Subject:
|
Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 26 Jan 2000 19:39:10 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2270 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
>
> 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).
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. Not that it couldn't or won't happen - it is just hard to
envisage at the moment!
I can't imagine a society where people take an interest in more than a small
proportion of the products they use, and in that situation the companies
manipulate the market (advertising, marketing tactics), rather than the market
wielding the power conciously.
> 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).
I agree that that would work, the pivotal point though - is how do you hold
them responsible? If a CEO makes it his underlings responsibility to report
problems to him then do you fine the CEO or the underlings? Then if the
underlings made it their underunderlings' responsibility to report problems,
etc etc.
> > 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).
I was moving more in the direction of the company pinning the blame on a
scapegoat and then paying off the scapegoat, giving them a raise etc. Or would
there be a law against that?
> > This isn't an attack on Libertarianism - it's a problem with *any* system I
> > think.
>
> Now certain safety regulation is going to have to be replaced by trusted
> auditing services,
> [...]
> 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.
Interesting idea! (I was thinking along similar lines, but this is a bit more
developed) :)
It might not be as bad as you mention though - the respected auditors might
find it in their interest to audit certain smaller companies competetively or
for free, if they are above a certain (very high) grade. Not only would that
provide incentive for smaller companies to keep up their standards, it would
get the auditors logo onto more products.
> 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.
I agree in theory, but presently government has the whole array of tools and
resources, which individuals won't have. Now if government was a puppet,
controlled by the layers below, instead of the other way around...
> 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.
Agreed, the phrase 'public servant' seems particularly out-dated when applied
to politicians.
Richard
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| Richard Franks wrote in message ... (...) this (...) toothpicks (...) to (...) It seems like opponents of these ideas always try to make things more complicated... If all of the above is important to consumers, they will do the research, or they (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| Richard Franks wrote in message ... (...) and (...) The marketplace has the power (or would have the power under Libertopia). (...) I'm not sure if there's a need to directly fine the stockholders. If you whack the company hard enough, the (...) (24 years ago, 26-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
|
|
|
|
