To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 10390
10389  |  10391
Subject: 
Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Thu, 10 May 2001 20:35:51 GMT
Viewed: 
952 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:


Is that right?  The gov't can't be sued for anything?

many cases, not all cases. So no, what you think I said isn't right.

I thought they
simply weren't subject to civil suits, but were subject to criminal suits
with compensatory damages?

Sometimes they are. Steve Jackson Games won a suit against the government I
believe...

The upside of small corporations is that it's possible to win against them.
The downside is that they may not have many assets. The upside of large
governments or corporations is that they have lots of assets. The downside
is that it's hard to win against Phillip Morris.

I'm aware that individual employees can't be sued for the actions of the
gov't, but how is that different from a private individual's assets being
separate from his incorporated assets?  A man's house can't be seized for
the wrongdoing of his corporation even if his corporation is sued into
bankrupcy.

Libertopian corporate officers whould have no such protection if what they
did was egregiously negligent, although I grant such is the case today.

And, once the corporation achieves
monopoly status, there's little likelihood of a tiny competitor swooping in
on the heels of a lawsuit to overtake the market.

Right, and we've discussed in the past how unlikely (impossible, I say) a
true monopoly is under libertopian corporate structures. So you are correct
but it hopefully isn't that relevant or won't remain so for long...

Libertopia will not be perfect. There is no utopia.

Sometimes things don't work out right, some small corporation can do a bad
thing and then be unable to correct it. But the hope is that most small
corporations will buy insurance so it's not just their assets that you go
after. I know if a corporation came to me and tried to buy pollution rights,
for example, from me I would be quite interested in their insurance and
might even put it into whatever contract that they had with me.

++Lar



Message has 2 Replies:
  Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
 
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: But I was serious about the c/can/cannot thing. What does that mean? Dave! (23 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
  Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
 
(...) That's 'cause the government didn't bother to read the rules to Illuminati: Weird Groups (Gamers) are immune to Government Groups (Secret Service). Fnord. (...) Yeah for Libertopia! These corporate sharks rape the system for all it's worth, (...) (23 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
 
(...) Where does all this c/can/cannot stuff come from? Is it English, or is it some esoteric computerese? FUT OT.Geek? Is that right? The gov't can't be sued for anything? I thought they simply weren't subject to civil suits, but were subject to (...) (23 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

246 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR