Lib, what I will promise – what I have always promised – is that I will treat you like any other person in GD, with no greater or lesser respect than other posters with whom I have had spirited discussions. See, e.g., virtually any discussion of constitutional law I have had with minty green, Polycarp, et al.
I stand by my record in this regard. Dare I say I have treated you with far more courtesy and respect in our past exchanges than you have treated me, your reflexive complaints to the contrary notwithstanding. I will let the facts speak for themselves in this regard – I believe perusing any of our exchanges linked in the “library” pasted on page one of this thread will bear me out.
I decline your invitation for cooperation because past history has taught me that, in your view, this translates into obsequiousness. I believe a pointed observation or sharp criticism of your view would be met with shouts of lack of cooperation. I am unwilling to step into that briar patch.
I would love to continue the discussion with you, but I will not promise you special treatment.
On an unrelated note, if I may offer a word of advice…
I finally got around to reading Atlas Shrugged awhile back, and while I recognize that you aren’t an objectivst, I note this difference between you and Rand when explaining your respective philosophies. You seem chronically unwilling to explain in concrete terms what outcomes your proposed system would yield under various scenarios. Rand, on the other hand, relies heavily on illustrating exactly what she thinks the endpoint of failing to embrace her view happens to be. She appeals to the reader, not through abstract claims to justice, but rather by the practical claims on the reader’s self-interest.
I have my issues with Rand in general and with the book in particular – the picture she paints is, to put it mildly, a bit much – but my point isn’t that Rand is right and you or I are wrong, but rather that Rand’s approach is much more effective way of presenting libertarian-ish ideas.
All I ask is that you consider that when specific “what happens if…” questions are presented to you. Having concrete answers to real-world situations will strengthen your argument and lend you a good deal of credibility.
(Consider which characters in the book were associated with giving direct, concrete responses when challenged, and which characters were associated with refusing to do so…and consider which you’d like to emulate.)
Sure have. Let’s see. I believe that your hijack of this thread started at post #101 while the people you elbowed out were discussing pollution and vaccinations. You wanted to discuss logical fallacies and something you called “intellectual property rights”. I first asked you whether you wouldn’t mind researching the issue on your own since your claim was that your motivation was curiosity and we were all discussing other things. When I’m curious, I do research. Lucky for me, I reckon, that my quest for knowledge does not depend on grabbing your attention and demanding that you stop what you’re doing to educate me. I then asked you whether you would mind joining the ongoing discussion so that people wouldn’t think you’re derailing yet another thread in which I’m discussing libertarianism. It seems that Slaphead, Treis, et al gave up when This Year’s Model joined in with you, eventually resulting in the intervention of an administrator. After that episode, I informed you unequivocally that I did not have an opinion on the matter you wished to discuss. I explained to you that there are arguments both pro and con, and even linked you to one of them. I then asked whether you would like to cooperate in defining the terms, so that I could help you get an answer to your question. In typically disdainful fashion, you ignored what I said and now suddenly your request for information, born of curiosity, had become an itch to have an argument, born of God knows what. An offer to help you find your answers became, in your mind, an appeal that you help me formulate an argument. On a matter about which I had no opinion. Let me repeat that so that the absurdity is clear: you wanted me to argue with you about something I have no opinion about. And in my latest posts, I have asked a number of questions, which you have deemed to be either rhetorical or redundant, in an effort to pin down the bee that is in your bonnet and get you the answer for which you are so desperate. You usually do a much better job at playing to the crowd than this. I don’t know whether you’re too busy or what, but just so you know, it is not necessary that whenever you see libertarianism and my name that you jump in and flail. You can simply elect to let it pass. It is also not necessary that you and I have arguments. When all you have is a question, you should be satisfied with an answer, even if it’s not the answer you wanted to hear. Now, I want you to get hold of yourself because you’re beginning to make me feel sorry for you. Take a break. I know that it helped me. Besides, as you have just demonstrated, whatever answer I give you will be a “non-answer”. And whatever question I ask will be “rhetorical”. I hate to leave it like this, but I did make an earnest attempt to communicate with you. When you’re ready, let me know.
I’d just like to comment first that your link does not demonstrate that societies do not have rights. You can actually point out societies (e.g. all the people living in my apartment building, all the people in Switzerland), making them more concrete than a vague concept like “evil.”
Second, I would disagree. I believe societies can and do have rights, that a group of people together may have rights that each individual does not have. (Gasp The Horror! A collectivist! :eek: I bet it’s not long before someone comes along and calls me a communist or Stalinist ) In fact, a lot of other folks agree with me. The U.S. Constitution, for example, assigns rights to societies (e.g. States, the Federal Gov’t).
