Schwartz (2018) and Smith (2017) highlight the problems people face in the rural areas of the United States in accessing faster internet speeds. From the two articles, it is clear that there is an unequal distribution of high-speed internet in the United States. According to Assignment Help Service (2015, pg. 2), egalitarianism’s purpose is to establish a certain framework of socio-political organization in theory and policy that would abolish socioeconomic disparities. Smith (2017) states that FCC states that about 19 million individuals lack high-speed internet. Most of these individuals live in the rural and sparsely populated areas cable or phone companies are not willing to serve. The companies state that they will incur a high cost with no meaningful returns due to a lack of a dense customer base.

Human equality, according to Afolayan (2015, pg. 4), stems from the natural observation that all individuals share the characteristic of being human and, as such, possess inherent worth. In this sense, the government needs to ensure that people in Mississippi acquire high-speed internet as other advantaged individuals. Additionally, equality is the primary principle of egalitarianism. For example, equality is seen as a long-standing, nearly self-evident response to how duties and advantages should be allocated among community members. In this sense, the government has a role in ensuring equal distribution of resources amongst its citizens. According to Smith (2017), the government acknowledges the divide in internet distribution. However, different circumstances have always hindered their efforts to curb the problem.

On the other hand, the organizations feel obligated to cater to their consumers’ needs but are hindered by their obligation to the shareholders. While the consumers feel they also deserve equal resources, they have the duty of electing leaders who will advocate for their needs. According to Smith (2017), consumer organizations opposed the merger of AT&T and BellSouth, arguing that it would increase pricing, job losses, and a reduction in custom options.

Utilitarianism is a philosophical school of thought whose objective, as described by Jeremy Bentham, is to maximize the pleasure or utility of the largest number of people possible (Renouard, 2011, pg. 2). According to Renouard (2011, pg. 2), it has had several significant ramifications for moral reflection: a consequentialist viewpoint emphasizes the effects of an action and pays little attention to its intentions. This mindset has resulted in economic and political decisions geared toward economic development. Schwartz (2018) states that the government, through the “House bill 129,” prevents local governments from providing internet services even if they are dissatisfied. The move was in place to prevent local governments from preventing the growth of such companies in the localities.

Besides, Schwartz (2018) states that people who advocate for the “HB 129” bill state that the bill will ensure that these companies continue to employ the people. On this note, Renouard (2011, pg .2), social ethics is concerned with maximizing society’s average or global material progress or well-being, which might justify relativism. In this case, governments have the mandate to protect such policies that aim to encourage economic growth; this is the case with the bill where Steve Brewer CenturyLink spokesman states that the bill is about how municipalities carry out communications businesses hence competing with private enterprises (Schwartz, 2018). While the government has a role of equally distributing resources to everyone in the society, they also have a mandate to keep a safe environment for business practices. On the other hand, businesses must appeal to the social needs of the consumers. Since corporations have the role of ensuring that they appeal to their shareholders, they have to ensure the policies favor their objectives. Corporations look to make a profit, and consumers are more willing to spend more and even pay taxes that benefit the government.

Question 2

Firms are often challenged with the difficulty of balancing opposing demands. A counterintuitive lens focuses on how companies deal with conflicting yet interconnected aspects that coexist and recur; this is the same case as Schwartz (2018) and Smith (2017) highlight in their articles regarding the unequal distribution of high-speed internet in rural, sparsely populated areas. According to Clark et al. (2016, pg.2), management should spend cash supplied by shareholders so that shareholders have permitted and operate to the shareholders’, not the managers’ expectations. While the internet providers like AT & T want to provide internet to the sparsely populated and rural areas, they are often met with financial constraints (Smith, 2017). Besides, they must ensure that they appeal to the shareholder’s needs; this is a significant problem as the executive has to adhere to their needs.

On the other hand, the government requires that they honor their end of the deal by delivering services as promised in their merger agreements. Schwartz (2018) states that these corporations would go as far as sponsoring politicians’ elections to table such bills as “HB 129”. According to a normative stakeholder perspective on corporate responsibility, top executives are agents of all stakeholders. They must guarantee that no stakeholder’s rights are infringed and that their justifiable concerns are addressed and balanced while making decisions (Clark et al., 2016, pg. 2). This view supports the people’s need for the internet as promised by the company. AT & T had promised to deliver internet to the people. However, they failed to do so in the stipulated time. The people’s rage is justified concerning the stakeholder’s view. Besides, the FCC mandates revoking a company’s license if they do not honor the merger conditions (Schwartz, 2018). They can also issue fines, extend the promised length, and split the merger. This view explains why people are against the “HB 129” bill. It indeed does not advocate for all the stakeholders. The government exempts private corporations from paying taxes while every individual pays taxes. At the same time, not every individual receives high-speed internet. Schwartz (2018) notes that a 2009 Democracy North Carolina investigation found that AT&T and Embarq benefitted from tax savings on telephone device acquisitions, costing the government an estimated $31 million in lost income per year.

Question 3

Dowset (2014) states that the regional governments and Madrid’s city sold more than 5000 flats that generate rent to private equity investors Blackstone and Goldman Sachs. The article state that at the time, they were told they would not have to pay any more rent as there would be no changes in their contracts. However, as their contracts expire, they have faced threats of evictions from their new owners and a raise in their rents. Many individuals feel that there is a need to protect such individuals as the poor and disadvantaged. Dowset (2014) notes that they are among Madrid’s most needy residents, including an unemployed single mom of five with a seriously crippled kid and an HIV patient with one lung. Both faced imminent evictions that were abruptly postponed. According to Assignmenthelpsite.com (2015, pg. 2), egalitarianism’s purpose is to establish a specific framework of socio-political organization in theory and policy that would abolish socioeconomic disparities. Thus it is not appropriate not to cater to the needs of these individuals who are being evicted because they can afford to pay the rent. The government should look into better ways of ensuring these individuals find a place to stay.

Moreover, these individuals pay taxes, and the government must protect their rights to be treated equally. On the other hand, the government must protect the interests of the majority of the people, as highlighted by the utilitarian perspective. According to Renouard (2011,2), utilitarianism is a philosophical school of thinking whose goal was stated by Jeremy Bentham as maximizing the utility or pleasure of the greatest number of individuals feasible. Therefore, the government should aim to ensure that the majority of the people are happy. Besides, Dowsett (2014) states that in the case of Bouzelmat, there were very few cases of evictions. Moreover, IVIMA spokesman Pablo Sola states that the government has not given up on the management of the flats, and they are always following up t prevent such evictions. Dowsett (2014) states that the state had very few options to get the cash needed to help run the system, even as it appears the funds are acting like vultures.