The support is optional for any company. This is simply one more requirement with which companies interested in doing business at a certain level with the city will have to abide. It’s no different than requiring the companies to follow environmental regulations or carry liability insurance or bonding or any other city regulation. Any company that does not wish to extend partner benefits is free not to do so. There is no right, constitutional or otherwise, to do business with New York City.
I note with some pleasure that Bloomberg has lost round one in court, having failed to secure a temporary injunction (which bodes ill for his prospects of prevailing).
That’s what I’m wondering, though. Is it different? What are the legal requirements in New York State that municipalities have to follow in contracting? That’s something I don’t know the answer to. I was wondering if you did.
Quick question: is there already a similar requirement for firms that work with NYC to provide these benefits to spouses (as opposed to “domestic partners”)?
I believe they’re spelled out in New York State’s General Municipal Law, and the procedures are available from the State Comptroller’s Office online. I no longer have the link on hand, though. New York Dopers, can you offer any help?
I don’t know if there is or not. My feeling is that it would be unnecessary as there are likely few if any companies that don’t offer spousal benefits already. The new law does require that DP benefits be available both to same-sex and mixed-sex couples.
I appreciate the respect and know that it is sincere. Please understand, however, that, due respect in return, I may BOTH understand what you are saying AND express my own point of view that is outside the constraints you have established. Otherwise, I find myself in the untenable position of arguing that one or the other lesser evil is good. I do understand that your concern is with the practical; however, what is practical depends entirely on what you are practicing. If you are practicing coercion and evasion of responsibility, then fine: limited liability entities like corporations are the practical way to go. But if you are practicing voluntary human relations in a context of peace and honesty, then suppression of coercion by a vigilant government is the only practical means. It is not the case that I am dealing with an ideal and you are not; it is merely the case that your ideal has been implemented by force.
Quite obviously, you’re lying about that inasmuch as you have never to date had any interest whatsoever in anything I’ve had to say beyond the equivalent of an autoresponder being interested in an e-mail it has received. You feign surprise that I oppose entities that can partner with government behind a veil of limited liability even as you know full well that that is the standard libertarian position because it follows from the Noncoercion Principle. And you know full well that there is already a large body of libertarian literature that has “fleshed this out” because it follows from the fact that the philosophy is as old as Lao Tzu. You also know full well that restructuring governments and corporations is not the same as eliminating them because that follows from the Law of Identity. This line of monologue that you’re having with yourself is just more of your typical Columboism — pretending to be stupid when you’re not. Your goal is not to understand anything new, and you are not curious about the response. Your goal is to disrespect me and my philosophy as much as possible, and you are eager to peck out your next rejoinder, which you likely have already conceived. You truly are the martyr’s martyr. You preemptively adopt the position that you are the poor idiot who seeks only to understand, so that when someone finds out your motive and slaps you, you can burst into tears and call him a bully.
Yes, we both know that, don’t we. You also know that I am not either. I honestly am becoming concerned for your well being. I cannot fathom why a man would prefer to be perceived as a hopeless mental dullard than to engage someone who is his intellectual peer in honest and sincere dialog. I am beginning to be concerned that you might be dangerous, and would invite you to take your spooky stalking elsewhere. When come back, bring respect.
You are lying – well, let me be more generous to you than you are to me: mistaken – about my lack of interest. If I truly lacked interest in what you had to say, I would not be questioning your statements so carefully.
Actually, I was until this thread completely unaware that Libertarians wanted to do away with the limited liability for investors that is essential to the corporate form of business.
Further, it’s a bit silly to suggest there is a “standard position” on much of anything in a movement as fractious as libertarianism.
I really do want you to elaborate on why the elimination of the corporate form of business flows from the Noncoercion Principle, and then I’d really like you to explain why eschewing the clear economic benefits of limiting investor liability is something worth trading off in favor of such an abstract principle. You wouldn’t have a PC to type on but for the corporate form of business, so I’m eager to hear why you think it should go away.
While I’m a reasonably well-read guy, surely you don’t expect me to have read every word of the libertarian canon.
Eliminating limited liability for investors eliminates the sine qua non of corporations – do away with that, and you essentially do away with corporations, because there is no other reason for them to exist.
Actually, I am interested to hear your response, although your pop psychiology is entertaining (if not terribly accurate). But don’t answer to placate me; answer to placate the Gentle Readers out there who may think I managed to raise a valid point.
Fine. Von Mises did not advocate a reinvention of the state in the same radical vein as you wish to reinvent it. Your citation to him is still misguided.
:rolleyes:
Lib, I am not stalking you. You take what I hope we can both agree are less-than-mainstream positions on things. Because of that – because your opinions diverge so significantly from the typical – I challenge your views regularly. That ain’t stalking, that’s ordinary debating. Challenging the milquetoast and mainstream is boring; you, on the other hand, are more interesting. If you don’t want to be challenged, don’t promulgate your oddball views in a public forum
And as I noted the last time you got into a snit over my daring to question your views, I agree with you on a great many things, and have said so. I agree that libertarian thought has much to contribute to the public discourse, and in the Von Mises sense – shrinking the state, cutting bureaucracy, reducing government interference with free market processes – I share much of the libertarian mindset. It’s only the radical reinvention of society you envision that I dispute.
