Subject:
|
Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 27 Jan 2000 14:18:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2433 times
|
| |
|
|
Jasper Janssen wrote:
>
> > Because person X _took_ that responsibility freely. I agree that it
>
> No he didn't. Not while the laws are not in place yet, certainly.
OK, I was talking about once we were at the fully implemented system.
Transition is always a problem, but those problems are not enough of a
reason to look at a better system and opt not to strive for it. If we
adopted a gradual aproach to the ideal that I'm expressing things would
adjust themselves without too much upheaval.
> 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 premiums and/or risk, or to
Well, at least there would be a good reason for huge CEO salaries. You
surely weren't suggesting that this situation doesn't currently exist?
> a completely flat power structure, neither of which is a good thing at
> all.
I doubt this would evolve except in the few organizations where it can
work well.
> > 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.
>
> That's _exactly_ what's being discussed. Very obviously so when you
> talk about a system that is trying to pass those laws.
If the system were in place, then people who were going into management
would understand that their role was going to include this
responsibility. So, no that's not what we're talking about. In the
case of shifting toward the more accountable system, we could give them
enough warning to retool their lives. If the managers knew that in ten
years they's be responsible, they'd have time to implement whatever
changes in their lives they wanted to.
> > 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.
>
> Why not?
Well...because ultimately they don't exist. A company is a legal
fiction to rename and shield a group of PEOPLE. You can slap the wrists
of people, but not companies. How would you propose to discipline a
company with no psychology, no mores, no emotion, no pain, etc?
> > If bob the janitor is caught selling kiddie porn on the net at home, the
> > employers is not guilty of the same.
>
> Why not?
For obvious reasons. They bear no responsibility for his actions
outside of his contracted responsibilities at work.
> And what if he hacked the corporate server to host his
> kiddieporn site?
Then they should give him a better job ;-)
Actually, they should fire and sue him.
> Is anyone whose server gets hacked into delivering porn and/or
> copyrighted material automatically a criminal, because "they obviously
> didn't have enough protection in place"?
Potentially, but not certainly. If they were grossly negligent -
refused to use security precautions as a philosophical statement for
instance - then they might be criminal. If they followed reasonable
precautions, but were randomly hacked, then they bear no guilt...as long
as they respond appropriately.
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| (...) It's not a better system, so that's entirely irrelevant. (...) I was in fact suggesting that the situation does not currently exist to the extent that it would. (...) Yah. Right. Big companies will always spend a dollar to save a cent (and not (...) (25 years ago, 30-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
