Individual rights v. governent intervention

[carolina guy]

The more time goes on, the less this is the specific problem I observe with limited liability. It's very common for large companies to be assessed millions of dollars in punitive damages. As significant as the damages may be, the largest companies can usually pay. But what punitive effect is placed upon the shoulders of decision-makers? Sure, shareholders might become upset at damage to the bottom line and might replace management, but then this is always a risk management bears.

I credit Nassim Nicholas Taleb for helping me really see this, but the big problem is not the shrugging of tortious liability, it's the separation of decision-making from responsibility. And this separation is every bit as intentional and desired an effect (to the company) as is the possibility of skirting the payment of damages by shareholders; it encourages greater risk-taking, where large firms can easily recoup losses for failures and still make a net profit on the entirety of their risky ventures (since risky ventures tend to have a high payoff and plenty of others will succeed).

The problem is that, while a large firm may recoup the losses from one risky venture with several others, the damage caused by (say) a huge ecological catastrophe may not be easily assessed and is likely to be borne (at least in part) by those with no responsibility for the decision-making, i.e. the rest of society.

Too much risk and not enough responsibility is always a recipe for disaster.

Just to clarify, when I mentioned eliminating limited liability of share holders, I meant eliminating it entirely.

You do bring up several VERY good points, and I would suggest that additionally the management AND employees of a company should be held liable for the actions of the company. If someone (anyone) should reasonably know that a particular action will cause harm to another, they have a moral obligation to not engage in that action, period. The tired excuse that someone was "just following orders" should have absolutely no weight in determining liability (criminal or civil). If an action is wrong, it is wrong.

And then let's just extend this limited liability removal to government...hold everyone responsible for the actions THEY take. If you work for an alphabet soup agency, and you do something that harms someone, you are responsible. Don't like the risk, don't work there.

 

[carolina guy]

I am fascinated by people that find fault wherever they look, list and/or rant about the negativity within our government, yet do not have a viable plan that they promote for a better system.

Sure there are things that need to be corrected, but not IMO to the point of putting the whole house to the torch.

We are getting too off topic here and need to return to the subject of the OP.

First, allow me to apologize for stepping back so far in the thread, but this post seems to be the main stepping stone (or at least the shortest of the first ones) of the thread.

Here is my take after reading the pros and cons through the thread...I think it is silly to propose "putting the whole house to the torch" as much as I think it is silly to do nothing until a complete replacement is found.

It is undeniable that "government" has resulted in millions of deaths in the 20th century alone (I have seen numbers ranging from 180 million to almost 300 million) due to wars, oppression, pollution, famine, etc. Here are a few links:

https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide

http://www.freemansperspective.com/death-by-government/

http://necrometrics.com/all20c.htm

There are many more, and a simple google will lead one on a depression path for sure. I am not sure how to quantify the suffering that is directly attributable to government, but given the number of deaths alone, it is going to be SIGNIFICANT.

So, it is obvious that government is doing something WRONG.

I think the constructive approach would be identifying WHAT government is doing WRONG and doing what is necessary to stop it from doing that wrong and then correcting the wrong as much as is possible for those who were harmed by that wrong. The simple fact of the matter is that if it is wrong, it shouldn't be done. It really doesn't matter if the "wrong" results in convenience or ease for some as the expense of others (no matter how the balance of numbers plays out) it will never be a "right".

And to give a good example that has bothered me for a LONG time is eminent domain. Yes, it is CONVENIENT that we can build roads that are more direct, or quicker to bring to completion because we can FORCE someone to sell for what the government decides is a "fair" price for the land, it is still wrong. Either bargain in good faith and pay what is requested, or find another route.

The simple fact of the matter is that if we do not honor the concept of private property as an ABSOLUTE, then there is no such thing as private property. Private property is a fundamental right of existence and I do not believe there is a valid counter argument to it. If there is the ability by way of law/civilization to take what belongs to one person and give it to another against the will of the original owner, then you have tyranny. It really doesn't matter if the taking from the ONE person benefits a BILLION...you still did violence to the ONE and it is still WRONG. If this stands as a "principle" of the civilization, then the civilization condones slavery and socialism/fascism at its core no matter how it labels itself.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

First, allow me to apologize for stepping back so far in the thread, but this post seems to be the main stepping stone (or at least the shortest of the first ones) of the thread.

Here is my take after reading the pros and cons through the thread...I think it is silly to propose "putting the whole house to the torch" as much as I think it is silly to do nothing until a complete replacement is found.

It is undeniable that "government" has resulted in millions of deaths in the 20th century alone (I have seen numbers ranging from 180 million to almost 300 million) due to wars, oppression, pollution, famine, etc. Here are a few links:

https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide

http://www.freemansperspective.com/death-by-government/

http://necrometrics.com/all20c.htm

There are many more, and a simple google will lead one on a depression path for sure. I am not sure how to quantify the suffering that is directly attributable to government, but given the number of deaths alone, it is going to be SIGNIFICANT.

So, it is obvious that government is doing something WRONG.

I think the constructive approach would be identifying WHAT government is doing WRONG and doing what is necessary to stop it from doing that wrong and then correcting the wrong as much as is possible for those who were harmed by that wrong. The simple fact of the matter is that if it is wrong, it shouldn't be done. It really doesn't matter if the "wrong" results in convenience or ease for some as the expense of others (no matter how the balance of numbers plays out) it will never be a "right".

And to give a good example that has bothered me for a LONG time is eminent domain. Yes, it is CONVENIENT that we can build roads that are more direct, or quicker to bring to completion because we can FORCE someone to sell for what the government decides is a "fair" price for the land, it is still wrong. Either bargain in good faith and pay what is requested, or find another route.

The simple fact of the matter is that if we do not honor the concept of private property as an ABSOLUTE, then there is no such thing as private property. Private property is a fundamental right of existence and I do not believe there is a valid counter argument to it. If there is the ability by way of law/civilization to take what belongs to one person and give it to another against the will of the original owner, then you have tyranny. It really doesn't matter if the taking from the ONE person benefits a BILLION...you still did violence to the ONE and it is still WRONG. If this stands as a "principle" of the civilization, then the civilization condones slavery and socialism/fascism at its core no matter how it labels itself.

The point being made by the originators of this talk is that these "wrongs" that you're seeking to identify are fundamental and foundational to our government, and to most traditional governments. To correct them necessarily means drastic restructuring and a massive awakening or enlightenment within society. Some want to call this significant restructuring and mass realization or revelation "putting the house to torch" to elicit emotions from the gullible and maintain their status quo. It appears that you see the light.

 

[Citizen]

The point being made by the originators of this talk is that these "wrongs" that you're seeking to identify are fundamental and foundational to our government, and to most traditional governments. To correct them necessarily means drastic restructuring and a massive awakening or enlightenment within society. Some want to call this significant restructuring and mass realization or revelation "putting the house to torch" to elicit emotions from the gullible and maintain their status quo. It appears that you see the light.

Oh, my.