[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I would really love to agree, but business decisions have in many cases turned around and completely fucked individuals and society. [/quote]
[quote]NickViar wrote:
I’m sure this is true, but can you provide some examples? [/quote]
Pick any bank making toxic loans pre-melt down. Look at Enron or Worldcom. Look at GMs recent recall and admission they knew about a faulty car part that lead to several deaths.
There are tons of examples really.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Has it happened as often as governments have turned around and completely fucked individuals and society?[/quote]
Depends. In history? Of course not. In American history, still probably not. In the last couple of decades, maybe.
It’s not an all or nothing proposition to me. Ya the government has/does fuck us in certain ways. That doesn’t mean we can’t create some protection from businesses fucking us via government.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
For example, when you hit me with a car, there needs to be rules set up in advance to determine liability for the collision, even of we have never met or couldn’t come to an agreement on the rules in advance, as well as an enforcement mechanism.
[/quote]
I was talking more about corporate limited liability.
It’s not an all or nothing proposition to me. Ya the government has/does fuck us in certain ways. That doesn’t mean we can’t create some protection from businesses fucking us via government. [/quote]
Isn’t that the equivalent of picking which dildo is rammed in your anus though?
Not that I disagree with you, or know a better solution, but that is like saying you enjoy the ribbing on blue model more than the life like veins of the red one, no?
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
For example, when you hit me with a car, there needs to be rules set up in advance to determine liability for the collision, even of we have never met or couldn’t come to an agreement on the rules in advance, as well as an enforcement mechanism.
[/quote]
I was talking more about corporate limited liability.[/quote]
How do you propose private parties establish and enforce limited liability for stock owners?
It’s not an all or nothing proposition to me. Ya the government has/does fuck us in certain ways. That doesn’t mean we can’t create some protection from businesses fucking us via government. [/quote]
Isn’t that the equivalent of picking which dildo is rammed in your anus though?
Not that I disagree with you, or know a better solution, but that is like saying you enjoy the ribbing on blue model more than the life like veins of the red one, no?[/quote]
Well ya, it kind of is. Unfortunately isn’t that the world we live in?
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
For example, when you hit me with a car, there needs to be rules set up in advance to determine liability for the collision, even of we have never met or couldn’t come to an agreement on the rules in advance, as well as an enforcement mechanism.
[/quote]
I was talking more about corporate limited liability.[/quote]
Right, “limited liability” means I can’t get to your assets as a shareholder if the corporation hits me with a car under corporate rules of limited liability because the law says I can’t. Not all transactions in a complicated world are voluntary.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Pick any bank making toxic loans pre-melt down. Look at Enron or Worldcom. Look at GMs recent recall and admission they knew about a faulty car part that lead to several deaths.
There are tons of examples really. [/quote]
I believe each of those examples is of a government-backed entity.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Has it happened as often as governments have turned around and completely fucked individuals and society?[/quote]
Depends. In history? Of course not. In American history, still probably not. In the last couple of decades, maybe.
It’s not an all or nothing proposition to me. Ya the government has/does fuck us in certain ways. That doesn’t mean we can’t create some protection from businesses fucking us via government. [/quote]
Should sheep accept the protection of a wolf that dresses itself like them?
The clear trend in the law is leaning towards broadly giving/expanding bill-of-rights type rights to corporations and treating them like natural people, [/quote]
There will be a cutoff point somewhere though. It isn’t like they will be extended voting rights.
[/quote]
This is an interesting point. Corporations are “people” under the law but they don’t get a vote. Why not? Because they aren’t really people. It seems arbitrary to pick and choose which “rights” they are extended through the bill of rights. It also seems like you can avoid this problem by simply recognizing that, for example, the President of a company’s standing to exercise his rights under the First Amendment without actually extending the right to the company itself.
On the other hand, its seems appropriate to me to extend a corporation due-process rights, for example, before taking its money in a tort suit or before confiscating its property through a tax lawsuit. So, I don’t know, the issue is complicated and I need to think about it some more.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
How do you propose private parties establish and enforce limited liability for stock owners? [/quote]
If you do business with a group that claims limited liability, then you accept those terms. Everything can work by private contract. Would it work forever? No. If you start building a doghouse, then realize that its walls are at a 45 degree angle to the base, are you going to:
a. correctly attach new walls to the existing walls?
b. tear down the existing walls and start over from the base?
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Why can’t those who own a share of a company decide for themselves how to run a company? If Person Z doesn’t like it, he can buy shares of another company. If limited liability is desired, find a creditor who agrees to that. Anything that needlessly complicates life is not a good thing. If Company KLM that covers its employees’ grandmothers’ pet monkeys, that’s fine. If Company DSA decides not to offer any type of insurance, that’s fine. [/quote]
What’s your point Nick? All of the above is possible as far as I know.[/quote]
The government does not need to be involved in any decision made by a business(of any kind). Soon, a business with 50 or more employees will not be allowed to not offer insurance. Limited liability also does not need to concern a government.[/quote]
So the govt shouldn’t stop a business from selling sticks of dynamite to 8 year old kids?
