Subject:
|
Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 31 Jan 2000 06:12:57 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2536 times
|
| |
|
|
Richard Franks wrote in message ...
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> >
> > Richard Franks wrote in message ...
> > > 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?
> >
> > The marketplace has the power (or would have the power under Libertopia).
>
> It does in theory, but in reality the market isn't educated to the level • this
> requires - everyone would have to research which toothpaste, which
> dye-companies contributed to which t-shirts, which rainforest their • toothpicks
> came from etc etc. Not that it couldn't or won't happen - it is just hard • to
> envisage at the moment!
It seems like opponents of these ideas always try to make things more
complicated... If all of the above is important to consumers, they will do
the research, or they will trust someone else to do it. However, it
probably isn't that important to them. Also, retailers will do part of this
(as they already do and choosing what they buy to sell). They will carry a
balanced line of products that meet the needs of their buyers. Nowadays
there are organic food stores, for people who don't want to eat meat or
pesticides. There are numerous others that cater to certain buyers' needs.
If this ever came about, there would be even more diversity of retailers,
and there would probably even be organizations (companies) like CU, Best,
UL, etc that evaluate other companies, retailers, producers, or otherwise.
> I can't imagine a society where people take an interest in more than a • small
> proportion of the products they use, and in that situation the companies
> manipulate the market (advertising, marketing tactics), rather than the • market
> wielding the power conciously.
People do take an interest in about everything they buy! I know a girl
who has to pick out every dumb little thing to go in her house. And has to
buy a specific brand of tooth paste, fabric softener and other trivial crap.
Its so annoying, since I don't like much of the stuff she picks out, but
thats how people are. She may not care what country something was made in,
but thats a personal type of thing.
> > If you hold corporations and their CEOs and the employees properly
> > responsible (the corporation itself can be held responsible to the extent • of
> > the capital which is controled by the corporation), I don't think you'll
> > have to worry much about 2nd violations. You probably won't even have to
> > worry about 1st violations (the riskiest types of buisinesses will fall).
>
> I agree that that would work, the pivotal point though - is how do you hold
> them responsible? If a CEO makes it his underlings responsibility to report
> problems to him then do you fine the CEO or the underlings? Then if the
> underlings made it their underunderlings' responsibility to report • problems,
> etc etc.
Man, this seems so simple to me, and yet no one seems to get this. Say,
you start a small business, all by your self. You are totally responsible
for your business. You hire someone. You are still responsible, even if
they make a mistake. You might be able to blame them if you ever get taken
to court, but its still you has the responsibility for your business. No
matter how big a business gets, the person running it (owner) is the person
responsible. With a corporation, there are millions of owners, and the
uppermost responsibility is delegated to the CEO. If he does poorly, the
stock goes down. If the company does something wrong, essentially everyone
who has a stake in it is going to suffer by the drop in stock price or
dividends or both. The shareholders, if of sound mind, should want the CEO
to be accountable for his job - (he has the final responsibility of) running
their company. So, if you can't pinpoint the blame on anyone in particular,
it goes to the "top" of the chain of command. Why do the opponents feel so
strongly about "protecting" a CEO? If a CEO does his job well, he doesn't
need your protection. If he screws up, you want to protect him? I don't
get
it (1).
> > > 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? • What is
> > > stopping the company from underwriting the fine for the employee and
> > > keeping them on?
> >
> > If the violation is sufficient, of course there is imprisonment. If the
> > violation is big enough, the fine/award will be big enough that the
> > corporation won't be able to sweep it under the rug. And corporations • aren't
> > going to keep on low level employees who cause court cases (they don't
> > today).
>
> I was moving more in the direction of the company pinning the blame on a
> scapegoat and then paying off the scapegoat, giving them a raise etc. Or • would
> there be a law against that?
With something more equivalent to justice than what we have today, I
doubt many would be willing to take the role of scapegoat.
> > > This isn't an attack on Libertarianism - it's a problem with *any* system • I
> > > think.
> >
> > Now certain safety regulation is going to have to be replaced by trusted
> > auditing services,
> > [...]
> > Companies which chose to be audited by respected services will be able to
> > command higher prices than those who chose not to. This way, everyone • chooses
> > the level of regulation THEY are willing to pay for.
>
> Interesting idea! (I was thinking along similar lines, but this is a bit • more
> developed) :)
That was my point in my first paragraph. Producers could have their
products sold in "finer" stores.
> It might not be as bad as you mention though - the respected auditors might
> find it in their interest to audit certain smaller companies competetively • or
> for free, if they are above a certain (very high) grade. Not only would • that
> provide incentive for smaller companies to keep up their standards, it • would
> get the auditors logo onto more products.
I think there would be a lot of competition for auditors in a free
market, where the government wasn't already doing (supposedly) the job.
While they do it now, they do it poorly, and at a very heavy price.
> > government
> > only has the power that we give it, government can't do ANYTHING that a
> > sufficiently motivated group of people couldn't do on their own.
>
> I agree in theory, but presently government has the whole array of tools • and
> resources, which individuals won't have. Now if government was a puppet,
> controlled by the layers below, instead of the other way around...
I've responded to that elsewhere. I assert that it already is like this,
but that not nearly enough individuals are asserting themselves.
> > lets get out there and exercise OUR power and stop allowing some two bit
> > pretty boy politician who happens to be able to woo the most people • exercise
> > it.
>
> Agreed, the phrase 'public servant' seems particularly out-dated when • applied
> to politicians.
Since when?
> Richard
1 -- actually I do know why.
--
Have fun!
John
The Legos you've been dreaming of...
http://www114.pair.com/ig88/lego
my weird Lego site:
http://www114.pair.com/ig88/
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| (...) It does in theory, but in reality the market isn't educated to the level this requires - everyone would have to research which toothpaste, which dye-companies contributed to which t-shirts, which rainforest their toothpicks came from etc etc. (...) (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
|
|
|
|
