The meat of my question was actually the limited liability part, which I gather you consider an extension of assignable rights.
Is it fairly standard in libertarian circles to take this position? That I may legally hold 20% ownership of the company and recieve 20% of the profits, and yet take 0% responsibility. Is there any controvery on that particular point?
You neglected to add “20% of the loss”. You are responsible for whatever it is that you do. Even so-called limited liability does not shield an investor of a corporation from a personal act, such as guaranteeing a loan for the corporation or commiting a crime. But you are not responsible for what other people do, unless you somehow assisted them and their actions. Again, I know of no controversy surrounding this issue, but that doesn’t mean some libertarian or classical liberal might not think differently. If he did, then he somehow has rationalized that investment is something other than a loan. He has assigned operational authority to the lenders. If I encountered him, I would ask him why.
The question has been the topic of the thread, but it has not been answered. Rather, it has been a series of evasions and excuses for refusing to answer my question that has taken up this thread.
Again: You wish to remake the world. Why is it such a terrible thing to tell people in reasonably concrete terms how your remaking would operate in significant economic areas? Why do you not wish for people to accept or decline your worldview with eyes wide open?
Wow, way to take a quote out of context (the quotation in question was part of a response to the question “why do you always jump into libertarianism threads?”)
Look, I’ve never held you responsible for not participating in a thread. It’s silly to do so. The SDMB is a big place, and there’s no way anyone can participate in every topic that comes up. I’d question the sanity of anyone who tried. I have never asked you a question in a thread that you were not already actively posting to.
OTOH, you are actively participating in this thread. This thread is about libertarianism in general. I have asked a reasonable question about your view of a libertarian world. And no, you cannot maintain your credibility by only responding “I do not think that question is interesting.”
And here was my response, which you summarily ignored in your following posts:
“Is this a statement of your view? It’s so noncommittal I’m not sure. At any rate, what you appear to be saying is that there are effectively no copyright protections to be found flowing from the noncoercion principle – the novelist has no right to profit from his work, should he choose to publish it. Do I understand you correctly?”
That, at least, was the beginning of a response to my question, but it was relatively noncommittal, so I sought to clarify that it was in fact your view, and further sought to clarify the precise meaning of your view. Tragically, my efforts were summarily ignored in favor of continued evasions.
snicker Is it really your position that anything not discussed in Sarah’s Gold is “not important at all”? You give yourself far too much credit.
Spare me. By “handled” I was not referring to government management of economic functions; I was asking for a description of what novelists, inventors and the like can expect under a libertarian system of government.
Look up the term “implicitly,” which I used in my post.
Eh, I don’t begrudge that at all, anymore than I begrudge persons on the left the use of “progressive.” I do object to saddling your opposition with terms that are loaded with historical baggage, or that distort the actual position of your opponent.
You mean a person who believes that rights should be protected, and accordingly takes steps to do so in a world where such broad protections of rights have never been enshrined into law? I don’t know, but “authoritarian” certainly doesn’t fit the bill. It’s like calling Reagan a communist because he didn’t completely undo the concept of tax brackets.
(I also note that simply enshrining rights into law does not mean one necessarily believes that rights “come from a bill that he has authored,” as prior discussions on the nature of rights – did you miss those threads? – certainly demonstrate.)
I answered your question in the very sentence to which you are responding: “[it] provides an incentive for Widow Johnson to carefully evalutate the recklessness of those who run the trucking company before she gives them her money.”
Please see above.
You did. You wrote: 'If the corporation is not a rights bearing entity, then its assets are not protected by property ethics."
OK, but who actually owns the plant and equipment? Each of the owners individually? How does that work, exactly, especially as investors wish to enter and exit the enterprise? Does their ownership have to be tracked on a per-asset basis?
As I’ve said, they’re both hard cases to make. As I also said, one set of facts is more likely to yield actions indicating fraud.
There’s one thing this world has an inexhaustible supply of. Can you guess what it is?