You aren’t questioning them carefully; you are, in fact, questioning them carelessly. Contrast yourself, for example, with SentientMeat or Spiritus Mundi. They are atheists who question me about my faith in God, but do so in the frame of metaphysics to which it belongs. You question me about libertarianism in the frame of a madman’s fantasy. You even took it upon yourself to warp my longstanding references to Libertaria into Libertopia to underscore your contempt for the philosophy. If you pretend that you intended anything otherwise, then you are a disingenuous liar. You could have opted to discuss the matter within the frame I had already established, and used the term I had already coined.
That’s just astounding. You mean to say that it never occured to you that a philosophy that holds accountability to be the very machinery of political justice would eschew liability for economic praxes? You thought that the same philosophy that holds that people who call themselves magistrates are not exempt from the Noncoercion Principle would exempt people just because they call themselves corporations?
Well, Jebebus, man! It would be a clear economic benefit to me to enslave you and wring my profits right out of your pores, but that does not make slavery an ethical institution. You see, that’s what I meant when I said you are not like SM and SM. You are asking me to justify the tradeoffs. You’re like Judas talking to Jesus, trying to convince Him that it is unwise to anger the Sanhedrin — that a better tradeoff would be to compromise. (And if you want to make your disingenuousness full blown, assert that I was comparing myself to Jesus in some general sense.)
Nonsense. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc. You have no basis upon which to assert that corporations structured differently could not have produced PCs. You are always accusing me of stepping outside the “real world”, and yet you do not mind inventing assertions out of whole cloth and stating them.
No, I don’t. But surely you do not expect me to do your homework for you. There is possibly more libertarian literature available on the Internet than any other kind. If I had any inkling of sincerity from you, I might spend time putting together an essay to “flesh things out”. But so long as you’ve made it abundantly clear that I have yet even to earn your respect, you’ll forgive that these are as many words as I wish to waste on you.
Why would they need it? For example:
I own WidgetMakers Partnership. We make Widgets. On the outside of each Widget Box is a detachable contract. This contract states that you, the purchaser, have properly examined said Widget and agree that it is free from defect and suitable to the purpose for which intend its use. You further agree to indemnify and hold harmless WidgetMakers Partnership from any and all damages arising from use of said Widget including those arising from (but not limited to) Acts of God, aliens, terrorism, stupidity, or drunkeness. You further agree that upon purchase of said Widget any liability arising from any third party due to your use or misuse of Widget is yours solely.
I am now free to make lead-based paint, use Red Dye No. 5, place carcinogens in cigarettes, etc.
Except that when the buyer of the widgets is a corporation (say, an auto manufacturer buying parts from a supplier), it cannot, on Lib’s view, enter into that contract. So how does Ford manage to do anything? Is the CEO personally responsible for the absolutely everything? Is the guy in Shipping and Receiving responsible for the widgets he signed for? How, exactly, does the liability get distributed? This, if I’m not mistaken, is Dewey’s question.
Lib, if you’ll review my history of discussing libertarianism with you, you’ll find I rarely, if every, argue from what you call crazy giant squid examples. My examples either come from actual events that have resulted in court cases (e.g., boats tying to a dock in a storm, liability to child trespassers) or from eminently reasonable observations (lighthouses as navigation aid rather than port marker). Your characterization of my arguments is inapt at best, disingenuous at worst.
For starters, I think the latter term is equally apt, given that as of this present date the libertarian society you envision is but a theoretical exercise. Secondly, you ascribe motives that simply aren’t there. I used the term because I thought it descriptive, and until you threw a hissy fit over it I would have never imagined anyone would have thought it offensive.
Whatever you say, Dr. Freud
And you could have opted to not get all huffy and calmly explain why you thought your term was preferable. Or you could have simply opted to roll with the different term, since it didn’t really alter your substantive argument.
Well, yes, actually. I find it fascinating that Libertaria (or whatever you want to call it) would, say, hold a passive investor in an enterprise personally liable for the debts incurred by that enterprise.
Well, yes, actually. You’re the one who wants to reinvent the world. I think it incumbent on you to explain why that’s a good idea, including explaining why the negatives inherent in your philosophy are worth it.
Producing CPUS is a large, capital-intensive business. The genius of the corporate form is that it allows the attraction of capital sufficient to fund ventures of that scope and size by limiting the liability of individual investors – I might be willing to invest $1,000 in Intel if I only stand to lose $1,000, but would be a hell of a lot more concerned if that investment also put my entire bank account, car and home at risk as well.
I posit that the corporate form is necessary to fund these types of ventures because history has demonstrated as much: the corporate form evolved as a response to precisely that need for capital allocation. Corporations haven’t always been around, after all. They started as special creations of legislatures upon petition by business interests embarking on significant projects, who needed to reassure investors that their investment wouldn’t put them on the hook for more than the cash they put up; their use became more and more popular, causing governments to pass corporation laws allowing any business interest to adopt that form.
