From: Robbie Lindauer (robblin@thetip.org)
Date: Fri Sep 12 2003 - 16:00:29 MDT
On Friday, September 12, 2003, at 02:17 PM, Steve Davies wrote:
> That's empirically false I'm afraid. ...
> Also,
> as I said, it didn't have perpetual succession, so the liability was
> limited
> in time to the lifetime of the partnership.
The point being that the investors may have limited their liability
PHYSICALLY by being completely detached from the mission, but I'll bet
whoever the ships were sent to exploit wouldn't see it that way if they
got them in a room alone.
Once again, the point being that the Moral Liability for desecrating
someone's homeland, for instance, should not be disclaim-able simply
because someone ELSE writes their contracts that way. And in fact, by
nature, they are not disclaim-able. Only when backed by FORCE or
DECEPTION can liability be avoided. If the natives who's homelands are
desecrated by the ships funded by the LLC's members find out who the
members are, their outrage can only be blocked by
force/deception/coercion.
Best,
Robbie
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Sep 12 2003 - 16:12:07 MDT