These exchanges would be more pleasant if you actually read what I wrote before you reply. Here is the sentence you are replying to, with emphasis to answer your query: “Companies can harm third parties without cheating, you know.”
And…do I really need to explain how a company can hurt a third party who is not a client? Ever heard of Bhopal?
You’ve just created a massive incentive for a “see no evil” approach to product testing (or at least a “do the absolute minimum” approach to product testing).
Oh, I pay my stooges well. He won’t abscond because he doesn’t want to kill the golden goose.
The key phrase there is “indicating the investor knew the manager would be doing nefarious deeds.” Nothing in our contract indicates that my fellow will be doing any such thing. And again, no one knows about the existence of this contract; it would only become public if my stooge or I decide to sue one another. Indeed, it has a rather draconian confidentiality provision to guaranty exactly that.
Sure. Why not? Most of the contracts I work with on a daily basis contain a provision for method of payment (though it’s almost always “by wire transfer of immediately available funds,” and not suitcases of cash).
(Also, no one uses “party of the first part/party of the second part” anymore. That’s old fashioned and poor draftsmanship. It’s all defined terms today, baby.)
Who said anything about squeezing pennies from revenue and expense accounts? My guy is ruthless, but not a thief (at least not in the conventional sense). He doesn’t care if he injures people in the course of his duties, but he won’t abscond with funds from anyone.
At least you’ve taken the first step — admission that your hijack is now the thread proper. Let’s see whether, with perseverance and patience, we can move you forward to an understanding of several more facts: (1) I am not beholden to answer any of your questions; (2) “I have no opinion, but here’s the theory from both sides” is indeed an answer to your question; (3) your mere existence does not imbue your questions with the sort of importance that you think it does; and (4) you misrepresented your intentions when you feigned curiosity, only to reveal later by a hapless rhetorical misjudgment that your genuine interest was in having an argument. One down and four to go.
Again: Neutrality is a perfectly valid position with respect to any viewpoint. I have never heard your view on whether existence is a predicate (which is germane to the establishment of a copula with respect to the libertarian metaphysic), but I am not distraught with belief that my fate might be calamitous unless you take a position one way or the other. The fact that I am content with however my government implements so-called intellectual property arbitration honestly is not a cause for your world to fall apart.
Both quotes (the one from the body of your post, and the one culled from another post) clearly mean that you pick and choose what is of interest to you. That makes your Chicken Little pronouncements of my lack of interest in your pet issue seem ridiculous. The question still open to you is why you fancy yourself entitled to choose your own interests, but fancy that I am evasive for doing the same thing.
I’m not holding you responsible for not participating in a thread. I am holding you responsible for making demands of other men that you are yourself unwilling to bear. If you may pick and choose your interests, so may I.
There’s no point in your continuing to misrepresent the facts, since my response to you is a matter of record. You should be grateful to have been given the theory underlying both positions so that your research to satisfy your alleged curiosity would have a jumpstart.
You really must decide — did I answer your question, prompting a response, or did I not? Well, lo and behold, the fact is that I did, and you’ve just admitted it. So now what? You asked a question; I answered it; you commented on the answer; and now I owe you what exactly? Should I clear up the fact that your comment bears so little resemblance to my answer that a reasonable man might have taken it to be a whole new comment coming out of thin air? Where within “it can be taken both ways” do you find “the novelist has no right to profit from his work”? If you were going to resort to the tactic of attacking scarecrows, you should have alerted me.
Tragically? Yes indeed, the earth herself weeps for you. 
I eagerly await your pretzel of an explanation as to how a response is not a response simply because it takes a neutral view.
Me? Nah. It’s just that I give you very little.
