Felix Ungman wrote:
> On tisdag 24 juli 2001 20.54, Mike Lorrey <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >Individualists abhor collective punishment in individualist systems. In
> >collectivist systems, responsibility IS collective, it is an inherent
> >function of the system. Having the power to delegate authority confers
> >the responsibility to delegate wisely, and consequences for not doing
> >so. Societies get the government they deserve.
> In the case of corporations, I think you're confusing causality with liability. It's a fact that ultimately individuals are the cause of every action a company takes. However, in free trade, liability can be agreed upon. I can sell you a car as is, I ca
n agree on money back if it doesn't start, or I can give you a three-year guaranty that it will work perfectly. This agreed-upon limited liability is the basis of the corporation. Another thing not to confuse, is the liability towards customers and the re
sponsability of the members (board/employees) toward the company (share holders). If a member acts out of line with company guidlines, he should of course be held responsible.
That is my point: the individual is vested in the corporation, and may
delegate some authority to the corporation within certain conditional
parameters. However, your decision to delegate should be based on a
rational evaluation of the trustability of the corporation. If you
invest knowing that the corporation is not worthy of trust, then you
are, in fact, responsible.
> States, on the other hand, can't be compared to corporations, cause they are based on mandatory membership and coersion. It's a fact that in almost all modern democracies, the majority of citizens did *not* vote for their current government. Seems that
actually no society has the government it deserves.
On the contrary, Felix. Failure to act to disapprove is a market signal
of acquiescence. If you don't think it's important enough to vote
against injustice, then you must approve of the unjust actions of the
> Oh, another philosophical justification for corporations: Any entity capable of intelligent action and self support should have the right to become first class citizens. Having a body shouldn't be a requirement - or you'd have problems as an upload. Nor
the ability to take physical punishment - there are pain killers. Nor should it matter how that intelligence is achived - just ask any AI out there to testify.
Unh Unh. So solly. A group entity has no right to be the equal of a
'citizen', because this gives the members of a group more power (i.e.
more than 'one man one vote') than non-group-members. States are not
people, they are merely servant automatons, agents if you will, of
actual beings that are citizens of the state. This is inherent in the
principle that the state is only delegated some rights of the
individual, not all. Without all rights, it is not an individual, and
some entity cannot claim individuality by fraction rights derivation
from other individuals. Because derived entities are always agents for
individuals, giving the derived entity status as an individual causes a
violation of 'equal protection'.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:56 MDT