Subject:
|
Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 27 Jan 2000 14:36:02 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2465 times
|
| |
|
|
Richard Franks wrote:
>
> 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?
> >
> > 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.
>
> 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.
Except that the fines from the first time would be sufficient incentive.
And would also be sufficient incentive to prevent all the other
companies in that industry from following their example. Perhaps I'm
not following you.
> 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?
I don't personally think that courts should dictate who can do what job.
That's over the line of too much interference _for me_. Similar with
dictating how a company should operate. If they don't do an efficient
job, the market will weed them out. If they don't do a safe job, the
courts and the market will weed them out. And, unlike Frank (and most
of you, I presume), I'm also uncomfortable with slavery (jail terms).
For this one I'm not sure what should replace them, but I know that the
use of slavery to the state as a punishment bugs me. (Slavery in a
limited form to a person against who they have committed crimes doesn't
bother me to the same degree.)
> 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?
Wow. I'm not sure what's missing there. It seems obvious that if one
runs the risk of being fined for screwing up, then one will strive not
to screw up. Oh, but maybe the key to that is "if _all_ you can do..."
Well, you can also fine the company coffers, not just the individuals.
> What is
> stopping the company from underwriting the fine for the employee and keeping
> them on?
The market. Why would they? If you owned stock in a company that
spilled Nuk-U-Lar Goo (tm) due to some manager's negligent (or evil)
decisions, and the company bought off the stupendous fines imposed, so
that they could keep this guy running the children's Nuk-U-Lar sweatshop
with the current level of zest, even though the fines were ruinous and
likely to send the company spiralling into the financial stone age, what
would you do as an investor? Sell, or keep?
There would be a race to sell stock. Everyone would sell stock. The
company would become worth nothing. It would vanish.
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| Christopher Weeks wrote in message <389057B0.D972D535@e...se.net>... (...) Two comments. First, what do you propose to do with the (few) people who absolutely refuse to follow the rules of the society they participate in? At some point, putting (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