It is the very richest irony that just after typing the above, your next paragraph will ask me to look up a word in the dictionary. In what dictionary is the word “handle” defined as “holding an expectation”? Perhaps it is then not surprising at all that you cannot see the answer to your question from the information given, since in your world words can have surprising meanings and serendipitous connotations. Clearly, under the theory that ownership extends to internalized consent only, a novelist can expect no protection of his written work; but under the opposing theory that ownership extends to expressed and realized consent, the novelist can expect to own the fruits of it. Me, I can live with either one. And in the final analysis, the fact that this is what so upset you that you felt compelled to maintain the pretense of having no ability to extrapolate a logical inference from a straightforward premise is almost pitiful in its sheer desperation. There is indeed a tragedy, but it is the tragedy of a man who, despite whatever dubious motivations, cannot draw a simple implication. Or is your inexplicable intellectual gaffe merely more pretense, along the lines of being curious about the issue? I want you to know that, whatever becomes of you — whether it be that your world collapse, or that Nurse Ratched refuse you your cigarettes — I will be here for you.
Given the increasing descent of your credibility in this discussion, I am loathe to pile on with yet more facts, but I think it is important that you have at least a modicum of understanding about your own language. The adverb “implicity” modifed the verb “slur”, and not the two terms in question. Therfore, it was the slur that you held to be implicit, not either “pro-death” or “anti-life”. I have heard the sides slur one another, but I have not heard those specific terms.
So do I. But you have yet to show why “authoritarianism” has any such baggage, other than a dictionary definition which you misunderstood, and an attribution from a source that, for all we know, could have been written by an imperialist with self-esteem issues and a grudge the size of Mount Ranier. Besides, why you’re still beating this dead horse — strike that: this rotting corpse of a horse who fell long ago — is unclear. I have, after all, agreed to acquiesce to your sensitivities and use the term “non-libertarian”, which I’ve already done.
Reagan was not a communist; he was a statist. At any rate, why on earth the protection of rights should be (pardon me while I vomit) enshrined into law is unclear. It should be the other way around. The law should be enshrined into the protection of rights. Protection of rights should be the given, and the law should be adjusted to accomodate the premise.
Well, you’re the one who brought it up. If you had no faith in the principle, why did you raise it?
Do you honestly mean to say that the risk of being liable for some unknown man’s crime ought to weigh in whether the Widow Johnson invests? The view suprises me because it is so unlike your other views, which are almost universally based upon political expediency. What is the poor woman to do besides trust the company’s reputation? You have made such a huge deal about how hard it is to prove fraud (for my hypotheticals, of course, but not for your own) that I am suprised you find it easy for Widow Johnson to evaluate the character and mental stability of the managers of a company in which she has invested a fractional percentage of equity. Even if she becomes a squatter in the company’s offices, what if they do their crooked deeds while she’s gone to fetch a sip of water? Or while she’s asleep?
I’m afraid that your answer does not leave me satisfied. Should we assume the question is therefore unanswered, or shall we move on?
That’s because they don’t exist. Returning to our remedial language study, we’ve used something called the subjunctive mood. I might say, for instance, that if a unicorn is smashed by a truck, its horn will be bent. That is not a comment about unicorn horns (which don’t actually exist), but about what happens to things generally when they smash into other things. The if…then construct is one clue. And in any case, somewhere in the midst of all this bilateral discussion which no one else is likely reading anymore is the statement that corporations are reified entities. What could be more plain?
The investors loan money to the enterprise, and like any lenders maintain liens against what their funds have purchased. The entries are journalized like any other loans, and are put into the general ledger under owners equity and whatever expense. The lender certainly has the freedom to decide, if he wishes, that his loan is for any general expense. When the lenders are paid, the disbursements are journalized like any other disbursements and are relieved from the general ledger as debt relief and interest paid.
Suppose you had said that a rhesus monkey is harder to catch than a Celebes black macaque. Ought I to take that as a fact or an opinion? I wager that the fact is that which is harder to prove depends entirely on circumstances and events.
