tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6519837413200053629.post5247035150780878855..comments2023-08-12T03:31:24.561-07:00Comments on postpostochlophobist: we lack seppuku.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6519837413200053629.post-78655474777580077072011-06-25T19:39:04.833-07:002011-06-25T19:39:04.833-07:00Stephen,
I have long held, and occasionally argue...Stephen,<br /><br />I have long held, and occasionally argued, for the end of limited liability being granted to corporations.Ochlophobist https://www.blogger.com/profile/13751003558600087713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6519837413200053629.post-25855417995261832382011-06-25T18:11:33.192-07:002011-06-25T18:11:33.192-07:00I'm a little late but I noticed that you'r...I'm a little late but I noticed that you're confusing strict liability and limited liability.<br /><br />What you described (investing $10 million in 100 companies but never standing to lose more than the original $10 million) is actually called limited liability. Limited liability is, of course, the privilege granted to corporations and LLC's.<br /><br />Strict liability, on the other hand, means that a defendant will be held liable for any injury causes resulting from certain activities. The plaintiff does not have to prove any fault on the part of the defendant. Strict liability exists in tort law, but it is restricted to products liability and ultrahazardous activities. For example, if I am blasting with dynamite (which legally is considered an ultrahazardous activity), I am responsible for any injury I cause. It does not matter that I take every thinkable precaution in order to prevent an accident--if an accident happens, I'm paying for it.<br /><br />Or, to follow your post, operating a nuclear plant would be an ultrahazardous activity, as declared by the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act" rel="nofollow">Price-Anderson Act</a>.Stephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10825489013036249581noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6519837413200053629.post-72074877476850114992011-06-21T06:36:29.353-07:002011-06-21T06:36:29.353-07:00Owen,
So is there a way out of multi-national corp...Owen,<br />So is there a way out of multi-national corporations controlling things? Your perspective seems healthy but pessimistic. Like your friend, Venny, says, perhaps the answer is strict liability. Can corporations only be defeated by the courts and changing the by-laws for zoning and otherwise? The courts are probably caught up in this mess, too.<br /><br />Joshuajcwnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6519837413200053629.post-21347378327678327042011-06-20T18:38:48.866-07:002011-06-20T18:38:48.866-07:00Western,
Saying that certain things would be impo...Western,<br /><br />Saying that certain things would be impossible in a free economy is like saying that certain things would be impossible in Never Never Land. There has never been, nor will there ever be, a free economy. So long as multi-national corporations exist, they will control states. Get rid of states, and they will control what comes to replace states. The thought that they could not conceive of ways to usuriously reduce liabilities in nuclear energy in a future setting in which states to not do this for them seems like a completely arbitrary assertion to me. They could create any number of vehicles which could be sufficient for such a task. I don't buy the line that "the modern state is the only thing large enough or powerful enough to..." Just as the state will be forcing people into business with health insurers into Obamacare - in a stateless or virtually stateless situation the masses could be forced into contracts with large energy insurers on a mass scale or contracts which reduce liabilities of energy producing companies. When the masses are faced with signing contracts which take away their right to sue energy companies or living off of the grid, all but a few will sign those contracts so long as multinationals are producing American Idol.Ochlophobist https://www.blogger.com/profile/13751003558600087713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6519837413200053629.post-41566025651013704902011-06-20T18:30:10.169-07:002011-06-20T18:30:10.169-07:00Parker - I'm not really keen on taking that su...Parker - I'm not really keen on taking that subject up here, other than to say that I think ROCOR WR is a perfect fit for Kimel. You can email me at owenandjoy at bellsouth dot net if you want to discuss the matter offline.Ochlophobist https://www.blogger.com/profile/13751003558600087713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6519837413200053629.post-2258646797976517442011-06-20T06:57:21.336-07:002011-06-20T06:57:21.336-07:00Also I thought you might like this story: http://w...Also I thought you might like this story: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/06/17/20110617tucson-man-taking-foreclosed-homes.htmlSavanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6519837413200053629.post-64442363767338771272011-06-20T06:48:35.058-07:002011-06-20T06:48:35.058-07:00Hey Owen,
