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 / 3798
3797  |  3799
Subject: 
Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Tue, 18 Jan 2000 18:35:43 GMT
Viewed: 
2404 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
<388320C1.F3E0E6D1@eclipse.net> <FoHr3F.Isu@lugnet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

James Brown wrote:

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:

Governments, corporations, charities, people, etc. will all (in general)
take and use as much power as is given to them.  But as Scott pointed
out, we don't give corporations the power to abuse us to the same
degree.  Or at least in the same ways.

Yes, but in my understanding (which I'm willing to admit may be flawed) a
Libertarian system would grant corporations much more power than they
currently experience.

In some ways that might be true.  In others, and I think these are more
important, corporations would be severely limited to fair play.  If
decision makers were personally held civilly and criminally liable for
their actions, they would think twice about the behaviors they have
their companies engage in.

The current system requires companies to do what's profitable for the
shareholders in the short term.  This means that if they can make a buck
doing something immoral, they often will.  If, in addition to whatever
the company could be sued for, the president, CEO, board of directors,
and potentially stock holders could be held jointly and severally
liable, companies would never hurt people in ways that could come back
to haunt them.

In the interests of not repeating myself:
    http://www.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=3742

Also, I don't think individuals have (in the general case) enough resources
for personal liability to be feasable/sufficient.  An example of this occured
recently in Alberta - a number of people were infected with Hepatitis C from
improperly screened blood.  With the people involved getting (IMHO) a
reasonable settlement, the sheer number of people made the settlement HUGE(1)
- well beyond the means of the vast majority of company officers/gov't
officials.

James
http://www.shades-of-night.com/lego/

1: 1.1 billion, IIRC



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
 
(...) As another example, look at the people that AIDS from blood transfusions, while there were already good indications that HIV was transmitted through blood-contact ("it hasn't been proven yet that HIV causes AIDS!" (which is still true)), and (...) (25 years ago, 19-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
 
<388320C1.F3E0E6D1@eclipse.net> <FoHr3F.Isu@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) In some ways that might be true. In others, and I think these are more important, corporations would be (...) (25 years ago, 18-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

473 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