Um, Higgs bosons? Bad haircuts? OshKosh B’Gosh? Let us set aside that your take-a-guess comment is nonresponsive, since I have no interest in establishing pretenses and passing them off as sincere inquries. I know what you mean. You mean that the world is full of idiots who will come running to your hypothetical villain, the rich old man with a wart on his nose, bent upon annihilation of the world just to satisfy his own appetite for evil. That is what I so love about your hypotheticals. Everyone in them has the brain of a turnip except, of course, for the character who by his own hands and means will bring down civilization. Your villain always loves money above all else, not for its value apparently, but for its feel against his skin. After all, his intention is to leave everyone else on earth penniless and starving, meaning that he seeks to make a human island out of himself, sitting on piles of money like Jabba the Hut while witless bipedal lampshades do his bidding just because… well, just because. But that is also what makes your hypotheticals so weak. They are ruined by the introduction of people with brains, who think for themselves, whether it’s theives with actual intelligence, or investigators who do not fail to notice a pattern of investment in companies that bilk clients. You routinely complain about real-world implementations of my inoffensive philosophy, and yet you build the most outrageous worlds in your mind that bear no resemblance to reality when you put libertarian theory to the test. Your tactic used to bother me until I realized some time ago that it in fact belied the weakness of your position. The more absurd your concoctions, the less meaning they have.
Now, you’re just getting flustered. The man who very early on wailed about last-resort debating tactics has pulled out of his bag the You Aren’t Reading What I Wrote defense. Idiots in hypotheticals are not enough for you. You must convey upon your opponents in the real world the status of idiots too. That’s because you cannot lift your argument up to the level of making sense. You find it necessary to pull your opponent down. I might not have much to be proud of, but I daresay that I have never pulled out that old canard. If I thought you weren’t reading what I wrote, I would be a fool to write to you. Now, pause for a moment. Catch your breath. And attempt to address the question I asked. Is not the client a third party with respect to Simon Legree and Widow Johnson? Who is the company harming if not its clients?
Boy, was that ever a rhetorical whiplash. So let me get this straight. You have made the conscious decision, in your hypothetical, to hire men for the sole purpose of doing things like poisoning people, and from this you intend to turn a profit. Based on a plan to run over people with trucks and slaughter them by the thousands, you are expecting a known crook and thief to put money that is in his hands into a box for you that is to be delivered in the middle of the night. I do not believe that I have heard a more ridiculous business proposition since the Jump To Conclusions Mat. Oy.
What an odd thing to say, particularly since my view of the issue is identical to yours: the product was tested as thoroughly as possible, there was no fraud, the company’s operators genuinely understood the product to be safe. There was, in effect, an undetectable defect. Why you believe it is fair to hold a man accountable for an epistemic impossibility is unclear. Besides, it is, in fact, your own system that establishes standards as minimums. It has to apply a lowest common denominator because it is a central plan — it is intended to apply to everyone.
Ah, of course. In your hypothetical world, there are six billion idiots but only one golden goose. Conveniently, that would be your villain. In any reasonably constructed world, it seems to me that what a stooge would not want to do is dip his bucket into a dry well that is under surveillance by the government because you have a reputation for bilking investors, ripping off clients, and running over children with trucks leaking poison gas.
Okay, bear with me while I catch up. Nix on the no-contract, and check on the iron clad secret agreement in writing. Nix on the bag of cash, and check on the wire transfer. Nix on the buddy-buddy relationship between you and your stooge, and check on the mutual trigger-finger threat of lawsuits. Nix on the Neanderthal intellect of your stooge, and check on his ability to comprehend the exceedingly harsh consequences of his contractual obligations. If I can get this lined up right, your plan is to make money by conducting business as ineptly as you possibly can, destroying life and property in the process, as you engage the services of a man who is both immoral enough to steal for (and from) you and moral enough to value his promise to you, all the while evading the prying technologies of a government that knows you’re a crook and is hellbent on proving it by a preponderance of circumstantial evidence. And it is your belief that not only is this scenario doable, not only is it likely — it is practically inevitable because the world is full of people who would like to see you succeed at it. Sir. I am in awe.
Thanks for making that known. We wouldn’t want to create any ridiculous parodies of reality or anything.
What is he, a Keebler elf? Where does he get this money that he sends to you, or wires to you, or whatever you will say next that he does with it? Is he sending you his own paycheck or something? Frankly, at this point, that wouldn’t surprise me.
