fagging, noun
-verb (used with object)
1. to tire or weary by labor; exhaust (often fol. by out): The long climb fagged us out.
2. British. to require (a younger public-school pupil) to do menial chores.
3. Nautical. to fray or unlay the end of (a rope).
-verb (used without object)
4. Chiefly British. to work until wearied; work hard: to fag away at French.
5. British Informal. to do menial chores for an older public-school pupil.
-noun
6. Slang. a cigarette.
7. a fag end, as of cloth.
8. a rough or defective spot in a woven fabric; blemish; flaw.
9. Chiefly British. drudgery; toil.
10. British Informal. a younger pupil in a British public school required to perform certain menial tasks for, and submit to the hazing of, an older pupil.
11. a drudge.
Wikipedia has a claim "Bullying and even sexual abuse were also sometimes associated with it" but I was unable to discern the origin of it, possibly the Encyclopædia Britannica which is listed as a source for the article.
Do you have any evidence other than the Lewis's use of the word "fagging" in describing his activities at school to substantiate your claim that he was a homosexual rapist? If it is solely that, it is insufficient evidence as it was not the primary meaning of the word.
I guess I'm just not smart enough to simultaneously believe two comflicting ideas which eat each other.
No quantum physics for you then!
I find it interesting how many people are of the misunderstanding that religious faith is for the gaps in people's knowledge and that once physical causes are established the faith disappears. This is simply not the way religious people have approached religion. Take the story of David and Goliath for example: I am sure that even people at that time understood the fatal effect of smashing someone's head with a rock. For anyone (from the past or present) who believes this story, their belief would be unlikely to be affected by a better understanding of slings, rocks and skulls.
I am not surprised that a neuroscientist who believes in a soul and god does not give up that belief as a result of acquiring knowledge in their field.
Yes, but the importance of the usage of critical thinking and logical skills is proportional to the importance of the question at hand.
The decision of accepting or not the existence of a god-like entity influences your whole life and the world you live in.
I like John Taylor Gatto's comment on logic (as best I remember): don't apply it to your god or your mother, or you'll have neither.
I accept some illogic as necessary to my life. I know that taking flowers to my wife has great effect for improving my life, yet I have no logical reason why this should be so. It isn't the smell, it works even if she has a cold. It isn't the appearance, pictures of flowers do not suffice. It isn't that I spent money or was thinking of her, if I pick the flowers it still works but other gifts of equal value do not have the same effect.
My relationship with my wife influences my whole life and the world I live in, yet I frequently take deliberately illogical actions so it will work. I'd finish this post, but I'm off to do something illogical that will improve my weekend.
If the market were free to determine the price of software, it would be a very low price. People at large don't see tangible value in something that can be copied at the cost of a couple of joules of electrical energy.
How is this insightful, and why should someone who ignores the cost of years of development be an economist?
Free market economics does not have a mechanism of "fairness" nor does it determine price of a product based on the effort needed to produce it. Price is a function of supply and demand.
Software that is desired but not yet existing can have a large price, having some demand and a zero current supply, potential supply and therefore price being determined by the number of available programmers capable of writing it and the price they would be willing to accept to write it (being affected by the effort required). In such a case, the price would need to be determined by contract before releasing the software.
Software that already exists has an effectively unlimited supply and therefore approaches zero in price, given an unregulated market. Whether you see this as a positive or negative is subjective and dependant on your philosophy. There is evident dissatisfaction with the current regulated market, but there is no unregulated market currently existing (that I am aware of) to display a superior result.
Purely in terms of economic theory (which often has a tenuous relationship to reality) it is true the price of an already existing product that is infinitely copyable approaches zero regardless of development cost, as development cost no longer affects supply.
I would certainly want judge Kozinski presiding over my case. Just as if the RIAA was on my case I would want a judge who was familiar with and used bittorrent.
Why? I'm 99.999% sure the judge wouldn't have used bit torrent to pirate copyrighted music and movies, which is the actual crime in the RIAA cases.
I would want a judge who had used bittorrent only for legal downloads. That way the judge wouldn't be biased against me because I use p2p, and would judge only on the actual evidence of illegal downloading, which is usually scarce. Too many people think that p2p=illegal, I would like a judge that wasn't one of them.
you cannot profitably farm bulk crops without oil originated fertilzer
Having worked on both an organic farm (yes, for bulk produce) and a farm that spreads pig effluent as fertilizer for broadacre crops, I can tell you this is wrong.
