Can the world be Fixed?

It is incredibly easy to destroy businesses harmful to the common good: withdraw the massive effort The State puts into protecting fictional entities legally.
If a corporation is no longer Liability Limited, but its CEOs directly responsible for the harm they do, they will be very careful indeed on what they do and not do.

It is weird that those claiming that Governments should stay out of the way of business think it's the natural state of things that they aren't personally liable for what their companies do.
 
Last edited:
Pixel42 said:
It should be possible for supposed news sources which deliberately spread misinformation to be similarly held accountable in a court of law, and fined for doing so. A regulatory body, ideally independent of government, could be set up to do that.
Click to expand...
No. No. No. Some regulatory body - that is, other people with their own biases and agenda- should not be able use the coercive force of the state to dictate what is and what is not truth. Just, no.
 
Last edited:
The Great Zaganza said:
It is incredibly easy to destroy businesses harmful to the common good: withdraw the massive effort The State puts into protecting fictional entities legally.
If a corporation is no longer Liability Limited, but its CEOs directly responsible for the harm they do, they will be very careful indeed on what they do and not do.

It is weird that those claiming that Governments should stay out of the way of business think it's the natural state of things that they aren't personally liable for what their companies do.
Click to expand...
Companies, regardless of how they are form, can already be held liable. Large companies are self-insurance for a certain amount and then buy insurance on top of that. If a company lacks adequate capitalization, i.e., few assets and no insurance, you can "pierce the corporate veil" and go after the owners directly.
 
Steve said:
This is not news. In the USA everything has always been "for profit". It has taken until Trump to make it obvious that that includes the presidency.
Click to expand...

Ah, I see the problem.

You, and presumably theprestige, are among those Americans who forget that there are a couple of hundred other countries on this planet.
 
Trausti said:
No. No. No. Some regulatory body - that is, other people with their own biases and agenda- should not be able use the coercive force of the state to dictate what is and what is not truth. Just, no.
Click to expand...

As I said it would be a court of law which determined that, in the same way libel and defamation cases are determined, with judge and jury. The body would just be the plaintiff in such cases, in the place of the injured party (which would be the public interest). Anyone could submit complaints about lies and misinformation in any news media to it, its role would be to determine whether there is a case for prosecution and pursue it if there is.
 
Pixel42 said:
As I said it would be a court of law which determined that, in the same way libel and defamation cases are determined, with judge and jury.
Click to expand...
I agree with you, but with the caveat that a government which is dependent on lying to its voters — like the present in the US, or possibly the next in the UK — may starve the court of resources, or intimidate the judges to allow it to pass, or not prosecute it.
 
Trausti said:
Companies, regardless of how they are form, can already be held liable. Large companies are self-insurance for a certain amount and then buy insurance on top of that. If a company lacks adequate capitalization, i.e., few assets and no insurance, you can "pierce the corporate veil" and go after the owners directly.
Click to expand...
you completely missed the point.

but it looks like I hit a nerve
 
This is the core attitude that makes me certain we can't recover from the abyss we're sliding into:

www.cbsnews.com

Twin Cities tow truck driver returns abandoned vehicles to families after ICE arrests

Juan Leon sends a "chase" car to check out where abandoned vehicles are located and arranges discreet drop-offs. Since late December, he estimated they have dropped off 250 cars.
www.cbsnews.com www.cbsnews.com

On one side, a bloke doing a harmless good turn.

On the other, far right lunatics throwing death threats at him.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
It is incredibly easy to destroy businesses harmful to the common good: withdraw the massive effort The State puts into protecting fictional entities legally.
If a corporation is no longer Liability Limited, but its CEOs directly responsible for the harm they do, they will be very careful indeed on what they do and not do.