I know you have this hang up on govt “controlling” your life and regulating your behavior, and it almost makes me think you are someone who just doesn’t like being told what to do, but you might want to look at the world before hoping your utopia becomes a reality. There are countries where the people do what they want and don’t care about governments and laws and regulations. Let’s see, Afghanistan is one. There are several in sub-Saharan Africa. Are they too extreme? How about Mexico?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
How do you propose private parties establish and enforce limited liability for stock owners? [/quote]
If you do business with a group that claims limited liability, then you accept those terms. Everything can work by private contract. Would it work forever? No. If you start building a doghouse, then realize that its walls are at a 45 degree angle to the base, are you going to:
a. correctly attach new walls to the existing walls?
b. tear down the existing walls and start over from the base?[/quote]
Company A sells an Ipod to Person B. Ipod explodes because its defective, injuring innocent bystander C who does not know A or B. Can A get to the assets of the shareholders of Company A? Does C need to rely on an agreement between A and B?
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Right, “limited liability” means I can’t get to your assets as a shareholder if the corporation hits me with a car under corporate rules of limited liability because the law says I can’t. Not all transactions in a complicated world are voluntary.
[/quote]
If a court decides that the shareholders are libel for the damage to you, then that’s fine. That example still assumes publicly-owned roadways. About anything is better than socialism.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
How do you propose private parties establish and enforce limited liability for stock owners? [/quote]
If you do business with a group that claims limited liability, then you accept those terms. Everything can work by private contract. Would it work forever? No. If you start building a doghouse, then realize that its walls are at a 45 degree angle to the base, are you going to:
a. correctly attach new walls to the existing walls?
b. tear down the existing walls and start over from the base?[/quote]
I don’t understand what you’re saying. Limited liability is a protection for the shareholder. Not the consumer, not a business partner, not creditors, etc…
Private contracts are fine, preferable even, in some situations, but the more global business becomes the less possible it becomes, imo.
Take banking for example. Would you put your money in the bank if it weren’t backed by the FDIC? I probably would not. A lot of people would not. Now think of all the ramifications that would cause.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Right, “limited liability” means I can’t get to your assets as a shareholder if the corporation hits me with a car under corporate rules of limited liability because the law says I can’t. Not all transactions in a complicated world are voluntary.
[/quote]
If a court decides that the shareholders are libel for the damage to you, then that’s fine. That example still assumes publicly-owned roadways. About anything is better than socialism.[/quote]
You are confusing me. Why would courts exist without law, what would their findings be based on, and how would their findings be enforced?
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Right, “limited liability” means I can’t get to your assets as a shareholder if the corporation hits me with a car under corporate rules of limited liability because the law says I can’t. Not all transactions in a complicated world are voluntary.
[/quote]
If a court decides that the shareholders are libel for the damage to you, then that’s fine. That example still assumes publicly-owned roadways. About anything is better than socialism.[/quote]
A court is going to decide this issue based on a statutory framework established by a legislature. Establishing this framework is a proper government function.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
So the govt shouldn’t stop a business from selling sticks of dynamite to 8 year old kids?
I know you have this hang up on govt “controlling” your life and regulating your behavior, and it almost makes me think you are someone who just doesn’t like being told what to do, but you might want to look at the world before hoping your utopia becomes a reality. There are countries where the people do what they want and don’t care about governments and laws and regulations. Let’s see, Afghanistan is one. There are several in sub-Saharan Africa. Are they too extreme? How about Mexico? [/quote]
No, the government should not stop a business from doing that.
Every example you can find will likely be an example of either a tyrannical government, or a group that wants to become that.
When did being a healthy fertile woman become a grave disease, serious enough to crush long held religious liberties that–Shazam!–we suddenly discover in the 21st century don’t actually exist?
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
So the govt shouldn’t stop a business from selling sticks of dynamite to 8 year old kids?
I know you have this hang up on govt “controlling” your life and regulating your behavior, and it almost makes me think you are someone who just doesn’t like being told what to do, but you might want to look at the world before hoping your utopia becomes a reality. There are countries where the people do what they want and don’t care about governments and laws and regulations. Let’s see, Afghanistan is one. There are several in sub-Saharan Africa. Are they too extreme? How about Mexico? [/quote]
No, the government should not stop a business from doing that.
Every example you can find will likely be an example of either a tyrannical government, or a group that wants to become that.[/quote]
Soooo the government shouldn’t stop, say Facebook, from directly funding and supplying Al Qeada? Or the local MS13 gang? Or maybe they just decide to kill off every other person in Silicon Valley so they have it all to themselves. That’s cool right?
“Newly unearthed legal documents show GM knew about faulty ignition switches on the Chevrolet Cobalt and other vehicles before it even began selling the models in 2004. It launched the vehicles anyway, figuring owners would be able to get off the road safely if the car shut down during travel. GM made ?a business decision not to fix this problem,? a company engineer explained under oath in 2013, according to the Wall Street Journal, as part of a lawsuit involving a Georgia woman who died in a Cobalt that shut down at highway speeds and crashed.”