I avoid the label libertarian and I’m definetly not a classical anything, but otherwise I suppose I am the he that you describe, so I’ll try to offer up my rationalization.
Investment is more than just a loan. A loan has guaranteed repayment (usually with collateral) and a guaranteed interest rate. An investment gives the investor a stake in the company, and the “interest” is directly tied to the profitablilty of the company. You said that the investor shares 20% of the loss. Not so if you believe that an investment is nothing more than a loan.
Even if I accept that investment is just a loan by another name, in which the return of principal is tied to the company’s performance, the lender still doesn’t share in 20% of the loss. He is only really vulnerable to a lack of performance. Losses due to unethical behavior (lawsuits or prosecution) will simply be absorbed by the individual actors. Especially if his loan was in the form of equipment or inventory. The goods will still be there after management goes to jail and the lender will still own them.
That last sentance was a bit hyberbolic. I’m not imagining nightmarish scenarios with suitcases of cash being secreted to Boss Hogg’s headquarters in the dead of night. I’m simply saying that insulating investors from certain types of losses is dangerous business. It incentivizes corner-cutting and law-skirting. Not because investors have any operational authority, but simply through their choices of where to invest. Say you have a business. If wish to attract investors, you’d better be willing to risk a few lawsuits against yourself, because if you aren’t there will always be someone who is and his company will yield better returns. Until he gets busted, of course, but why should the investors care?
Moreover, I believe that 20% of reward should come with 20% of risk, period. Lawsuits are a cost of doing business. I see no reason why shareholders should be legally allowed to externalize that particular risk. I suppose I’m saying that government has a legitimate interest in promoting responisble investing, and I don’t see that as authoritarian. The government wont restrict who you’re allowed to go into business with, but it also wont shield you from the the consequences of your partners’ bad decisions.
Syriana fx
Whatever happens with our discussion here, I hope that you find the will and the means to join the board. If means is a problem, let me know, and I will sponsor you. Even though we disagree, your thought processes are so cogent and your expository so clear, that I cannot but respect your position. Despite what you have witnessed in this thread, debates and discussions are not always adversarial to the point of near ad hominem. You will join the ranks of fine minds, like SentientMeat, Spiritus Mundi, Otherwise, Left Hand of Dorkness, and many others who oppose libertarianism ideologically, and state their cases reasonably.
I do understand your point of view, and I do agree that risk factors shift considerably in one model versus the other. However, what I like about my model versus yours is that (1) it is about time that CEOs and other corporate officers earned the money and perks that they enjoy by assuming responsibility for their operational decisions; (2) the implementation of rights without regard to property ownership creates nebulous ethical pitfalls and dilemmas (try, for example to sleep in a so-called public park); (3) a person should be free to assign his rights as he wishes — after all, they belong to him; (4) government should concentrate on the role for which it is best suited, namely the suppression of initial force and deception, by which, given its resources, it is safe to presume that whatever risks are taken will at least not be criminal; but most of all (5) it is ethically the right thing to do to assign blame to the guilty and protect the innocent. One case in point (and the cases are legion) is the “punishment” given to tobacco companies for defrauding their customers (or for lying to Congress, as though that is somehow worse than deceiving citizens). The net effect of that travesty is that the officers who perpetrated the crimes were untouched, while the people whom they deceived and the people who invested in them are paying the companies’ fines. You and I appear to have no quarrel over whether business should be regulated, but merely in what way.
I like to imagine that I’m a reasonable man, and I also thought that was the position you took with this comment:
I think it’s reasonable to gather from that statement that ideas, once expressed, can no longer be owned. And what is a novel but the formal expression of a great many ideas? Or when you said “That’s how I see it” were you saying that you see the difference in viewpoints, rather than endorsing the second viewpoint listed? Language can be tricky.
Anyway I see you responded to what I have to say already within your debate with Dewey but I was interested in this part:
I would say this is pretty much where I’m coming from, with the caveat that any judgement against the operators for force or fraud should supercede any leins that might be held by the investors. That would give what I consider the appropriate level of incentive to invest responsibly.