It is weird that those claiming that Governments should stay out of the way of business think it's the natural state of things that they aren't personally liable for what their companies do.
Click to expand...
I think limited liability has gone too far and we should look at it again. I've been thinking that the owners' of a company i.e. the shareholders should have more liability, especially in regards to legal issues but even in terms of financial responsibility. If a company goes under with huge debts, in the region of millions and tens of millions the shareholders should be tapped for some financial liability, perhaps something like a sliding scale of so much in the pound which would be paid out to creditors, with customers who are out of pocket being the first in line. Company boards should also be held legally responsible for what their employees do: I've seen so many companies that say one thing at the top and yet the company does another at the coal face. I know a company that had hundreds and hundreds of retail outlets, the company was fined by the FSA because it was setting targets for selling insurance and insurance should be sold on need. Did that stop the company from disciplining managers whose stores didn't meet the target sorry "percentage sales expectation" - of course not, they put in plausible deniability at the top and then hung out employees to take the rap for "mis-selling" because of the "oh no we don't set them a target". The "non-target target" was a running joke in the company. If the board were held personally responsible as the employees were you can bet that wouldn't have happened. And that is just one of about a half dozen companies I know do/did similar things.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
It is incredibly easy to destroy businesses harmful to the common good: withdraw the massive effort The State puts into protecting fictional entities legally.
If a corporation is no longer Liability Limited, but its CEOs directly responsible for the harm they do, they will be very careful indeed on what they do and not do.
Click to expand...
Please be accurate: An LLC limits the liability of the owners, not the officers or managers. You can't go after the private assets of the owners and investors, to make good on harm caused by the corporation.

Whether or not the CEO is similarly protected from criminal or civil liability is a different question entirely.

Indeed, my understanding is that being a Chief Officer of a corporation actually increases your liability, for the harm the corporation does under your direction.
 
The Atheist said:
Ah, I see the problem.

You, and presumably theprestige, are among those Americans who forget that there are a couple of hundred other countries on this planet.
Click to expand...
The discussion segment in which I posted this was about the Fairness Doctrine, which is a specifically American issue. (an issue that was actually raised by one of our Australian participants). If and when a discussion arises here about the issues in other countries I may see fit to post a comment regarding those countries. Context is more important than imagined "gotchas".

ETA ninja'd by theprestige.

Additional ETA Please never, ever again accuse me of being American
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
You seem to have forgotten that Arth was talking specifically about American media companies regulated by the American government.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Here in Australia we do have a fair and impartial non-partisan new source. It's called the ABC, it's publicly funded and established by an Act of Parliament which mandates that it remain balanced.

It's an idea that is so totally foreign to Americans that they often can't even believe that it's true.
 
arthwollipot said:
Indeed. Here in Australia we do have a fair and impartial non-partisan new source. It's called the ABC, it's publicly funded and established by an Act of Parliament which mandates that it remain balanced.

It's an idea that is so totally foreign to Americans that they often can't even believe that it's true.
Click to expand...

In theory it is non-partisan, in practice, less so.
 
arthwollipot said:
In reality, it has been accused by both sides of politics of being partisan for the other side.
Click to expand...

That's particularly true for various programs, but it is also true that the ABC holds and promotes political positions.

Wether you and I agree with those positions doesn't matter, we can see that they exist.

Probably the best example I can give you is all of the 'Acknowledgement of Country' messages that the ABC broadcasts.

Every day at about 6.05 they ABC broadcasts something like:

"We acknowledge Australia's traditional custodians of country and recognise their continuing connection to land, waters and community. We pay our respects to them and their cultures, and to Elders, past, present and future."

There is also often another statement: "Always was, always will be, aboriginal country."

I'm sure we can agree that these are political statements, and it is no secret that it is deliberate policy of the ABC.

Similar acknowledgements of country occur in many programs, and there are even versions for children's programming.

Now... I'm going out on a limb here, because I've never listened to any content on Sky, but my instinct is that you would not find an equivalent there. (Because their content is right-wing.)

Some ABC presenters, Tom Gleeson for example, mock the ABC for it's left-wing view of the world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom