Subject:
|
Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 30 Jan 2000 22:43:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2479 times
|
| |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2000 04:10:46 GMT, Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net>
wrote:
> 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.
Try "either the CEO is personally liable for everything his
subordinates do, or those people actually committing the mistakes
are".
> 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.
What if "some damages" comes out to more than they can pay? In the
majhority of cases, this is in fact the case. Only the ultra-large
multinational companies (which will, of course, under this system,
resettle in the EU, China, or Japan...) can sustain multi-million
dollar settlements, let alone Pinto-like Billion-dollar-settlements.
> 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 already is the right thing to do.
> 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
These are already all the case.
> importantly, to keep the CEO and his subordinates out of jail.
Since the only new thing is the jailing of the CEOs, that must be what
you see as working this change. You're wiggling.
> 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?
Christ, man, go take a psychology class or something and come back to
this then. Or if you've already had one, untake it, cause you've
learnt entirely the wrong set of pseudo-scientific psychobabble.
Jasper
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| Jasper Janssen wrote in message <389abd55.92129852@l...et.com>... (...) That sure isn't what I'm arguing. First off, the people making the mistakes are ALWAYS responsible. However, the CEO can be held responsible if there is some flaw in the way (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| Jasper Janssen wrote in message <389abd55.92129852@l...et.com>... (...) Oh yeah, that really worries me. (...) But its easy to get away with not doing it. (...) Move to China for ten years, and come back to this then. Better yet, just unlearn (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