Liked the post, don't know if you ha...Hey Owen,<br />Liked the post, don't know if you have ever heard of James Grant but I like his writing a lot, here is a quote from a recent article he wrote that I thought was apt for at least a part of the post: <br /><br />"You start to wonder if the world wouldn't be safer if the bankers and central bankers performed fewer calculations and read more history. In the panics of the 19th century, the Chemical National Bank of New York faithfully paid out cash when other banks couldn't or wouldn't. George G. Williams, its longtime chief executive, seemed to personify the institution's bedrock virtues. "The fear of God," Williams would say when asked the secret of his success. So the Chemical was the fortress to which many fled in 1907.<br />Let us be clear: On Wall Street, there was never a capitalist Eden. There was, however, an era of capitalist clarity in which the owners of the banks and investment banks not only reaped the profits but also bore the losses. Insolvency, in the case of a nationally chartered bank, meant a capital call for the stock holders, the proceeds earmarked for the depositors and other senior creditors. It was, after all, the investors' bank, not the taxpayers."<br /><br />Also, I recently read Belloc's On Usury. I liked it a lot, but was curious if it was actually in line with most Catholic thought on the issue?Savanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6519837413200053629.post-63431515375984912012011-06-19T14:36:36.851-07:002011-06-19T14:36:36.851-07:00Owen Would be interested in getting your take on t...Owen Would be interested in getting your take on the whole Fr. Kimel Issue, i know you said you don't write too much about eccesiology any longer, but i was looking on the thread on John (ad-orientem) blog and i see a couple of censored posts didn't know if they were yours or not but would be interested in whatever it is you wrote that was deleted.Parkernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6519837413200053629.post-32606320778492717342011-06-19T09:32:46.464-07:002011-06-19T09:32:46.464-07:00Old Right Nader, the man who got my vote in '0...<a href="http://www.amconmag.com/article/2004/nov/08/00010/" rel="nofollow">Old Right Nader</a>, the man who got my vote in '08, made the clearest conservative, anti-statist argument against nuclear energy, quoted in a four-year-old post of mine entitled <a href="http://orientem.blogspot.com/2007/09/atomic-corporate-socialism.html" rel="nofollow">Atomic Corporate Socialism</a> as observing that "the atomic power industry does not give up... as long as Uncle Sam can be dragooned to be its subsidizing, immunizing partner;" <em>i.e.</em> nuclear energy would be impossible in a free economy:<br /><br />"For sheer brazenness, however, the atomic power lobbyists know few peers. They remember, as the previous Atomic Energy Commission told them decades ago, that one significant meltdown could contaminate 'an area the size of Pennsylvania.'<br /><br />"They know that no insurance companies will insure them at any price, which is why the Price-Anderson Act hugely limits nuclear plants’ liability in case of massive damages to people, property, land and water."Iosue Andreas Sartoriushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17888802647534998598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6519837413200053629.post-61115815681365899012011-06-17T21:02:05.912-07:002011-06-17T21:02:05.912-07:00Ain't it the truth. A disgraceful charade, lau...Ain't it the truth. A disgraceful charade, laughable if it weren't destroying the planet by leaps and bounds. <br /><br />M. JamesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6519837413200053629.post-67497448679191079092011-06-17T14:31:36.407-07:002011-06-17T14:31:36.407-07:00Turm,
Amen brother.