Actually, what you wrote was “May I recommend that you Google the keywords “libertarian property rights”, since your motive for asking is mere curiosity?,” which I think any reasonable reader would take not as an actual question, but rather as a slightly more polite way of saying “buzz off and just fucking Google it.”
But if you meant it as a legitimate question, allow me to answer: no, you may not, for the reasons I gave in response the last time – I’m asking about your views, not the views of other libertarians (who are hardly a unified lot).
Funny, I thought I was “discussing libertarianism.”
At any rate, I answered this “question” directly, in my very next response to the post where you asked it.
None of which would have been necessary had you simply taken on the question asked without all the additional drama. Even now, you’re spending much more time attacking my character and questioning my motives than you are actually addressing the issue presented.
Not having an opinion is a luxury you cannot afford on this issue. Copyrights, patents, trademarks and the like are significant economic interests – this isn’t some obscure corner of the economy we’re talking about. You’re the one who wants to remake the world; accordingly, you should be prepared to address these areas of significant concern.
And I explained that since libertarianism is a fractious movement, I am far more interested in your view of how things play out.
“Why didn’t you just say so?” isn’t rhetorical? Really?
And while I answered the other questions in one answer, I think it adequately covers what was asked. If you wish me to elaborate, please point out where you think my response inadequate.
I hardly think I’ve participated in every discussion of libertarianism that you’ve been a part of. I do jump in if I think there is something worth discussing, though, and I will continue to do so, for the same reason I jump into a lot of constitutional law discussions: I find the issues interesting and the discussion worthwhile.
Even if that answer is fallacious? Even if that answer raises more questions? Even if that answer yields negative consequences?
Dewey, I don’t want to get between you two (there’s obviously some history here), but I think I’d be content with **Lib’s ** understanding of corporations (especially in a limited liability context) in a Libertarian society. I think that it touches on your questions, but I do wonder where capital comes from in libertaria if not from government *or * corporations. I have dealt with some that would happily abolish corporations, not seeing how it would change modern economic models.
And I do agree with you on the fractious nature of libertarians - while current parties can be accused of the same, I’d expect a movement agitating for a total social and economic revolution to have a more unified vision. It seems that infighting is the sort of thing you can afford to when you begin governing.
Don’t forget that some people are both libertarians and economists, and have written on exactly that topic — the economic impact of corporations as non-rights-bearing entities. The argument that I usually hear from authoritarians is that shareholders would hesitate to invest in an enterprise in which they would be liable for the actions of executives, but why the authoritarians think that is not clear. Owners may delegate certain rights with respect to their property, and in fact they do so in the normal course of affairs every day. I might tell you that you can supervise my business, but that doesn’t give you license to steal or commit fraud. If you do those things, it is you and not I who ought to be liable.
I respect your opinion, especially since you offer it honestly, and not in the guise of seeking answers to satisfy your innocent curiosity. But I do disagree. Note that, for one thing, there is a difference between saying “society has rights” and saying that “the society consisting of people in my apartment” has rights. The former is something reified whose elements are not even known, while the latter is nothing more than the set of elements, each of which has rights. With respect to the Constitution, I view it more of less like the Bible — different sides take different interpretations to prove different points and execute different plans. If rights came from Constitutions, then the citizens of the Soviet Union had more rights than citizens of the US, even during the purges of Stalin.
I think it is a voluntary exercise between two people who are interested enough in a particular topic to defend opinions with respect to it. What you think it is is unclear. If you wanted a debate, you should have said, “Lib, I’d like to debate you on the matter of intellectual property.” Instead, you pretended to have questions born of a mere curiosity, and when I informed you (repeatedly) that I had no interest in the matter but that you could find answers to your questions elsewhere, you wanted to pick a fight. So maybe it is you who does not understand what a debate is. At any rate, it seems to me that you’re becoming agitated with the fact that you have failed this time to provoke me into a violent rhetorical response to your cat-pawing. Take my advice and break off for a bit. It’s for your own good.
I’m also curious as to why Stonebow’s question about corporations – which has nothing to do with pollution or anything else previously discussed – was not a “hijack” and worthy of response, but my relatively straightforward inquiries into intellectual property rights are deemed by you to be otherwise.