I've had farmers not 15 miles away from that organic farm tell me it is impossible, so I understand why you would think so, but I assure you it can be done.
The addict has no option, no choice in the matter - they are addicted.
An opinion proven false by the fact that on a regular basis, some addicts choose to stop taking drugs.
The second problem is where do they sleep? Either we, collectively as a society, put them out on the street, or we take them in.
I don't get your reasoning here. If they own a house, they can sleep in that house. If they rent, they can sleep there so long as they pay the rent. If they don't pay the rent, they would be evicted and have to make other arrangements, just like everybody else. Why the need for collective action? It is up to them to look after themselves, their refusal to do so does not obligate me in any way.
So, as a hard-working American, are you prepared to pay taxes at the level required to support those that make this choice? If not, then you want drug use to be as unattractive as possible, including criminal penalties for use.
Why not just let people face the consequences of their own actions? The choice isn't just between payment or punishment, you could let them be.
My guess is that if drugs were legal with no stigma or penalities and use was effectively subsidized for those that couldn't hold a job while addicted we would see 30% of the population of the US vote with their feet to join the drug-addicted.
Stigma is a separate issue to penalties. There is no legal penalty for alcoholism, but AA is anonymous for good reason, there is definitely a stigma. Not many people respect those who won't exercise self restraint. You could have stigma, no subsidisation and no legal penalty. Maybe that isn't the best way to go, but the idea that we are obliged to pay the way for people who refuse to do it themselves has got to go.
Doesn't that prove the point "Including Ron Paul would have indicated our hypothesis was incorrect, so we excluded him." It means that this method is not a reliable predictor of political success.
On another note, listening to some of Ron Paul's speeches, he doesn't seem to have expected a realistic chance of winning the presidency. His campaign from early on seems to have been focussed on getting his message out and attempting to reform the republican party by packing it with libertarians. I will be interested to see what the effect is on the republican party in 10-20 years.
Does the government have the right? Arguably no. Should they however attempt to provide services that the people want? That's a good question.
The rule of law should be the guide. No constitutional authority, no government program. If we want the program badly enough, amend the constitution. It has been done before, there is no excuse for illegal government programs.
In the context of BSD vs GPL posts:
BSD: BSD gives more freedom to users, because you (the user) can modify it a sell it as proprietary.
GPL: GPL gives more freedom to users, because you can't modify it and sell it (to users) as proprietary.
BSD and GPL advocates do seem to be usually referring to different groups of people. It isn't for licensing purposes that the clarification is needed, it's for discussion.
GPL2 code had some restrictions that was designed to build better code, and that was acceptable.
As I understand it, GPL2 was written with the same philosophical goals as GPL3. RMS has always placed "software freedom" above quality of code as a priority. If GPL produced better code, that was a bonus, but not a necessary one from RMS perspective. If people now find GPL3 onerous, it is because the FSF has written a licence that more effectively promotes their philosophical goals, not because the FSF has changed direction or strategy.
And yes, I do see that I've missed a couple of quotation marks in that post. That doesn't make a scrap of difference, it is nothing compared to your drivel.
I was once called by a marketer trying to sell me a stock trading program:
He had a job selling the program.
He claimed it was making him 20% (maybe 30%, few years ago, it was a lot at the time)
Claimed he had paid off his mortgage with it. (about 6% interest at the time).
So, if he had $100,000 to pay on his mortgage, he was working a job selling a program he was using that was supposed to make you not need a job and essentially he told me he had given up $20,000 pa to save himself $6,000 pa (yes I know, compound interest, inaccurate figures, you get the idea though).
Claiming something is not worth discussion is the equivalent of saying that you dont have a valid point.
I didn't say it wasn't worth discussing, I said it wasn't worth discussing with you. You are the problem. Allow me to illustrate:
and thus makes sense.
That should be "and thus make sense."
I will repeat that, even though I am typing it, because you have issue with.
WTF? "because you have issue with.?
If you start this concept, the next step is that your family is also responsible, since they must known as well.
"must known as well"? I suppose you meant "must have known"?
You wont find an accountant to admit that he or she knowingly stayed in a position where they knowingly had to act unethically, nevermind illegally.
wont? -adjective
1. accustomed; used (usually fol. by an infinitive): He was wont to rise at dawn.
-noun
2. custom; habit; practice: It was her wont to walk three miles before breakfast.
