Subject:
|
Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 26 Jan 2000 17:38:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2365 times
|
| |
|
|
Richard Franks wrote in message ...
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
>
> > > Who enforces all of this? Does government have the power to fire a CEO • and
> > > tell them to get a new one in to create a better structure?
The marketplace has the power (or would have the power under Libertopia).
> > No, the courts have the power to try and fine/punish them. I don't
> > think they should be able to fire CEOs. But, if they kept a CEO who'd
> > been found grossly negligent, next time around, I think the court should
> > find each of the stockholders guilty to whatever degree they owned the
> > company and fine the heck out of them too.
I'm not sure if there's a need to directly fine the stockholders. If you
whack the company hard enough, the stockholders are going to get whacked as
the stock price falls (or becomes worth nothing when the company folds).
> Ah.. so after the second time they spill nuclear goo in a kiddies
> playground(1), things will change? Unless they've got a new CEO who does
> exactly what the old one did? My point is that having to wait for a company • to
> violate rights a second time before then *maybe* taking further action, is
> insufficient incentive to keep them responsible.
If you hold corporations and their CEOs and the employees properly
responsible (the corporation itself can be held responsible to the extent of
the capital which is controled by the corporation), I don't think you'll
have to worry much about 2nd violations. You probably won't even have to
worry about 1st violations (the riskiest types of buisinesses will fall).
> Under Libertarian thinking, could you justify removing a CEO from office if • you
> proved that keeping the CEO in office would lead to further violation of
> rights? Or could you threaten the CEO with something if they didn't improve
> company structure?
If the corporation is willfully violating rights, you can throw the CEO in
jail.
> I am interested in the mechanics - If all you can do to a company is fine • some
> of its employees, then how will that make them more responsible? What is
> stopping the company from underwriting the fine for the employee and • keeping
> them on?
If the violation is sufficient, of course there is imprisonment. If the
violation is big enough, the fine/award will be big enough that the
corporation won't be able to sweep it under the rug. And corporations aren't
going to keep on low level employees who cause court cases (they don't
today).
> This isn't an attack on Libertarianism - it's a problem with *any* system I
> think.
The more regulation, the more of a problem it is, because people can hide
behind the regulations (either by saying "well, the law doesn't say I have
to do this" or by limits to liability [why for example do we need a limit on
the liability of airlines when a disaster occurs?], or by claiming they did
everything the law required them to do).
Now certain safety regulation is going to have to be replaced by trusted
auditing services, and consumer education (I read Consumer Reports for
example, I don't agree with everything they say, but they do provide a
wonderful oversight service to business and the government). Companies which
chose to be audited by respected services will be able to command higher
prices than those who chose not to. This way, everyone chooses the level of
regulation THEY are willing to pay for. And from what I have recently read,
UL would have to clean up their act.
UL is also an example that this can work without government intervention, of
course my thesis is that the government itself is proof that sufficient
regulation can occur without government intervention, since the government
only has the power that we give it, government can't do ANYTHING that a
sufficiently motivated group of people couldn't do on their own. Ultimately,
from my perspective, what Libertarianism is really about is changing our
perspective, and recognizing that the power DOES come from the PEOPLE, so
lets get out there and exercise OUR power and stop allowing some two bit
pretty boy politician who happens to be able to woo the most people exercise
it.
Frank
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| (...) It does in theory, but in reality the market isn't educated to the level this requires - everyone would have to research which toothpaste, which dye-companies contributed to which t-shirts, which rainforest their toothpicks came from etc etc. (...) (25 years ago, 26-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
|
|
|
|