I also note that in your response to Stonebow, you call anyone who opposes you an “authoritarian,” which connotes some pretty nasty things given modern history, not to mention lumping in a broad range of political thought under one rubric. It’s a bit funny that one who is so quick to take offense at the slightest percieved provocation is so willing to slur his opponents. If you really want an above-board discussion, why not a more neutral term, like “non-libertarians”?
Finally, in brief response to your comment on corporations – you seriously wonder whether and why “shareholders would hesitate to invest in an enterprise in which they would be liable for the actions of executives”? Hell, I can answer that question empirically. Corporations are a relativey new invention. Their widespread use only dates back to the end of the 19th century with the advent of corporation statutes (prior to that, the form was only available via special legislation). And they have proved to be marvelous engines of growth. The principal reason for this is the limited liability they afford investors. Compare before and after, and you will see my point.
I see this every day in practice. I have never, ever set up a client’s new business in a form that lacked limited liability for investors. Why? Because no one would invest in it otherwise. If the client wishes to attract capital, either now or in the future, he must have a form that limits the investor’s liability.
Certainly, you may. And may I suggest you re-read its description: “For long-running discussions of the great questions of our time. This is also the place for religious debates and (if you feel you must) witnessing.” Thus, we may discuss things without debating, and quite often, as I pointed out already, we do. Most of the philosophical threads are like that, as I previously told to you. Libertarianism is a philosophy, specifically one whose ethic is noncoercion and whose metaphysic is government.
How many times must I explain this to you? I have no interest in the topic of intellectual property or its so-called rights. I have given you my understanding of the theory of both sides. I have linked you to an expert analysis. I have offered to work with you cooperatively (which you have declined) to help flesh out the answers from the theory. It seems like my discussion with you has gone like this: What color is the sky? The sky is blue. But what color is the sky? The sky is blue. Why won’t you tell me the color of the sky?
If you are overly sensitive about the term, I’m willing to accomodate you. Oddly, though, I do not recollect your complaining about the term being used in SentientMeat’s excellent thread series on the political compass. Just as left is the opposite of right, libertarian is the opposite of authoritarian. That’s just the nature of the thing.
Well, that’s good. But it is not a question I asked. In fact, I stated the exact opposite, namely that investors ought not to be liable for the actions of executives with or without corporations. Shareholders are owners of the business, and I wrote: “Owners may delegate certain rights with respect to their property, and in fact they do so in the normal course of affairs every day. I might tell you that you can supervise my business, but that doesn’t give you license to steal or commit fraud. If you do those things, it is you and not I who ought to be liable.” Are you still trying to pick a fight?
Cute, but no cigar. Entering a forum called “Great Debates” and then expressing surprise or irritation that people are disagreeing with your ideas and pointing out the flaws in your proposed system is tantamount to walking into a strip club and exlaiming “I am shocked, SHOCKED, to see titties in this joint.”
How many times must I explain this to you? You do not have the luxury of lack of interest. You wish to remake the world. Accordingly, you will be (rightly) asked how the revamping you propose will affect significant aspects of the economy, among other things. If you intend at all for your suggested changes to be taken seriously, you must answer.
Sure, you can just say it bores you and ignore it – I certainly cannot force you to answer – but that response merely illustrates to the readership of the thread just how much you’ve considered the ramifications of implementing your system. You may chose that route, but you do so at the peril of your own credibility.
Allow me to rephrase:
DCU: What color is the sky?
Lib: I am not interested in the color of the sky.
DCU: What color is the sky?
Lib: Many experts disagree on the color of the sky.
DCU: Why won’t you tell me the color of the sky?
Point of fact, I’m not overly sensitive to the term. I’m just pointing out that you do not return your requests for sensitivity in kind. And those who live in glass houses…
I do not believe I participated in that thread, so I do not see how you can use my noncomplaint therein as evidence of…anything, really.
Riiiiiiight. And the opposite of pro-life is pro-death. Gee, it’s just a neutral term, why complain?
OK, so it actually sounds like Libertaria provides broader limited liability than the status quo for investors. As I read the above, if a corporation does wrong, it is the individual officers and employees of the corporation that are held responsible – not only are the shareholders insulated from personal liability, their investment is shielded, too. Injured parties can only look to the personal wealth of the responsible officers and directors.
This seems ripe for abuse. It means if I’m wealthy, all I need to do is to find a proxy to “delegate my rights” to (prefereably a poor, and thus judgment-proof, proxy) and let him do whatever needs to be done. I need not worry about his personal ethics (other than perhaps him stealing from me), because my investment is safe from any third parties he may injure in the course of his duties.