-verb (used with object)
I presume you meant won't.
If I knew that I would be personally responsible for what my employees did, I would not be able to afford to hire anyone that I could trust to never make mistakes.
Why would you not be able to afford someone that you could trust to never make mistakes. Surely that should be "I would not be able to afford to hire anyone that I could not trust to never make mistakes.
These examples are taken from every post of yours in this thread. You don't structure your sentences properly, you don't use punctuation properly, you don't spell properly, you leave out words that cause the meaning of your sentences to be reversed and you still don't seem to have worked out how to format your post so that paragraphs work. You also don't seem to be able to understand my points at all, continually arguing against positions I haven't stated. You replied to my post, remember? You got off track on your first post and you have stayed off track.
I don't have a problem with you to thinking I'm unarmed in a battle of wits. If you thought I made sense I'd be doing some serious self examination right now because you are off the planet. If you think that posting last makes you "win" go ahead. Anyone who reads this thread and thinks you make sense isn't the type of person whose opinion I respect anyway.
You have completely ignored reality in assuming that an employee can commit fraud without his supervisor recognizing it. The supervisor, as a matter of reality, takes responsibility for what his or her subordinates do.
Yet your post here says: "If I knew that I would be personally responsible for what my employees did, I would not be able to afford to hire anyone that I could trust to never make mistakes."
So which is it? are you or are you not held responsible for your employees actions? My position has been adequately clarified to you so that your continued misunderstanding is either deliberate and you are trolling, or because you are too stupid to understand. Based on your lack of ability to put paragraphs in your post, I'm betting it is stupidity.
Either way, it isn't worth it to discuss this matter further with you.
If you start this concept, the next step is that your family is also responsible, since they must known as well.
If you actually read my post, you will see that the level of responsibility I advocated for employees is exactly what we now have in families, ie: You can't escape a gaol sentence just by virtue of having children. Punishments for corporations should not be limited because the closure of the corporation would hurt employees by causing loss of employment. I have at no stage advocated that everyone involved should be charged. If a father gets sent to gaol, the children bear a consequence of losing their father, even though they did not commit a crime.
On the other hand, I don't believe that should act ethically to make more money,
I seriously hope that's a typo on your part.
You want everyone to take the hit, and if that were true, no one would become an accountant.
Hey, I've got an idea, why don't you read my post "they can share some consequence, even if it is just losing their job". Oh wow, look at that, I didn't say everyone should be charged, you're using a tactic known as a strawman argument. Probably out of a lack of reading comprehension skills, but really, you should stop that now.
I disagree with you because you cannot throw the lower level accountants to the wolves because you are the one approving everything they do and shaping the course of action that they take.
Well, just for fun, let's look back at what my argument was, and see if you have answered it:
Let's say your employee started to commit fraud against customers and your company benefits. You find out about it when charges are brought against your company. If you don't want to be held responsible, you have to throw them to the wolves, no corporate protection from liability for them.
So I use an example of an employee committing fraud without your knowledge, you respond by arguing against a completely different scenario where you have been approving, shaping and guiding their actions. Do you see the difference between these examples? Do you understand that you have failed to even address the point I bring up at all?
Obviously I would never advocate fraud, and I take offense that you would imply that I would.
Well, let's go back over your previous post then, shall we?
this is a sure fire way to unjustly cripple our economy by removing the value of education and instead focusing on ethics. Don't misunderstand me, ethical standards are important. But they are not enforceable on an individual level.
Now, let's ignore the fact that I hadn't mentioned education or the value of it at all, you have made a clear statement that focusing on ethics will cripple the economy. Unjustly no less. You say that ethical standards are important, as long as we don't enforce them individually and maintain limited liability for corporations.
Maybe it would help you overcome your misunderstanding if I point out that "consequences" does not necessarily equal "criminal charges".
You seem to not understand what accountants do.
I haven't mentioned accountants.
Corporations dont exist outside the rule of law.
When corporations continually get away with behaviour that would land a normal citizen in gaol for lengthy terms, yes they do.
How about a real world example, Sony's rootkit. We both know that if I had done that, I would now be serving a long prison sentence, but Sony doesn't even get a slap on the wrist, more like a gentle pat on the hand. In my view, since the company defended the case, they should be held responsible to an equivalent level as a person, perhaps have their assets frozen for a number of years (as equivalent to a gaol sentence, they are temporaril
If you think that anyone in the company would work if they were to be held responsible personally for the actions of any of the others, no one would work.
