Re: How do you calm down the hot-heads?

From: Steve Davies (Steve365@btinternet.com)
Date: Sat Sep 13 2003 - 04:59:15 MDT

  • Next message: Alfio Puglisi: "World's smallest thermometer"

    >
    > 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.
    >
    Robbies reply

    > 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.

    We're talking at cross purposes a bit here. The kind of limited liability
    contracts I was talking about were made by merchants engaged in regular,
    peaceful trade. The liability that was limited was the financial liability
    incurred to suppliers, subcontractors etc ie one that arose in the course of
    trading. This is what LL covers in the modern legal system as well. What you
    are talking about (forgive me if I'm wrong) is the legal and moral liability
    of officers and investors for the harm done to third parties as a
    consequence of the corporation's activities (whether as externalities or
    directly). That's a different issue, on the whole I agree with you rather
    than Charles. The problem here is not LL per se but the way modern
    corporations work and interact with the political process. Undoubtedly there
    is a general ducking of responsibility going on. As a historical footnote
    the kind of imperialist 'trade' you refer to (as carried on by the East
    India Company, VVD et al) was carried out by chartered corporations given LL
    by political fiat. Steve Davies

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Sep 13 2003 - 05:09:44 MDT