Subject:
|
Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 27 Jan 2000 04:10:46 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
lpieniazek@novera.NOSPAMcom
|
Viewed:
|
2455 times
|
| |
|
|
Frank Filz wrote:
>
> The point I see constantly getting missed, and maybe I've not made it well
> enough (Larry, help me if I'm confused here), is that while the CEO is
> ultimately responsible, he also has the option of making an appropriate
> response to whatever problem is at hand, and avoiding a personal lawsuit or
> a criminal trial.
I think you're doing fine. We seem to be getting forced into an invalid
either-or trap.
Your opposition is taking the "Either the CEO is personally liable for
everything or no one is" tack, it seems to me. And that's just not so.
Companies that make mistakes without being negligent, own up to it, and
do everything they can to rectify them are going to do just fine in
libertopia. Yes, they'll have to pay some damages but they've already
shown (if we stick to the examples James posed) that they stand ready to
do so.
Putting the CEO in jail is a last resort that one uses to get the
attention of a seriously malfeasant corporate administration.
I assert that in a climate of personal responsibility that libertopia is
going to foster, most companies are going to do the right thing for a
number of reasons... among them, that it's the right thing to do, that
it's good PR, that when the shoe is on the other foot that's what they'd
want, that it is what their owners will demand, and, lastly and least
importantly, to keep the CEO and his subordinates out of jail.
It really comes down to this fundamental question that you and I are
over and done with... are people inherently bad? We say no, they're not.
They are inherently good and I just don't buy that if we set society up
right, that we aren't going to get mostly good behaviour with only a
little bad. So little that it will be controllable, for the most part
The opposition, on the other hand, basically hates themselves because
they say people are bad. To me that says a lot about your own self
esteem if you think everyone is bad. Why are you so down on yourself and
everyone else? Why not be happy?
--
Larry Pieniazek - larryp@novera.com - http://my.voyager.net/lar
http://www.mercator.com. Mercator, the e-business transformation company
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to lugnet.
Note: this is a family forum!
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| (...) No, actually. Try "Either the CEO is personally liable for everything or the company is." I have no problems with the concept of a group of people being responsible, as a group, for what they do. (...) And I would say that if you are dealing (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| (...) Try "either the CEO is personally liable for everything his subordinates do, or those people actually committing the mistakes are". (...) What if "some damages" comes out to more than they can pay? In the majhority of cases, this is in fact (...) (25 years ago, 30-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