If you choose to operate collectively by what reasoning should you not take responsibility collectively? Keep in mind that the level of responsibility for some people was simply to lose their jobs, to expand on what I meant: If the company is sent to "prison" for some crime committed (the example given in the post I was answering) I would not advocate that the janitor gets sent to gaol, not having been a decision maker or actor in the crime. However, I would be against a policy that allowed the corporation to escape consequence so that the janitor didn't lose his job. He would, to an extent, have to endure the consequence (closure of the company and loss of job) of the actions of the corporation.
Since in any job you take you could be downsized at any time, it would not make significant difference to workers at that level. It just wouldn't allow the argument "Let the corporation off, won't you think of the workers" to hold any weight.
If I knew that I would be personally responsible for what my employees did, I would not be able to afford to hire anyone that I could trust to never make mistakes.
Not true. Let's say your employee started to commit fraud against customers and your company benefits. You find out about it when charges are brought against your company. If you don't want to be held responsible, you have to throw them to the wolves, no corporate protection from liability for them. If you decide to defend the case as a corporation (or they can prove you instructed them to do it) and the court decides on a "prison sentence" eg: you can't operate for a year, your corporation shouldn't get leniency because some innocent employees will suffer from the loss of their jobs. Not everyone would be charged with fraud, but they won't be protected from consequence either. The idea being that people would become more reluctant to break the law for the company, even to the point of preferring to lose their jobs rather than risk being charged, leading to a shortage of workers for companies that behave unethically.
... a sure fire way to unjustly cripple our economy by... focusing on ethics.
You think it's a good idea to behave unethically if you will make more money? This is exactly the idea I am opposing.
Don't misunderstand me, ethical standards are important. But they are not enforceable on an individual level.
The idea of personal responsibility for actions is the basis for the rule of law, supposedly a cornerstone of western civilisation. I can't fathom why you think it is a good idea to allow corporations to exist outside the rule of law.
So, the corporation is an economic structure that is good at putting wealth in the hands of people who are not the ones actually generating it.
If a group of people (A) are available to work for a return, but don't have equipment etc, and a group of people (B) are willing to provide money for equipment for a return, by what reasoning is group B not contributing to the wealth generation? If group A have enough money to run their business without group B, they are not compelled to pay B any return. If they can't do this then it can hardly be argued that they are the sole generators of the wealth since they are not able to do it without the contribution of group B. Members of group A are also allowed to join group B if they choose.
The solution is to make the workers and the shareholders the exact same people, so that the people who generate the wealth get to benefit from it. The economic structure that allows that to happen is called a cooperative.
It can also be called self-employment, stock options, buying stock in the company you work for and probably a number of other options I haven't mentioned. I should also point out that the workers already get a benefit anyway, it is called "wages". People agree to work for wages because it is a benefit. We already have a structure that allows workers and shareholders to be the same people. What some people seem to want is to have the work of investing done on their behalf by someone else, preferably with someone else's money.
The problem arises when you stop to ask "What does everyone who worked for that company do during it's prison term?"
Endure the consequences of the actions of the group they chose to associate with. Since the reason given further up the page for allowing corporate entities is "People have a right to freely associate and operate collectively. A corporation is just a formal way of doing this." then they can share some consequence, even if it is just losing their job. It would hopefully make people less willing to put up with unethical/illegal behaviour at work, and restrict the supply of labor to companies that use such behaviour.
"What do you do the the assets of a company that earned a life sentence?"
Such a sentence is likely to have come from causing harm sell the assets to raise money to repair that harm, as much as possible, and offset the costs of prosecution.
Well, http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ignorance agrees with you (except for a theological reference), but "ignore" still seems to me to be the base of that word. Your example of not knowing about organic chemistry: you haven't learned it yet because you have decided not to (presuming that you are capable of at least learning more by doing some reading). You are correct that you are ignorant of it, but that's not shameful as I was saying unless you have some obligation to have learned it.
It seems likely that ignorance is one of those words that has changed meaning through the common incorrect use by people (ignorant people?). So I concede that you are correct about the meaning, but that meaning seems to me to have come about through the deterioration of the language.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to secure my computer against attack by hackers.
So if those 20 Million withdrew $3150 each (or on average) they wouldnt make anything that year.
The problem with this plan is than most of their customers are net borrowers. Taking their business elsewhere would mean paying that money to the bank, not withdrawing it. Sorry.
