Subject:
|
Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 26 Jan 2000 16:47:31 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2319 times
|
| |
|
|
<388E2A0B.67DF7930@voyager.net> <Fowz19.44A@lugnet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
James Brown wrote:
> You(the collective you) appear to say that the officers of a company are
> liable for the actions of that company REGARDLESS of whether or not they are
> personally responsible, or personally involved.
>
> That is just plain wrong, IMHO, and I can't get around it.
>
> How do you justify person X being responsible for person Y's actions? Boiled
> down, that's exactly what you are claiming here.
Because person X _took_ that responsibility freely. I agree that it
wouldn't be fair the law just decided that person X is now liable for
whatever some random Y does. But that's not the case being discussed.
When you have kids (little persons Y) you are voluntarily taking
responsibility for another's actions. When you take certain jobs, you
are volunteering to be responsible for the actions of others. It's just
a choice that you can choose to take or not take as you see fit. Why do
you have a problem with someone having the choice?
> To put it another way, you are saying that lacking evidence to the contrary,
> the CEO of any given corporation is guilty of any crimes commited by anyone in
> that organization.
No, the CEO is part of a joint responsibility for anything the _company_
does, regardless of who within the company made the decisions. People
must be responsible, because companies can't be.
If bob the janitor is caught selling kiddie porn on the net at home, the
employers is not guilty of the same.
> That places the burden of proof in the wrong direction -
> Guilt is assumed, and people have to prove their innocence.
No it doesn't. Once guilt is proven - through whatever just process -
then responsibility is doled out. Guilt can never be assumed.
> How does that jive with "people are essentially good"?
I'm unconvinced that people are essentially good. People are people,
and they don't have to be good for the libertarian system to work. They
have to be good for a socialist system to work and that's why it
doesn't. (At least, potentially, depending on what good means. I say
it's a useless term and only clouds these waters.)
Chris
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| (...) No he didn't. Not while the laws are not in place yet, certainly. And what makes you think there will still be people willing to take that responsibility should you pass this? This way leads to either huge CEO salaries, to cope with insurance (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| Jasper Janssen wrote in message <38ac87e0.517825005@...et.com>... (...) Because you can't put a company in jail if it refuses to pay the judgement. This is why a PERSON MUST have ultimate responsibility. If they don't, the corporation can just (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| (...) Using a country in the middle of ethnic cleansing as a comparison is hardly flattering. You can get shot in any country, but it's more likely to happen if you live in the US than say the UK. (...) I find it easy to believe, however I would (...) (25 years ago, 11-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
|
|
|
|