The administration has done a very good job in naming and allocating the forums. Nevertheless, we often find, for example, announcements of death in the community and other important matters that are neither mindless nor pointless in MPSIMS. Quite frankly, the only one who seems irritated is you. How else to account for the fact that you consider both the forum description and the actual history of the forum to be chopped liver? How else to account for the fact that you are desperately trying to pick a fight over something I have no interest in? How else to account for the fact that despite the overwhelming pro-libertarian slant of this thread before you redirected it, you choose to characterize it as an attack on the flaws of libertarianism. What in the world has become of you? You used to be the stalwart of carefully contrived and delicately nuanced cat-pawing. And now you’ve been reduced to martyrdom and arm-flailing. Maybe it was the move to Texas.
Sure I do. That’s the reason I don’t post in every thread, and why I don’t respond to every post. I don’t see that you have responded to every post. Obviously, you believe that you have the luxury of lack of interest.
I’ve examined lots of things I’m not interested in. It’s part of the learning process. For example, I’m not interested at all in Hegel. But I did read Hegel (or more precisely, I struggled to read Hegel) because he was an important philosopher for understanding Marx, Schopenhauer, and others. I gave you the theory, as I understood it, behind both sides of the intellectual property debate. I gave you this theory, not because I was oblivious to it or ignorant of it, but for the opposite reasons — I had seen it and knew about it. Thus your extrapolation from lack of interest in a topic to lack of discipline in research is a logical fallacy. I don’t know whom you believe to be reading these discussions, but I believe that the readers are intelligent and discerning people who can distinguish between a genuine request for information and a pathetic attempt at picking a fight. The former is characterized by gratitude for the information given; the latter by huffy whining that the answers aren’t satisfying.
But I did return it. I told you that I would accomodate you. Inasmuch as that is at least the second time you have assigned to me the exact opposite of what is recorded, I am beginning to be concerned about your welfare. Even you would not intentionally pretend that people have said the very opposite of what they said, knowing that the record belies your claims. Therefore, it must be the case that you are incapacitated in some manner, and are incapable of distinguishing between fact and fiction. I will now add to my advice that you take a break, and encourage you to seek counselling. I want to see back here the man who pushes my buttons for his amusement, and not a man who cowers behind pretend conversations.
Isn’t it odd that you chose not to participate? (We’re just going to set aside your Lack of Luxury to Ignore theory, since it’s ridiculous anyway. I stipulate that you have the luxury of ignoring Sentient’s threads.) As the custodial librarian for libertarian discussions, one would think that a whole series of dozens of threads would catch your eye and perk your interest, particularly since they were hosted by a non-libertarian.
Well, you can’t use “pro-life” to describe a stance on abortion of a fetus, unless you use “pro-death” to describe the same thing. Libertarian means freedom from authority — the Latin root, liber, means freedom, and is the root of both libertarian and liberal. (And of course, liberty.) Authoritarianism simply means the imposition of authority. But, for the third time, I will use whatever term does not upset you.
Sure. If Mr. Smith has harmed me, why should I look to the wealth of Mr. Jones?
That’s exactly right, just like the opposing system, which is ripe for abuse by ne’er-do-wells who wish to hide behind the shield of limited liability. Of course, to do your evil deeds without that shield, you must be careful, because dangers to you abound. If you hire the man for the express purpose of committing crimes, then you are equally culpable as he. Therefore, you must at least maintain the pretense that you had no idea what was going on. And if you decide to make a habit out of financing serindipitous ethical thuggery, your reputation will begin to precede you, and the very fact that you are not an investor will become a selling point for honest companies. Plus, your employees will likely target you for their crimes because you have seen fit to hire unscrupulous people to manage your affairs. They will consider you to be an idiot, and a wealthy one at that. The man who works for you and doesn’t rob you will not be able to bear the shame among his peers.
Well, it could be worse. You could have called me a ‘statist.’
However, it does highlight a difference in our philosophies- I believe that, no matter what you call your movement, it doesn’t result in greater practical freedom for most people. Authority exists- whether it belongs to government, corporations, or churches. I like the first option for the sole reason that I have some say in how it operates, and can moderate its effect on me with some effort. I can’t do the same with the other two without either 1) lots of capital or 2) the power of government.
As for the corporation issue, I tend to agree with Dewey- given the explosion of expansion, innovation, and production in the wake of corporate legislation, it does lead me to believe that upsetting this arrangement would have a serious effect on your economic models. If I understand your clarification, though, I don’t think you understand the sums involved here, and what people are willing to do. I would be willing to bet I could hire someone to do shady things to increase my profits, and would sleep well at night if they ended up in jail. Given the existing difficulties of uncovering and punishing fraud at the corporate level, I’d even be willing to *be * that guy, and gamble for the rewards involved.