Stupidity and gullibility are shameful, but people probably wouldn't recognise that they are stupid and gullible so would not feel shame.
My understanding of ignorance is that someone has ignored knowledge, which they would have to know they had done and should therefore feel shame. So I would classify ignorance with "willing acceptance of bogosity".
So how is your right to enforce your property rights with a gun, any different from ShieldW0lf's claim to take by force the (metaphorical or not) land occupied by others before his birth? Both are based with what you can do by sheer force.
Castle Doctrine. ShieldW0lf attempts to take tjstork's property:
ShieldW0lf kills tjstork, state imprisons/executes ShieldW0lf, tjstork's heirs inherit the property.
tjstork kills ShieldW0lf, state indemnifies tjstork against all legal liability.
One problem with this topic is the idea many people seem to have is that corporations in the form we have today are a part of a free market. In particular, Limited Liability Corporations only exist as a result of regulations. The idea that you can act without repercussions is not compatible with a free market but is instead a characteristic of sovereign rulers. The fiduciary duty that causes corporations to put profit above every other consideration is based on regulation, it is not a result of a free market (although such contracts may happen in a free market).
Eliminate limited liability protections of corporations and see how they really survive in a free market. What you are suggesting is not regulation of a free market, it is to solve a problem created by regulation with more regulation. To be honest, I'm not optimistic about the success of this plan. I'm not against all regulation but it does seem to often cause problems way out of proportion to the goals that motivate it.
Slashdot Mirror
Lewis was a victim of a system called "fagging" in which the older, stronger boys at the school were not only permitted, but encouraged, to boss around the younger ones.
A Blood could corner a younger boy and make him do odd jobs - tea-making, boot-blacking, cleaning his sports kit or his study. This was called 'fagging' and Jack said it made his life miserable, coming as it did on top of a heavy load of schoolwork.
fagging, noun
-verb (used with object)
1. to tire or weary by labor; exhaust (often fol. by out): The long climb fagged us out.
2. British. to require (a younger public-school pupil) to do menial chores.
3. Nautical. to fray or unlay the end of (a rope).
-verb (used without object)
4. Chiefly British. to work until wearied; work hard: to fag away at French.
5. British Informal. to do menial chores for an older public-school pupil.
-noun
6. Slang. a cigarette.
7. a fag end, as of cloth.
8. a rough or defective spot in a woven fabric; blemish; flaw.
9. Chiefly British. drudgery; toil.
10. British Informal. a younger pupil in a British public school required to perform certain menial tasks for, and submit to the hazing of, an older pupil.
11. a drudge.
Wikipedia has a claim "Bullying and even sexual abuse were also sometimes associated with it" but I was unable to discern the origin of it, possibly the Encyclopædia Britannica which is listed as a source for the article.
Do you have any evidence other than the Lewis's use of the word "fagging" in describing his activities at school to substantiate your claim that he was a homosexual rapist? If it is solely that, it is insufficient evidence as it was not the primary meaning of the word.
I find it interesting how many people are of the misunderstanding that religious faith is for the gaps in people's knowledge and that once physical causes are established the faith disappears. This is simply not the way religious people have approached religion. Take the story of David and Goliath for example: I am sure that even people at that time understood the fatal effect of smashing someone's head with a rock. For anyone (from the past or present) who believes this story, their belief would be unlikely to be affected by a better understanding of slings, rocks and skulls.
I am not surprised that a neuroscientist who believes in a soul and god does not give up that belief as a result of acquiring knowledge in their field.
I accept some illogic as necessary to my life. I know that taking flowers to my wife has great effect for improving my life, yet I have no logical reason why this should be so. It isn't the smell, it works even if she has a cold. It isn't the appearance, pictures of flowers do not suffice. It isn't that I spent money or was thinking of her, if I pick the flowers it still works but other gifts of equal value do not have the same effect.
My relationship with my wife influences my whole life and the world I live in, yet I frequently take deliberately illogical actions so it will work. I'd finish this post, but I'm off to do something illogical that will improve my weekend.
Software that is desired but not yet existing can have a large price, having some demand and a zero current supply, potential supply and therefore price being determined by the number of available programmers capable of writing it and the price they would be willing to accept to write it (being affected by the effort required). In such a case, the price would need to be determined by contract before releasing the software.