“That’s how I see it” was intended to apply to the post as a whole; i.e., that’s how I understand the theory underlying both points of view. It is honestly the case that I couldn’t care less, just as I have no interest in the abortion debate. Libertarians can genuinely hold either side of that debate, depending on how life is defined. (People are entitled to all rights with respect to the lives they own, and so the question is whether the fetus is a human life.) What I can’t understand for the life of me, and maybe you can explain it to me, is why Dewey is having such a gargantuan all-consuming problem with the fact that I am neutral.
So long as the investors know going in that that is the case, and that they are free to invest or not as they wish, I have no problem with it. It appears we have come to a mutally satisfying solution.
Liberal
Thanks for the kind words. If you’re not careful I might take you up on your offer. I dont think I need to reply to your points 1 through 5 since we understand each other more clearly now. I just wanted to point out that I wasn’t endorsing a statist approach with rights-bearing corporations (I reserve the right to endorse such an approach in the future). I was simply aghast at the notion of ownership being able to protect 100% of their assets in the event of management’s malfeasance. Ideally there would be some balance of resposibility. Plus if the owners did take an active role in managing the company, their share of responsibilty would increase (I think you already agreed with that). As you said, all parties concerned would know their responsibilties beforehand.
In fact, I would assume that sort of thing would be in the contract that free individuals sign with their chosen government. Right alongside the fee schedules and what-not. I understand that the non-coercion principle suggests only one law, but there would obviously be some procedural fine-print involved. As I slug through Dewey’s links I’m compiling in my head a laundry list of such fine-print issues that I would find entertaining to debate. Don’t worry, I can take “I’m not interested” as an answer.
About that: I have no doubt that Dewey is sincere and not looking to harpoon you. He just likes to apply hypotheticals to broad concepts. Or maybe just libertarianism. Either way I understand because I think it’s fun too. Your neutrality shuts down that avenue of debate. Frustration ensues.
Not that you said otherwise, Syriana, but for the record the one law thing is a concept of my own liking, and is not mandated specifically by the noncoercion principle. There can be four million laws, so long as not one of them coerces a single citizen. (Evidently, you’ve been lurking for some time.)
I disagree with you, however, that a debate is shut down just because my position is neutral. I can debate either side of an issue, no matter which side of it I hold personally, or whether I am committed to no side at all. But do not disguise your desire to argue as an attempt to gather information, and then refuse to offer information yourself. Approach me with honesty and respect.
Finally, my offer is sincere. I have no illusions that I will convince you of anything, and I am not attempting to buy your loyalty (which for this price would have to be exceedingly cheap). I simply love this community, and your moving in would make it even better. I’ve offered before to sponsor people who held different views than I. No strings are attached, and you must make no promise other than to contribute to the community with your posts.
Fair enough - I’d love to discuss the issue of where rights come from, but I think it would be a hijack of this thread. Would you be interested in stopping by this thread to discuss it?
Ya got me. But I haven’t been lurking long enough to develop my understanding of - and interest in - your particular take on libertarian philosophy. That comes fairly recently and all curtesy of Dewey’s library.
Point taken. I’m ambivilant about libertarianism, but here I am.
Funny, I was just about to do exactly that. The reason being that I’m interested in debating impressions that I have about libertarianism from reading threads that are several years old. It seems prudent to first find out if my impressions are correct, if minds have changed, and (heh) if anyone is even interested in debating.
In the event of an accusation of environmental encroachment, is it the sole responsibility of the alleged victim to find evidence against the accused?
Should every citizen pay a flat fee for government protection, regardless of the amount of property he has, the nature of the property, and the steps that he personally has taken to protect his property?
Screw it, I’m not proofing this bad boy – it’s just too damn long and I’ve got food waiting. If there are errors, my apologies in advance.
No, but it is a reason for a person, especially a person who is a novelist or inventor or somesuch, to reject your proposed changes out of hand, since you cannot do them the simple courtesy of explaining what happes to their livelihood when those changes take effect.
