29. On Enterprises:Without enterprises, there is nothing.

Before humanity entered the industrial age, individuals and families served as the socioeconomic cells of society. A person could largely provide for their own needs through self-sufficiency, with only a few items requiring exchange to obtain. But now, when we look around our homes, everything except the children we bear ourselves has been purchased. We have entered an era where material goods cannot be obtained without exchange. In this age, enterprises are the economic cells of society. They produce everything we need—without enterprises, there is nothing.

As the economic cells of society, enterprises aggregate all factors of production and organize social production. In this process of organizing production, enterprises bear indispensable social responsibilities. Specifically, these include the following:

First, providing society with various goods or services, which form the fundamental material basis for society's orderly operation.

Second, providing employment opportunities and paying wages to citizens, which form the material foundation for their survival.

Third, ensuring workplace safety for employees, an essential component of protecting citizens' personal rights.

Fourth, paying taxes to the state in accordance with the law, constituting a vital part of government revenue.

Fifth, driving technological innovation and revolution in society, representing the core manifestation of a nation's competitiveness.

Each of these responsibilities underscores that in modern society, enterprises are the most vital social organizations. Society can exist without government, but it cannot exist without enterprises. Therefore, protecting and developing enterprises is one of the core tasks of national law. A fundamental principle in protecting and developing enterprises is that beyond the aforementioned social responsibilities, enterprises should not be required to bear additional responsibilities. For example: Countries universally require enterprises to bear employees' social insurance costs. Within social insurance, only work injury insurance and unemployment insurance are directly related to enterprises; the others are unrelated. Work injury insurance falls within the scope of an enterprise's responsibility to ensure employee workplace safety. However, even when enterprises pay for work injury insurance, social insurance only compensates a portion of the damages when an employee suffers a work-related injury, leaving the enterprise to bear the remaining compensation costs. This institutional design is perplexing: if enterprises already pay insurance premiums, what justification exists for imposing additional liability? A rational work injury insurance system should provide full compensation through social insurance. Unemployment insurance could be categorized as falling within the scope of an enterprise's responsibility to safeguard employee income. However, enterprises currently pay unemployment insurance premiums without receiving corresponding rights. Since enterprises already contribute to unemployment insurance for employees, they should possess the autonomous right to terminate employees. Otherwise, what rationale exists for requiring enterprises to guarantee employees' post-unemployment income?

The logic behind requiring enterprises to pay for medical, maternity, and pension insurance is even more perplexing. What direct connection do employees' illnesses (excluding occupational diseases), childbirth, or aging have to enterprises? Enterprises neither cause employees to fall ill, nor demand they have children, nor make them grow old. Why should enterprises bear responsibility for these matters? These are fundamentally the state's responsibilities. Why force enterprises to shoulder them? Since enterprises already pay taxes to the state, the state has no justification for imposing these responsibilities upon them.

Beyond social insurance—a responsibility forcibly imposed on enterprises—all other social obligations unrelated to business operations should be entirely removed from enterprises. This would allow them to focus solely on fulfilling their inherent social responsibilities.

For enterprises to concentrate on their duties, it is essential not only to exempt them from unnecessary liabilities but also to safeguard their autonomy in management. For instance, many countries' laws permit workers to resign freely while prohibiting employers from arbitrarily dismissing employees. This system, seemingly designed to protect workers, actually fails to safeguard them and continually exacerbates social tensions. Employees become complacent in their work, believing they cannot be dismissed without cause, while employers resort to various forms of harassment to terminate them. Issues that could be easily resolved become extraordinarily complicated through this mutual game-playing between employers and employees.

As organizers of social production, enterprises inherently understand the type of employees they require. If an employee holds value for the company, there is no justification for dismissal—otherwise, the enterprise itself suffers the loss. When an enterprise deems dismissal necessary, it should be permitted to do so. If a company chooses to dismiss an employee, it is because the employee is deemed to have little or no value. When companies possess the right to dismiss employees, workers will inevitably strive to demonstrate their value, lest they face unemployment. If, despite their efforts, an employee still fails to prove their worth, dismissal will compel them to seek another position where they can contribute effectively. Thus, allowing employees to resign freely and granting companies the autonomy to dismiss employees will foster a more rational alignment between employees and employers. Naturally, implementing this system requires robust unemployment security measures as a foundation. As mentioned earlier, for companies to gain the right to autonomously dismiss employees, they must fulfill their obligation to contribute to employees' unemployment insurance. This ensures that even if dismissed, employees can maintain a decent standard of living until securing new employment.

Of course, while laws safeguard employers' autonomy in management, they must also protect employees' rights. Regarding issues like employee safety, rest periods, leave entitlements, and wages, the law must establish strict minimum standards. Companies must never be permitted to violate these provisions in any manner. For instance, extending working hours or breaching minimum wage standards through any means would incur severe penalties, potentially even criminal consequences for employers. Furthermore, labor-related legal regulations should be as simple as possible, as simplicity facilitates enforcement.

Finally, recognizing the indispensable value of enterprises to society, the state must provide a favorable social environment for their establishment and development while ensuring fairness. This fosters continuous enterprise growth, ultimately achieving a society where businesses thrive and citizens prosper.