Subject:
|
Libertarian theory and altruism (was: some incorrectly spelled thing not worth repeating
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 8 Jan 2000 04:24:36 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
lpieniazek@ANTISPAMnovera.com
|
Viewed:
|
623 times
|
| |
|
|
Jasper Janssen wrote:
>
> On Sat, 8 Jan 2000 03:11:29 GMT, Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Fortunately, Libertarian theory doesn't require ANYONE to be altruistic,
> > although I can't speak for libitarian guff, whatever that is.
>
> No, it requires people and corporations to look into the future,
> evaluate long-term benefits vs short-term costs, and then make the
> right decision.
>
> Since all/most companies always do that, how come Y2K preparedness
> rose so sharply over the past few months?
>
> How come we see companies _utterly_ alienating all their clueful
> employees, leading to them resigning?
I'm glad that you agree with me that it's not altruism per se that is
required. In turn, I agree with you on what IS required. Long term
thinking. That seems to be in rather short (1) supply these days.
Companies today in this particular mixed economy we are in, are rather
short sighted. Why is that? Stated another way, why doesn't it pay to
take rather a longer view? Certainly you and I, wise men that we are,
know that the longer view is better and take it ourselves.
Would things be different in a different system? What if it was more
predictable what sort of regulations and taxes would be in place many
years in the future? What if it officers were not shielded from personal
liability for their decisions? What if we no longer had boom and bust
business cycles? What if stockholders had real power to influence
decisions instead of being powerless to evict boards of directors that
didn't do what they wanted (2)? What if the labor market was so tight
that any cluelessness would be harshly punished by a pretty rapid exodus
of good staff, followed in turn by a stockholder revolt in which the
officers were out on their ears?
I've already drawn my conclusions there, as you well can imagine.
1 - sorry.
2 - cf so called "poison pill" laws in which states interfere with the
normal hostile takeover process to make it harder for boards to be
dislodged, even when supermajorities of stockholders wish it, and harder
for some one person or group to buy stock in the first place...
--
Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
- - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to lugnet.
NOTE: Soon to be lpieniazek@tsisoft.com :-)
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
209 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
|
|
|
|