So when I say that corporations are necessary to developing capital-intensive businesses (like CPU manufacturing), I think I’m well enough grounded in historical fact to make that assertion plausibly. I’m certainly not inventing things out of whole cloth.
There is a wealth of information on the internet about legal issues as well, but I don’t consider that “homework” for my debating opponents. I make my own arguments, and while I may cite to other works for support, I do not tell my adversaries “go read everything written on this topic and get back to me.” That sort of thing is, to my mind, a cop-out from intelligent discussion.
Regardless of what you may think of me, I’m surprised that you would not, as a courtesy to the readers of this forum who may find the issues I’ve raised to be valid, explain your position more thoroughly and lay out why you think the issues raised either do not apply or are not problematic.
A partnership is an abstract entity just as a corporation is an abstract entity, albeit one without limitedl liability for investors (N.B.: ignoring LPs and LLPs on this point). Lib says abstract entities canot be rights-bearing and thus cannot enter into contracts. Thus, the partnership cannot enter into contracts – only individual partners, which brings up the same problem of “how the hell do you get anything done?” noted by Gorsnak.
Lib’s position also raises the very real economic problem of killing off the capital markets by eliminating investor limited liability. How will Intel or AMD build their billion-dollar chipmaking facilities if they can’t harness the power of thousands of investors willing to bet small sums but unwilling to gamble with their homes and other assets?
If that’s his question, he should have asked it. The liablity is always distributed exactly to the same place the rights are — the owner(s). All rights (and accountability) accrue to ownership.
You’re not only a liar, but a coward — hiding behing innocent bystanders to hurl your attacks. As you can see from the post above, I answer other people’s questions. I just don’t want to answer yours. I just don’t like you anymore, and I’m finished trying to mend what little remained of our relationship. Your next approach to me will be conciliatory or it will be ignored.
Please turn your attention to Post 37, paragraph 3.
So in individual shareholder of GE has potentially unlimited liability with respect to GE’s debts? My ownership of 100 shares of GE could concievably lead to the loss of my house, my car, and all my other assets?
The hell? You are aware that others besides you and I read these forums, and that they might just think I’ve raised a valid question or two, right? I mean, that is a true statement, right? I’m not sure how you can characterize that simple observation as “hiding” – after all, I’m perfectly prepared to discuss the issue further, right here, in public. I’m not the one threatening to pick up my toys and run home.
Well, I’ll just have to pick up the shattered pieces of my life and carry on. I’ll muddle through somehow. :rolleyes:
Lib, I’m prepared to vigorously discuss your philosophy, but I’m not prepared to kiss your ass in order to do so. Thicken your skin and let’s continue.
You know, Dewey and I have come to blows more than once on this board – his opinion of “rights,” to take the leading example, is one that is IMO as statist as Franco’s Falangistas’. But in this case he is very much on target.
In our political and economic system, some means of enabling persons to risk a portion of their capital while not putting the rest at the same risk is essential to any act entailing more than making a purchase with out-of-pocket change. The legal fiction of “corporate persons” is the means which was hit on for doing this. It says that you, individually or in company with others, may divide your resources in such a way that you may place a portion of it in a situation where you may lose it or gain a high return on it, without placing the whole of your wealth at similar risk. It does this by enabling you to create or buy an interest in a fictitious “person” whose total wealth is placed at risk.
Are there other ways of constructing this sort of “risk this/protect that” scenario? Probably; none have been advanced that have caught on as the “limited liability corporate person” concept have. But is it necessary to have something of this sort? IMO, yes. When I created an IRA (which I was unfortunately required by necessity to cash in), I put most of it (85%) in as low-risk funds as I could find, and 15% in a high-risk-for-high-return fund. I did this on purpose, in order to ensure that I would have about 85% of my IRA whatever happened, while gambling that the market would do well and I would make money with the other 15%. And that in a nutshell is what limited liability companies do for people.
There is no ethical problem with limited liability per se, Poly, but with limited liability enforced by coercion for damages caused in non-contractual transactions. There is nothing wrong with a corporation (or a person, for that matter) offering a contract that limits its liability. But if, for example, a corporation (or a person, for that matter) uses special government favor to dump out toxic waste and kill people (Google for toxic waste), then it is an ethical abomination. It is nice that 85% of your retirement is safe, but it comes at the expense of someone else’s exposure to harm. Besides, the Noncoercion Principle shields shareholders from the unscrupulous practices of its executives if the latter are acting in breach. It is remarkable to me that you, of all people, would condone the accumulation of wealth without regard to its effects on others.
Waitaminute. I thought corporations, being artificial, non-rights-bearing entities, could not ethically enter into contracts. Here you say they can. Which is it?
Except if Poly isn’t insulated from liability, the corporation won’t exist – because Poly and most of the other shareholders will not be willing to risk taking an ownership stake in the corporation. You’re essentially killing the ability of large enterprises to raise capital.
So is the CEO and not the shareholders held responsible for the torts of the corporation? For that matter, what of ordinary employer vicarious liability for the torts of its employees? If some unscrupulous middle manager makes a decision to that injures an independent third party, is only that middle manager held accountable?