And remember, the legal system would have to *prove * you hired someone specifically to break the law to seize any of the corporation’s assets. That’s not easy to do, and I believe that people would take the risk.
You enumerated the powers you would need to moderate corporations and churches, but failed to enumerate the powers you would need to moderate government. Unless you are George Bush or Hillary Clinton or even Ron Paul, your powers over your government are limited to a single vote for each of the governers who have power over you. Their power is so much greater than yours that even capital and the blessings of Jesus could not help you if, say, they decided to change the election laws or restrict your freedom. True, in a broad metaphorical sense, you are participating in the selection of someone to represent your views in government, but in a practical everyday sense, you are at the mercy of your governers’ whims, and must count on their benevolence. Besides, if your candidate lost 51% to 49%, then your views are not even represented at all. And lest my comments be misconstrued as being anti-government, I’ll say again that I support a very strong government, but not one that oversees every aspect of your life; rather, one that suppresses any coercion that you might otherwise experience. What you need to moderate government is political clout.
I agree with Dewey, too. But unlike Dewey, I see both sides of the issue. There are certain outcome advantages to corporations as rights-bearing entities, and certain outcome disadvantages. Likewise for the other side. But libertarianism does not operate by establishing an end, and then seeking the most expedient means to achieve it. Rather, libertarianism advocates ethical means, and accepts whatever the end may be. Maybe corporate legislation was responsible for growth, and maybe it wasn’t. You know, cum hoc ergo propter hoc, and all that. Maybe what corporations have done is funnel most of the wealth into just a few hands, increasing the disparity between the richest and the poorest. And corporations are not without a sordid history. Surely, it is not necessary that I invoke some sort of Enron list to make the point that limited liability corporations can cause substantial and ruinous harm to both investors and clients. Cheaters will always find ways to cheat, and coercers will always find ways to coerce. I simply do not accept the Your System Has Flaws argument as a viable defense of the status quo. I already stipulated that you could hire crooks to do your business, so why you brought it up as a point is unclear. But you did not address why the crook would not prefer to fleece you over fleecing clients. There is no account in the General Ledger more accessible to top executives than owner’s equity. It is the fountain from which all blessings (and curses) flow. Fleecing clients takes a lot of time, and involves a massive amount of work, unless you are selling extremely high dollar goods. It is much easier to fleece the wealthy fool who hired a crook to guard his affairs.
Don’t get mixed up. There would be no corporation’s assets. A corporation would be nothing more than a cooperative investment vehicle. But sure, it would be hard to prove, which is why I stipulated that you might get away with it a time or two. But go for the third, and eyes would be on you like stink on crap. Even the crooks would avoid you, just as they avoid those in their own ranks who are too ostentatious and loud, and have the stigma of surveillance baggage.
I did not say you hadn’t researched the topic. I said your failure to reply indicated that you had failed to “consider the ramifications of implementing your system.” That is, even if you know the IP issue inside and out, you have failed to integrate the IP issue into your worldview. If you had, you could describe at least in general terms how such issues would be handled in your particular vision of a libertarian society. That you cannot or will not do so weakens the strength of your call for a reworked world.
No, not really. This may shock you, but I don’t visit the forums every day. Sometimes I go weeks without looking for new posts. Other times, I am a more active participant. And even when I am actively participating, there are more threads than I could possibly read. I participate in those that pique my interest for whatever reason and ignore those that do not.
And do I really need to point out that there is a qualitative difference between not participating in a thread and refusing to answer reasonable questions in a thread in which you are already participating?
I maintain the library as a convenience to myself and to others, but I have never claimed it is exhaustive. Indeed, I have on occassions solicited entries for the library precisely because I know there are threads with libertarian discussions in which I have not participated and, indeed, which am not aware of (heck, one entry – your “Sarah’s Gold” thread – was placed in the library after you expressly requested that I search for it).
I beg to differ:
It’s that pesky “absolute obedience” that throws a monkey wrench into your use of the term.
Perhaps because if, say, Mr. Jones owns a trucking company and Mr. Smith is his trucker employee, Mr. Jones has an obligation to ensure that his truckers are competent, and accordingly when a truck driven by Smith injures someone due to Mr. Smith’s negligence, the injured party can hold BOTH Smith and Jones responsible?