jfw,
Keep your gun in your ...Turm,<br /><br />Amen brother.<br /><br />jfw,<br /><br />Keep your gun in your pants, for now, actual brother. I mean, unless you have to use it to save your life at work today. Then have at it.Ochlophobist https://www.blogger.com/profile/13751003558600087713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6519837413200053629.post-22228281251245640672011-06-17T14:30:10.456-07:002011-06-17T14:30:10.456-07:00I've told this story before, but in my biotech...I've told this story before, but in my biotech class which I took Spring 2010 (of all things, my silly big community college has a multi-million dollar biotech department funded by the biotech firms in town, but with a faculty that calls it like it is) we studied corporations buying the intellectual property rights to biotech (DNA - human genome) discoveries that pointed to cures to various illnesses and diseases. Those companies then sat on those cure oriented discoveries and put their R&D toward treatments. They are not interested in cures, because they make a hell of a lot more money on treatments. In their world, the ideal situation is a pill or shot which works so good you don't notice you have the disease so long as you are taking it, but which you must take for the rest of your life, and which costs a great deal of money. We even studied instances in which the science appeared to be such that a cure would actually be a much shorter route - in terms of getting to the end of the goal - than the pursuit of an effective treatment, but they still go after the treatment, and having bought the intellectual property rights to that section of the genome, now no scientist(s) can work towards the cure, or, at least, he can't do anything with what work he does. <br /><br />And don't get me started on the fact that with human genome intellectual property there are three different purchases to be made per segment - you can buy the property rights to the code of the segment itself, and property rights to the technology used based on that section of code, and property rights to the potential application of that segment of the code (which is different from the technology - in other words, you can own the tool used with that or by that code, and you can own what the tool does - crazy shit). Unless you own all three components here, or unless you are part of a group of companies who own all three parts and are contractually working together, nothing can be done with the technology. The whole game is set up for corporations with shitloads of cash. Indeed, when research institutions like public universities find potential technologies based on segments of DNA code, they often enough sell them to biotech firms because this makes money for their programs. You also find endowments and donations to research institutions made by biotech firms which stipulate that certain discoveries are the intellectual property of that biotech firm. This whole situation is very, very disturbing.Ochlophobist https://www.blogger.com/profile/13751003558600087713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6519837413200053629.post-66324713094782251452011-06-17T12:35:18.349-07:002011-06-17T12:35:18.349-07:00You can race for the cure till you're blue in ...<i>You can race for the cure till you're blue in the face, but if medical-technology lobbyists are successfully blocking new life-saving technology that threatens their own profits, well...</i><br /><br />So true. My two oldest daughters have type 1 diabetes (not to be confused with type 2 diabetes, which is a completely separate disease)and as much as I'd love to see a cure, I'm not at all convinced there will be, as the drug companies make a fortune off the diabetic supplies. My daughters' pediatric endocrinologist agrees with my cynicism.Anitahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12385998114723349342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6519837413200053629.post-21785133359864910412011-06-17T12:29:46.225-07:002011-06-17T12:29:46.225-07:00It is technology that first and foremost is the re...<i>It is technology that first and foremost is the reason why I think libertarianisms which appeal to (shall we say) Jeffersonian agrarian ideals are simply impossible. I think the same with regard to acre and an ox for every man distributivisms.</i><br /><br />Truer words have never been spoken.<br /><br />I think that technology--especially as manifested in industrial economies of scale--is the biggest, and still unsolved, problem. I'm more or less a fellow traveler with you economically, and I'd pretty much agree on the evils of capitalism, but I think the underlying problem is figuring out how to deal with technology. To date neither capitalism nor socialism (in any of the various ways in which they've been tried) seems to have been able to deal with this; nor has any other system proposed, at least to the extent that it's actually been put into practice. In my more pessimistic moments I'm not sure the problem <i>can</i> be solved--we may be talking about something beyond the ability of human ingenuity to deal with as things now stand. <br /><br />Having said that I agree with you regarding liability, and in a related vein, I think ending corporate personhood would be a good step in the right direction, too. And if we could enforce seppuku on certain parties....Turmarionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02219417144393165066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6519837413200053629.post-56564958339869879152011-06-17T08:48:24.500-07:002011-06-17T08:48:24.500-07:00When asking yourself why we would not go with an o...<i>When asking yourself why we would not go with an option that is safer and cheaper remember that investors tend to make more money on options that are more complicated and more expensive</i><br /><br />My kid sister used to work for a company that was developing a much more accurate (and less annoying!) alternative to mammography. According to her, the mammogram industry (huge and influential) was fighting hard to block the development of this new technology. The company eventually relocated to Israel, in part to escape the reach of American lobbyists.<br /><br />You can race for the cure till you're blue in the face, but if medical-technology lobbyists are successfully blocking new life-saving technology that threatens their own profits, well...<br /><br />DianeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6519837413200053629.post-9239237174332814462011-06-16T20:24:57.917-07:002011-06-16T20:24:57.917-07:00take everything the rich bastards havetake everything the rich bastards haveAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07108827815060307071noreply@blogger.com