Well, no, I don’t consider you evasive for picking and choosing your own interests; I consider you evasive for not answering reasonable questions about a topic, libertariaism, in which you are quite interested. What you are doing is tantamount to me defending strict constructionism in a thread on constitutional law and answering a genuine question about, say, the commerce clause and my view of its proper interpretation with a tart “I think that’s a boring subject and I refuse to consider it, much less answer the question.”
I have never said otherwise. However, having picked up the gauntlet of defending libertarianism in this thread, I think concern for your own credibility demands you answer reasonable questions about your chosen philosophy, even if they aren’t of particular personal interest to you personally.
Again, I draw analogy to my defense of strict constructionism. I am genuinely bored by tired old ninth amendment contentions, but I address them anyway because they are reasonable questions and because my own credibility would suffer if I ignored or evaded them.
I’ve misrepresented nothing, and indeed, the record reflects that. I stand by my comment.
Well, see, that’s what I was asking in my response: is this your position? Because if it was your position, at least we would have a firm basis to continue exploring the ramifications of your proposed world change.
But now you’ve clarified that it isn’t your position – gee, good thing I asked about that – and as such, you haven’t answered. Still. After an absurd number of posts.
Oh, and as to how I find “the novelist has no right to profit from his work” – well, I get that from this comment by you: “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.” That sounds like, essentialy, the decision to publish is the decision to transfer your work into the public domain – hence my comment.
If you were honestly confused my my formulation, fine; I figured context made my meaning clear. Now that the matter has been clarified, how about an answer?
Were I as incredibly thin-skinned as you – willing to throw a hissy fit over having one thread described as a “hijack” – I might be upset by someone stating that I was a ward of a mental hospital. Fortunately, I am not you, so I will just note your hypocrisy and move on.
If you read the whole definition, I do not believe it can be plausibly said that I have misunderstood it, and while Wikipedia has its flaws, it is accurate enough for our purposes. And your use is contrary to common understanding: I will bet you significant sums of money that if you were to ask 100 random people on the street if the United States is an authoritarian state, the answer “no” would top 95%.
Again, I beg to differ:
Yeah…Reagan, that big advocate of centralized economic planning. :rolleyes:
Saywhatnow? You said that the authors of the Bill of Rights, by virtue of penning said Bill of Rights, believed that a piece of paper is the source of rights. I just pointed out that this isn’t necessarily so.
And let’s remember the central point here: your goofy assertion that these men, who took some of the greatest steps to guarantee individual liberty, are in your view “authoritarians.”
[/quote]
Well, yes, she should carefully evaluate management in this regard (and should consider management’s view in hiring in this regard) when she makes her investment, as surely as she evaluates management’s business plan for its likelihood of profit.
Riiiiiight. Me, the strict constructionist – yeah, I just go with the political flow. Suuuuuure.
Oh, yes, you are the very model of clarity. :rolleyes:
(Why not just say it was a poorly worded sentence? Sheesh.)
So each lender takes a lien position against specific assets? Sheesh. Wait, I love your system; part of my practice is representing banks in making secured loans to businesses. You’ve just exponentially increased the complexity of documenting those secured transactions. Hooray, more work for me.
Also: is there any equity, or does only debt financing exist here?
Also: who actually has title to the plant and equipment?
Also: where the hell do all these mortgages and UCCs (or their libertarian equivelants) get filed? Without a geography-based state imposing a recording system, I can give out the same lien position to multiple lenders – one from State A, one from State B, etc. Or do I need to file my lien in every single libertarian state in order to perfect my lien position?
Also: for that matter, how is priority determined, anyway? Can an unsecured creditor seize assets when he isn’t paid, and if the secured creditors don’t find out about it until the property is gone, too bad for them?
Boy, the accounting major in me is screaming to be pedantic on this, but I won’t. Instead, I’ll just note that this how the example is set forth in Principles of Accounting 101 (well, pedantic nitpicks aside, anyway), but in REAL LIFE it’s a little bit harder. You actually have to track all that stuff. What you are describing is a paperwork nightmare. And I’m not even really talking about the accounting stuff – I’m talking about keeping track of title, of owners coming and going, and the like. What if a forklift is in Bob’s name and he wants out? Can Bob take the forklift with him?