Well, no, actually. The folks “hiding behind the shield of limited liability” (we’ll call them “shareholders”) have an incentive to exercise caution in hiring the managers of their enterprise, because although their personal assets are safe, their investment is not. People invest in enterprises to make money, not to lose it.
Such a pretense would be laughably easy to maintain (how would you prove otherwise, assuming the parties aren’t stupid enough to put their nefarious intent in writing?)
Why would anyone care who a company’s backers are, so long as the customers get what they want at a good price? For that matter, how would a customer verify who the owners of an enterprise are, anyway? What’s to stop my unscrupulous manager (completely without my knowledge, BTW) from simply denying that I am an investor?
Well, I’ve already stipulated that “not stealing from me” will be the one area in which I thoroughly vet my employees. And shame? Heh, good one. Go read a year’s worth of “Dilbert” or watch “The Office” (US or UK, makes me no difference) and get back to me on how effective hatred of one’s job or boss is in making employees leave.
I suppose it bears repeating that I have incorporated the IP issue into my worldview. In my view, it is boring and I have no opinion on it one way or the other. Have you forgotten what I said? Again? Were you under the impression that for a man to have a worldview, he must come down on the yea side or the nay side of every issue under the sun? I am familiar with many of the issues involved in oral versus anal sex with men, but I find the topic boring and have no interest in discussing it. Do you have an interest in discussing the noumenal versus the phenomenal with respect to Fa-tsang’s Gold Lion? If not, does it mean your worldview has a hole in it?
Surely, you are not pretending that you did not see Sentient’s discussions over the course of the year. It has been heralded as the greatest series of threads in SDMB history. They were even featured in ATMB, which a mindful member ought to review upon every visit, in case there is an important announcement or board issue.
But your question was answered. You just didn’t like the answer. “I don’t know and I don’t care” is an answer. If I asked you what the flaw is in Kant’s treatment of existence as a predicate, and you said, “That is of no interest to me, and I don’t know a lot about it,” I would hope that I would have the maturity, the decency, and the simply adult mindset not to hijack your thread to the ground, hound you repeatedly, refuse to let the matter drop, whine endlessly about how put upon you’ve made me, scream from the cross that you’re ignoring me, and otherwise make an ass of myself. And especially so if you offered to help me find my answers if I would explain the particulars to you.
If you know about Sarah’s Gold, then your accusation that I haven’t “considered the ramifications of implementing [my] system” was disingenuous.
And it’s that pesky “as against individual freedom” qualifier that you’re ignoring.
Well, I have no problem with that. But why should Widow Johnson, whose retirement fund comes from investments in the company be exposed to a suit? She is not running the company.
The point is that they do not need this shield. (Nor the several exceptions to it, such as separation of the individual from the corporate entity, intentional fraud, etc.) If the corporation is not a rights bearing entity, then its assets are not protected by property ethics.
How do you prove intentional fraud on the part of an investor? Is it laughably easy and therefore pointless to attempt to contain? In any case, your assertion is gratuitous and therefore may be gratuitously denied.
Well, at least it’s good to see you’re back in your question slinging mode. I’m glad to see that you grabbed yourself by the scruff and gathered your wits about you. I’m not sure I get the question, though. If the company is not cheating its clients, then who is it cheating? And if it cannot be proved that you’re an investor, then how do you get your profits, and why should the crook you hired do your bidding?
You misunderstood the point. The metaphor about shame within his peerage points out that he is the lone crook among his peers who is dumb enough to ignore a cash cow (your equity account) while struggling to squeeze pennies from the revenue and expense accounts.
I can imagine a similar response from a collectivist: “I have incorporated supply and demand into my worldview. In my view, it is boring and I have no opnion on it one way or the other.”
If you want to remake the world, you can’t just ignore difficult but important questions, even if you find them boring. We live in an information-driven world, and intellectual property is a vitally important aspect of our economic well-being. It is sensible for people to inquire how this vitally important interest is handled by your proffered philosophy before they sign on to it – people should know what they’re buying into, with eyes wide open.
Hey, I’m amazed that there are people who have never heard of Star Wars. Doesn’t mean they’re lying.
I am unfamiliar with the threads in question. Presumably my eyes scanned over them at some point, but just didn’t catch my attention for whatever reason. Or perhaps I was busy and wasn’t really going to the boards at the time. I dunno. And I rarely visit ATMB – if something’s really important enough to warrant my attention, they’ll post it in the other forums.
No, it really isn’t, at least not in this context – it does not provide the information the questioner is seeking, and it is information that you are uniquely situated to provide. It’s an evasion, and a damned poor one at that.
