The problem is that capitalism in a vacuum has no room for morality. Your morals are just opportunities for someone with fewer scruples to swoop in and underbid you. You want to keep jobs in your company's home town, someone else just has the jobs done for slave wages overseas and puts you out of business. You take care to dispose of hazardous waste responsibly, someone else just dumps it into the nearest river and puts you out of business. You make sure your marketing materials don't make claims you can't back up, someone else just makes the flashiest claims they can think of and puts you out of business. Doing the right thing costs more than doing the wrong thing; your morals are someone else's opportunity.

It's not a problem that can be solved by individual business owners, no matter how moral they are, because at its root it's a collective action problem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_action_problem). The more business owners sign on to a platform of "moral capitalism," the bigger the opportunity created for the first business owner willing to act immorally, and thus the greater the temptation there will be to do so. Eventually the temptation becomes great enough that someone breaks ranks, and then everyone else has to follow or risk being put out of business. The race always ends in a sprint towards the bottom.

This is why we have regulation; the only way to cut this knot is for some external entity to force everybody to play by the same rules. It's the only way to prevent honest businesses from getting eaten alive by the dishonest ones. It's not a perfect system, but it's the best one anyone's come up with so far.

> I don't think any private company should have any interference by the Govt. BUT every founder/owner/CEO should think about their people first.

This amounts to an ideological viewpoint, however it doesn't map to reality. If the government doesn't step in, the worst of the worst will sift up to the top, and the most complacent will sift to the bottom. It's how things naturally fall into place.

Exploitative people in an unchecked market have an unmatched advantage. If you believe in real market competition, then pure capitalism cannot work because it stifles competition by creating unfair disadvantages for CEOs who think about their people, discouraging them from acting benevolently.

The problem is that you see the government as this authoritarian beast who must be kept in a cage for the safety of its people, when in reality a healthy government is its people. Government regulations in a free market are a result of the consumers who participate in the market wanting protection.

In the end, you either favor consumer protection or corporate protection. Which seems more moral to you?

> consumer protection or corporate protection

Pick one. Couldn't have said it better. This is what people ALWAYS have to remember. And as a reminder, the corporation will always take care of the corporation.

I think it depends on the size and nature of the corporation. For a small bootstrapped private company (I run one), I always think about taking care of employees along with making a profit. For us, customers come second because I have the freedom to decide that (no outside board/investors to answer to). So I would say it depends. Corporation is not just about taking care of the corporation. There can be a middle ground even though I agree that a corporation is not a charity and the goal is obviously to make money. I personally don't believe in "Profits over people" even though I have the freedom to believe and act accordingly. perhaps once you get VC funding and the hockey stick growth pressure, all that goes outta the window ?

I thought capitalism was all about rational self-interest. If there’s no government interference, what incentive is there to behave ethically? As far as I can tell the answer is “none” and that’s what we see playing out over and over again.

Ethics are what you do when there isn't an incentive. If you're forced to do it, it's not ethics.

One theory of ethics holds that it is in your long-term interest to behave ethically, even if you can't know for certain what the constraints are. They encode a heuristic wisdom for survival, and that's why we have ethics at all. But many will fail to follow that, and if they are punished in the end, it's only after many others suffer -- and are not made whole by your punishment.

I'm a socialist but I applaud anyone willing to stand up against amoral practices like this. Your position closely resembles Warren's opinions on this matter.