I shouldn’t have claimed that you hadn’t read what I wrote; apparently, I should have instead claimed you didn’t understood what I wrote. A “third party” is one who doesn’t have a relationship with the enterprise. Clients, since they do have a relationship with the enterprise, are not third parties, not in the context in which I was speaking, anyway.
Not the “sole purpose,” no. I just (hypothetically) don’t care if that sort of thing happens in the course of making me lots and lots of money.
Actually, the status quo imposes, essentially, strict liability on companies for the products they put on the market. That means, essentially, that you can’t take a lowest common denominator approach to product testing.
I never said we had no contract.
I’m not “nixing the bag of cash.” My point in citing to my own drafting experience is that methods of payment are common provisions in commercial agreements – whatever those methods of payment might be. “Suitcases full of cash” might be unorthodox, but there’s nothing stopping me from making that my payment method (in libertaria, anyway; money laundering laws in the real world might make it tough).
It is entirely possible to have a good relationship with a business partner and still insist on having a tightly drafted contract.
When did I say my stooge was stupid? No, he’s smart. Ruthless and not overly concerned with the welfare of others, but not stupid.
Au contraire, we’re going to be quite apt at making money. And again, my stooge isn’t stealing anything, at least not in the conventional sense – he’s making our trucks drive recklessly so they’ll deliver faster, he’s intimidating our compeitors, he’s doing whatever he can to give us an edge. Of course, I’m the silent partner – the world doesn’t know I’m part of this operation.
Libertaria can put me under survelliance on the mere suspicion that I might be a bad guy? Really? No probable cause in Libertaria? How…interesting.
Isn’t the vast majority of accountancy related to tax codes? I honestly don’t know.
Since there are no taxes in libertaria, how would that affect the overall complexity of these kinds of issues?
That is interesting. I suspect search and seizure would remain verboten, but passive surveillance doesn’t strike me as coercive at first blush. Even more interesting is that it seems less of a big deal in libertaria. For once the old fallacy, “If you aren’t doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide,” has a hint of truth.
I’ve done so. I’m honored that you were interested in my opinion.
Well, surely he must have some evidence. Otherwise, we could have a Dewey scenario in which hoards of demon possessed neighbors wreak havoc on one another by screaming “Polluter!” just to enjoy watching the ensuing chaos. On the other hand, it makes sense to me that if arbitration’s investigation determines that his evidence is contrived, then he should pay for his abuse of the system.
Personally, I tend to prefer a flat fee, though I am flexible. I completely understand the argument for apportioned fees, and for me to live in Libertaria, that would not be a deal breaker.
On that note, I’m giving you the last word. When it has gotten to the point that you don’t even care whether you’ve typed the exact opposite of what you meant to say, it means that whatever you’re saying doesn’t matter. If you want to spin this into some hollow victory, as my ignoring you or not answering your questions, feel free. I’m sure you will, and everyone has seen what a canard that mantra is. Now that you have filled your gut, you can beat your chest. This particular discussion with you was edifying for me. For that much, I thank you. It may be a long time before I enjoin you again, if ever.
I don’t agree with either you or Dewey on a majority of political issues here, but the canards I’m seeing in this exchange are primarily on your side–including the one that his refusal to proofread means that he doesn’t care whether he’s typed the exact opposite of what he means to say. You’re clearly bearing false witness against him there, and it comes across as a lame excuse to leave an argument that’s getting the best of you.
Daniel
I think you’re wrong. The very reason that he posted so hurriedly, without caring whether he left out a “not” or two, or said what he meant to say, obviously is because the argument was getting the best of him. I really wish that, if you felt you had to post, you had added something to the discussion. Posting merely to call me a liar and reveal that you think my part of this entire discussion is riddled with canards without offering a shred of substance unfortunately makes a mockery of my inclusion of you as an honest debator in the list I gave Syriana.