I must have missed the part where Sarah wrote a novel, or Amon invented a new drug, or where the Cancer Institute was concerned about the use of its logo.
I’ll stick to my initial observation: the fact that you can’t explain how a major sector of the economy would be handled under your proposed system demonstrates a failure to fully think through the ramifications of your proposed system.
You are using the word in a way that is quite a bit different than its commonly understood meaning, and I suspect that is largely a rhetorical means of slurring your opponents, in much the same way as pro-lifers and pro-choicers implicitly slur their opponents as being pro-death or anti-choice.
I mean, really: by this standard, the authors of the Bill of Rights are “authoritarians” because they believed in having an effective government.
Widow Johnson is not subject to personal liability from the suit, but her investment is – which provides an incentive for Widow Johnson to carefully evalutate the recklessness of those who run the trucking company before she gives them her money.
Under your theory, the funds Widow Johnson has provided the trucking company are not at risk. The lawsuit will not result in the forfeiture of those funds, or of the assets they purchased. Thus, the trucking company’s drivers have an incentive to (for example) run as long and hard as possible, regardless of safety, and the owners have no incentive to stop them.
If a corporation is not a rights bearing entity, how is it possible for it to own assets?
Intentional fraud is usually proven against someone who’s bilked an investor, and not against the investor itself. And it’s tough to prove. Generally, it requires something concrete: you told me you were using the money for X, but instead used it for Y. But that isn’t the situation we’re faced with here. Here, we’re faced with an investor providing funds to a manager to do nefarious deeds on the investor’s behalf. And again, unless you have something in writing indicating the investor knew the manager would be doing nefarious deeds – which won’t exist if they’re smart – that case is virtually impossible to make.
Good to see you’re back in your question avoidance mode.
Who says it’s cheating anyone? Companies can harm third parties without cheating, you know.
Suppose a company puts a product out on the market with a very serious design defect. Suppose the company tested the product before it put it on the market, but just missed this particular defect. Who is liable? There is no fraud – the company’s executives legitimately thought the product was safe.
My manager brings me suitcases of cash via an anonymous courier.
And he does my bidding because I will sue him on our contract if he doesn’t (the contract is kept in a safe deposit box and is secret to all the world except for my manager and I, and will only be revealed in the event of a suit between the two of us.)
Who said anything about my manager committing fraud against anyone? I’m talking about a guy who is ruthless and without pity, and will get things done regardless of how many innocent third parties he injures (injures, not cheats) while doing so. He’s somewhat sociopathic, but he’s also effective.
Your idea of assignable rights, is it one of those ideas that is disputed among differnet stripes of libertarian or is it fairly standard? I had always assumed that the end of corporations as rights-bearing entities implied the end of limited liability in general. In other words: there would be no more investors only partners, sharing equally in risk and reward, each accepting responsibility for the actions of the company. It always seemed to be the most important balancing factor against the complete lack of preemptive economic and environmental regulations.
Of course, each parter’s liability would be somewhat limited in that it would be proportional to their share of ownership. Widow Johnson could lose more than her initial investment if the trucking company is prosecuted for massive negligence, but not enough to put her on the street, assuming that she’s one parter out of thousands.
It has become apparent that you have intoxicated yourself with your own meme. Your question has not been ignored. In fact, your question has been the topic of this thread since you first asked it — you’ve made sure of that. It has already been proved that your alleged curiosity motive was disingenuous, since you summarily rejected doing your own research. It really isn’t about your curiosity at all; otherwise, you would do what others do when they are curious about a topic and someone doesn’t know the answer. And like Bush morphing the cause of Iraq from weapons of mass destruction to the spreading of freedom, you are morphing your cause from a quest for knowledge to saving the world. You’ve become rather like the man repeatedly trying to turn on an appliance, which he has been told is unplugged. You flip the switch, and nothing happens. Perhaps, you reason, flipping it again will yield a different result. And so you flip it again. And again. And again. “No!” you cry, “I will not plug the appliance in. It is beneath me to bend over and assist myself.” You have wadded up and discarded blueprints and instructions, refusing to consult them. You have turned down offers of help. Instead, you flip the switch some more. And now you have convinced yourself that the appliance is ornery and ignoring you. So you have begun to flip the switch with vigor, and have established in your mind that if the appliance does not come on, the world will end. So-called intellectual property might be uninteresting, but I really must say that your two page rant has been a wonder to behold.
