Subject:
|
Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 19 Jan 2000 18:44:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2322 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> <38850672.B6A753EE@eclipse.net> <FoK7Jv.LHr@lugnet.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> James Brown wrote:
> > I'll endeavour to run through some of my thinking on this:
> > Most companies keep their business practises and work process
> > confidential - this is for a number of reasons(1) and I think it's probably
> > a good thing, and isn't likely to go away, especially under a Libertarian
> > system(2). Given that, any investigation into work processes to determine
> > responsibility is going to be internal, otherwise it compromises the
> > companies right(3) to keep it's information confidential. In the general
> > case, where responsibility is not clear (which I suspect the majority of
> > issues will be with), it is my opinion that blame will get diffused far
> > enough to provide "reasonable doubt", or will get shifted so that it makes
> > the minimum impact on the company - i.e. a scapegoat will be found.
>
> One thing - at the point where a liability issue is at hand, the
> internal processes of the company become relevant to the issue at hand,
> and certainly may be examined by the court. If the issue is big enough,
> I don't even see a problem with them becoming matters of public record
> (like the company (Exxon?) which talked about jelly beans in the board
> room).
Granted.
> > I also have an issue with the possibility of mis-casting of blame if the
> > general view of "management is ultimately responsible" is held - I don't
> > ever want to be in management if I can potentially be punished for the
> > laziness/stupidity/malice/honest mistake of a subordinate.
>
> Well, such liability would at least justify the huge compensation
> company officers earn.
>
> > The best summation is that I'm in favor of direct responsibility=direct
> > liablility, but not indirect responsibility=direct liability.
>
> But if we have this system, how do we deal with say a Bhopal? Sue the
> worker who didn't close a valve orwhatever (I don't remember the
> details, but I'm sure only a handfull of [non-management] people were
> DIRECTLY responsibl) for the whole shebang? Wow! Companies would love
> this. They could do whatever they wanted with no repercussions (other
> than replacing a few low level workers). Gee, why even train them for
> safety (beyond that training which is necessary so that they get a
> reasonable return on the cost of hiring someone and having the job empty
> while they hire a replacement).
Back up a sec. I never implied that liability shouldn't exist. The company
would be liable for the bulk of any settlements, and any company that operated
as you suggest above would get hit with lawsuits so often that it would either
address the problems, or go under.
> Ultimately, the ONLY way to hold a company liable is to hold the company
> officers liable.
I disagree, but that's nothing new. :)
What puzzles me about this whole argument is how you(in the general sense) can
be advocating person x being responsible for person y's actions? If someone
else causes a violation of rights, how can I being punished for that if I'm
not directly linked to their actions? That seems contradictory to the
underpinnings of libertarian thought.
Now, if said company officers can be shown beyond reasonable doubt to be
responsible, then heck yeah, throw the book at them! But if they're not
involved, why are they at fault?
James
http://www.shades-of-night.com/lego/
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| <38850672.B6A753EE@eclipse.net> <FoK7Jv.LHr@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) One thing - at the point where a liability issue is at hand, the internal processes of the company become (...) (25 years ago, 19-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
|
|
|
|
