states that a court MAY issue an injunction against an infringer where infringement is found.  (An injunction is a court order saying that the infringer may no longer make/use/sell the infringing technology).  However, as a matter of practice, a court will automatically issue an injunction where infringement is found.\n\nSo the question is this... should eBay have to shut down it's entire site because one aspect of it infringes?\n\nEBay says no, that MercExchange should not be able to shut them down that easily.\n\nBig Pharma/Biotech is very interested in the outcome of this case because they rely on the ability to shut down infringers.
595971
i know where you are going with this question. yes, state governments should be consolidated, merged and made more efficient, like all businesses of today. now the hard part: the very people who would lose their jobs are the ones who would need to begin this process of reduction and then vote for this consolidation. looks good to me.
714748
The thing is, if you can't buy it at a legal time, then everywhere will be shut.\nSo really, the answer is, whenever a pub or off licence is open.
276397
Section 54956.9 California Government Code regards government entities holding closed meetings. The full text is below.\n\n54956.9.  Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent a\nlegislative body of a local agency, based on advice of its legal\ncounsel, from holding a closed session to confer with, or receive\nadvice from, its legal counsel regarding pending litigation when\ndiscussion in open session concerning those matters would prejudice\nthe position of the local agency in the litigation.\n   For purposes of this chapter, all expressions of the lawyer-client\nprivilege other than those provided in this section are hereby\nabrogated.  This section is the exclusive expression of the\nlawyer-client privilege for purposes of conducting closed-session\nmeetings pursuant to this chapter.\n   For purposes of this section, "litigation" includes any\nadjudicatory proceeding, including eminent domain, before a court,\nadministrative body exercising its adjudicatory authority, hearing\nofficer, or arbitrator.\n   For purposes of this section, litigation shall be considered\npending when any of the following circumstances exist:\n   (a) Litigation, to which the local agency is a party, has been\ninitiated formally.\n   (b) (1) A point has been reached where, in the opinion of the\nlegislative body of the local agency on the advice of its legal\ncounsel, based on existing facts and circumstances, there is a\nsignificant exposure to litigation against the local agency.\n   (2) Based on existing facts and circumstances, the legislative\nbody of the local agency is meeting only to decide whether a closed\nsession is authorized pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subdivision.\n\n   (3) For purposes of paragraphs (1) and (2), "existing facts and\ncircumstances" shall consist only of one of the following:\n   (A) Facts and circumstances that might result in litigation\nagainst the local agency but which the local agency believes are not\nyet known to a potential plaintiff or plaintiffs, which facts and\ncircumstances need not be disclosed.\n   (B) Facts and circumstances, including, but  not limited to, an\naccident, disaster, incident, or transactional occurrence that might\nresult in litigation against the agency and that are known to a\npotential plaintiff or plaintiffs, which facts or circumstances shall\nbe publicly stated on the agenda or announced.\n   (C) The receipt of a claim pursuant to the Tort Claims Act or some\nother written communication from a potential plaintiff threatening\nlitigation, which claim or communication shall be available for\npublic inspection pursuant to Section 54957.5.\n   (D) A statement made by a person in an open and public meeting\nthreatening litigation on a specific matter within the responsibility\nof the legislative body.\n   (E) A statement threatening litigation made by a person outside an\nopen and public meeting on a specific matter within the\nresponsibility of the legislative body so long as the official or\nemployee of the local agency receiving knowledge of the threat makes\na contemporaneous or other record of the statement prior to the\nmeeting, which record shall be available for public inspection\npursuant to Section 54957.5.  The records so created need not\nidentify the alleged victim of unlawful or tortious sexual conduct or\nanyone making the threat on their behalf, or identify a public\nemployee who is the alleged perpetrator of any unlawful or tortious\nconduct upon which a threat of litigation is based, unless the\nidentity of the person has been publicly disclosed.\n   (F) Nothing in this section shall require disclosure of written\ncommunications that are privileged and not subject to disclosure\npursuant to the California Public Records Act (Chapter 3.5\n(commencing with Section 6250) of Division 7 of Title 1).\n   (c) Based on existing facts and circumstances, the legislative\nbody of the local agency has decided to initiate or is deciding\nwhether
451248
The Blue laws!  (ones stating that certain businesses can't be open on Sunday etc.)
496292
The shut down is due to poor management.