Would you mind explaining how it is that you may decide what is and is not important to you, but I may not? You even declared that you “jump into a lot of constitutional law discussions: I find the issues interesting and the discussion worthwhile”. Is there some reason, other than the obvious, why you hold yourself to a different standard than you hold others? Well, at least one other.
“It’s a matter of whether ownership of the mind means ownership of the decisions it makes or ownership of the ideas it conceives, and whether the latter extrudes into ownership of the ideas it realizes. There is certainly no controversy over the ownership of consent; but there is great controversy over the ownership of realized ideas. No one can force you to divulge what is in your head, but if you’ve divulged it voluntarily, then it is out there like the breath you’ve exhaled. That’s how I see it anyway.”
Beyond that, I am not your law clerk, your tutor, or your homework slave. It seems to me that you, more than I, are uniquely situated to provide information about copyright law — information which I requested in the same post, but which you declined to provide. Your own evasion was not even subtle. It was bold, complete with a revealing question about why you should supply my “argument” (your word) for me. Which, of course, was when it first came to light that you were not merely curious at all, but rather were pining for a fight.
Well, there then, you see? It is apparently not important at all.
Handled? I’m an Austrian. Why should an economy be handled? Your failure to conceive of anything but a Keynesian model of economics demonstrates a failure to fully think through the ramifications of practically any proposed system. It means that, even if the topic interested me, and I were able to provide you all the information you wanted, and you suddenly dropped all this you’re-ignoring-me nonsense, you still would not understand it.
I’ve never seen or heard those terms, pro-death or anti-choice. Besides, it is libertarianism that you fancy to be the dirty word, the evil that will ruin civilization. It is surprising that you do not find that term, rather than the term for your own worldview, to be offensive.
Yes, and? What more appropraite term is there than authoritarian for someone who believes that rights come from a bill that he has authored?
Why should her investment be subject to liability? She has done no wrong. If your system punishes Widow Smith for the actions of Simon Legree, then your system is an ethical abomination.
You mean the managers, I suppose. Her funds are at risk from profit and loss. But why should she pay for the misdeeds of a manager whom she didn’t even hire? If he purposefully commits an assault by truck, or orders or tolerates the same, why should she be liable?
It isn’t. It doesn’t. Who said it does? Each cooperative investor owns a percentage of the company. The corporation is a reified entity. Business is conducted by people in charge of its operations.
Other than to assert the case gratuitously, you still have given no reason why one is more hard to prove than the other. Clearly, there is a difference between making an investment and making a hire. You have conflated both, and combined them into one deed. In any case, your intentions are intercepted when the nefarious deed has been done. When your stooge has bilked the client, and the client sues, your stooge is on the chopping block if no one can show that you hired him rather than invested in the company. The client is reimbursed, the stooge is in prison, his earnings and assets given over to the client, and now you must hire a new idiot. He will have to be an idiot, because he must be a man who says, “Wow, if I work for this guy, I can go to jail too!”
Ah, the meme. Maybe you should give that switch another flip.
Well, harm then. Speaking of avoiding the question: If the company is not [del]cheating[/del] harming its clients, then who is it [del]cheating[/del] harming?
Why should anyone who has acted in good faith be liable? Of what your point is appropos is unclear.
Why the heck should he do that? Are you that handsome, and he so enamored of you? Were I your stooge, I would abscond with your cash, and send you a postcard from my vacation spot of choice, along with a request for your network of contacts so I can get hired by one of your friends.
And now suddenly everything is in writing? You just finished saying, “…unless you have something in writing indicating the investor knew the manager would be doing nefarious deeds – which won’t exist if they’re smart…”. Supposing you’ve changed your mind, what will your contract say? We, the undersigned, do hereby agree that the party of the first part will bring the party of the second part the company’s cash by courier?
Reread. I said nothing about fraud in that comment: “…he is the lone crook among his peers who is dumb enough to ignore a cash cow (your equity account) while struggling to squeeze pennies from the revenue and expense accounts”. Let him squeeze them by ruthlessness rather than fraud. So what? He’s still an idiot. It would be like breaking into a house, and stealing the pack of cigarettes next to the wallet.
I’ve never seen it as a controversy, although that doesn’t mean that such a controversy does not exist. Liberally speaking, rights and property ownership are synonyms. Thus, a person may assign rights just as he may loan or sell his car. That’s what any laborer does: he sells rights to his body, which he owns.
) In fact, a lot of other folks agree with me. The U.S. Constitution, for example, assigns rights to societies (e.g. States, the Federal Gov’t).