Subject:
|
Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 31 Jan 2000 04:02:57 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2605 times
|
| |
|
|
Jasper Janssen wrote in message <389abd55.92129852@lugnet.com>...
> 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".
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 the corporation is run that either makes it impossible
to determine who committed the mistake, or some flaw which compounds the
mistake.
> > 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.
If actual damages come to more than the assets of the corporation, then the
corporation is liquidated. Depending on just what went wrong, it may be
reasonable to hold the management and even the stockholders responsible.
Punitive damages could also be passed on to management and the stockholders,
but this is less likely. If the management of the corporation was so bad
that the corporation got hit with a punitive damage larger than it's assets,
I would sustain that managers (and ultimately the CEO) did something
criminal or were grossly negligent.
If this "responsibility" issue is such a bad thing, then how come some of th
e biggest corporations are still US corporations? The US already has
significant corporate responsibility (remeber all these "ridiculous"
lawsuits everyone always talks about). Also, the corporation leaving the
country isn't going to save them. They may be able to protect some of their
assets, but ultimately, for a corporation to have a significant market in a
country, they need to expose themselves to the legal system of that country.
Now in Libertopia, SOME products will disappear, that is because the
ultimate cost of those products is higher than their value. Other products
will return (things like lawn darts, there is nothing wrong with a
corporation making a "toy" which is dangerous if misused, I think I could
safely use lawn darts, I don't think kids under say 10 [just picking a
number out of the hat] can). Remember, this responsibility thing will also
hold the individual consumer responsible where appropriate.
> > 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.
First off, even jailing CEOs isn't a new thing.
A major point is that current US law shields corporations (and governments)
from certain liability. This is a problem. Also, things like welfare and
minimum wage shield corporations from responsibility to actually pay their
workers what they're worth.
> > 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.
This is what it all comes down to. If you can't accept that people are
basically good, there is no point in debating.
Questions:
1. Do you think you are good?
2. Do you think most Lugnetters are good?
3. Do you think most people are good?
If you agree with 1, but not 2 or 3, how do you differentiate yourself? If
you agree with 1 and 2, but not 3, how do you differentiate us? Can you
support and answer of NO to 2 or 3, and a YES to 1? Do you think anyone can
support an answer of YES to 1? If not, why shouldn't we throw everyone in
jail and throw the keys away?
I know I'm doing a horrible job of this. I'm sorry. I grew up with the
belief that most people are good, but then I had the fortune to grow up in a
religion which is based on that idea, instead of mainstream Christianity
which is based on the idea that most people are bad. I don't know how to
explain it, but I know it. It is proved day in day out by observing other
people. Of course pointing out examples doesn't do any good because for
every example of good I point out, someone will point out a bad, or how
conditional the good is ("he only did it because..."). Of course I could
point to different types of infinity. I could be pointing out real numbers,
and for every real number I point out, you can point out an integer, but
that doesn't prove that there are more integers than real numbers (in fact,
we can use this to prove the opposite, since I can keep pointing out real
numbers between 0 and 1, while your counting from 0 to 1 to 2 to 3... and
then when you get tired, I can say, gee, every number I've listed, can be
added to every number you've listed to get a new unique real number).
I return to a question I've asked before though. If most people are bad,
then how can you assert anything mankind has done is good? How can you
assert that a government designed with the idea that most people are bad is
a good government? I.e. how do you assure that you've picked the "good"
people to run the government?
Frank
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| (...) No you're not. There's just such a vast conceptual gulf between those that think that man is innately evil and those that think that he is innately good, that you may never be able to bridge it, distracting and disingenious accusations of (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
