Subject:
|
Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 31 Jan 2000 14:19:57 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2343 times
|
| |
|
|
Jasper Janssen wrote:
> > If the system were in place, then people who were going into management
> > would understand that their role was going to include this
>
> "going into" management? You make it sound like it's necessarily
> voluntary.
The managers that I've known were typically not forced into management
at gunpoint. Maybe things work differently in NL, but I wouldn't have
guess in that way.
> > 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?
>
> Money. Quite easy.
But that doesn't make the company feel fear or pain. It might - if the
sums were large enough - make them unable fiscally to do it again.
> > > > 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.
>
> Really? And if his responsibilities include keeping the floors clean,
> are his managers responsible if someone slips on the wet floors? If he
> is responsible for sweeping the floors clean only, and he pushes the
> proverbial button that causes a nuclear meltdown/spill/chemical
> disaster/fire, are the CEOs respoinsible?
What are you getting at. The CEO is at some level responsible for
everything the company under his charge does. It is his fault in your
ludicrous example that the meltdown button was accessible to the clumsy janitor.
> > > And what if he hacked the corporate server to host his
> > > kiddieporn site?
> >
> > Then they should give him a better job ;-)
>
> Trust me, as CEO, you do not want a true BOFH. You want a puppet luser
> administrator, not somebody who knows what they're doing.
I guess that explains everything.
> > Actually, they should fire and sue him.
>
> And meanwhile they're suing him in civil court, the CEO is indicted in
> _criminal court_ for kiddie porn distribution. What's wrong with this
> picture?
What's wrong with it? It is a purposeful misrepresentation of what I'm
saying. And I believe that you know it. You are obviously quite
bright, so why is it that you don't have anything better to do than to
misrepresent the ideas of the classical liberals in this forum. Is it
that fun a game?
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| Christopher Weeks wrote in message <38959983.1F02FD9F@e...se.net>... (...) janitor. Its not at all ludicrous. Every nuclear generator, even the portable ones, have a meltdown button. You know, just in case. (...) Sure does... if your a CEO you want (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (24 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
|
|
|
|