Software that already exists has an effectively unlimited supply and therefore approaches zero in price, given an unregulated market. Whether you see this as a positive or negative is subjective and dependant on your philosophy. There is evident dissatisfaction with the current regulated market, but there is no unregulated market currently existing (that I am aware of) to display a superior result.
Purely in terms of economic theory (which often has a tenuous relationship to reality) it is true the price of an already existing product that is infinitely copyable approaches zero regardless of development cost, as development cost no longer affects supply.
I've had farmers not 15 miles away from that organic farm tell me it is impossible, so I understand why you would think so, but I assure you it can be done.
Doesn't that prove the point "Including Ron Paul would have indicated our hypothesis was incorrect, so we excluded him." It means that this method is not a reliable predictor of political success.
On another note, listening to some of Ron Paul's speeches, he doesn't seem to have expected a realistic chance of winning the presidency. His campaign from early on seems to have been focussed on getting his message out and attempting to reform the republican party by packing it with libertarians. I will be interested to see what the effect is on the republican party in 10-20 years.
In the context of BSD vs GPL posts:
BSD: BSD gives more freedom to users, because you (the user) can modify it a sell it as proprietary.
GPL: GPL gives more freedom to users, because you can't modify it and sell it (to users) as proprietary.
BSD and GPL advocates do seem to be usually referring to different groups of people. It isn't for licensing purposes that the clarification is needed, it's for discussion.
And yes, I do see that I've missed a couple of quotation marks in that post. That doesn't make a scrap of difference, it is nothing compared to your drivel.
rohan972
Well spotted.
I was once called by a marketer trying to sell me a stock trading program:
He had a job selling the program.
He claimed it was making him 20% (maybe 30%, few years ago, it was a lot at the time)
Claimed he had paid off his mortgage with it. (about 6% interest at the time).
So, if he had $100,000 to pay on his mortgage, he was working a job selling a program he was using that was supposed to make you not need a job and essentially he told me he had given up $20,000 pa to save himself $6,000 pa (yes I know, compound interest, inaccurate figures, you get the idea though).
-adjective
1. accustomed; used (usually fol. by an infinitive): He was wont to rise at dawn.
-noun
2. custom; habit; practice: It was her wont to walk three miles before breakfast.
-verb (used with object)
I presume you meant won't. Why would you not be able to afford someone that you could trust to never make mistakes. Surely that should be "I would not be able to afford to hire anyone that I could not trust to never make mistakes.
These examples are taken from every post of yours in this thread. You don't structure your sentences properly, you don't use punctuation properly, you don't spell properly, you leave out words that cause the meaning of your sentences to be reversed and you still don't seem to have worked out how to format your post so that paragraphs work. You also don't seem to be able to understand my points at all, continually arguing against positions I haven't stated. You replied to my post, remember? You got off track on your first post and you have stayed off track.
I don't have a problem with you to thinking I'm unarmed in a battle of wits. If you thought I made sense I'd be doing some serious self examination right now because you are off the planet. If you think that posting last makes you "win" go ahead. Anyone who reads this thread and thinks you make sense isn't the type of person whose opinion I respect anyway.
So which is it? are you or are you not held responsible for your employees actions? My position has been adequately clarified to you so that your continued misunderstanding is either deliberate and you are trolling, or because you are too stupid to understand. Based on your lack of ability to put paragraphs in your post, I'm betting it is stupidity.
Either way, it isn't worth it to discuss this matter further with you.
If you actually read my post, you will see that the level of responsibility I advocated for employees is exactly what we now have in families, ie: You can't escape a gaol sentence just by virtue of having children. Punishments for corporations should not be limited because the closure of the corporation would hurt employees by causing loss of employment. I have at no stage advocated that everyone involved should be charged. If a father gets sent to gaol, the children bear a consequence of losing their father, even though they did not commit a crime.
I seriously hope that's a typo on your part.
Hey, I've got an idea, why don't you read my post "they can share some consequence, even if it is just losing their job". Oh wow, look at that, I didn't say everyone should be charged, you're using a tactic known as a strawman argument. Probably out of a lack of reading comprehension skills, but really, you should stop that now.
Well, just for fun, let's look back at what my argument was, and see if you have answered it:
Let's say your employee started to commit fraud against customers and your company benefits. You find out about it when charges are brought against your company. If you don't want to be held responsible, you have to throw them to the wolves, no corporate protection from liability for them.
So I use an example of an employee committing fraud without your knowledge, you respond by arguing against a completely different scenario where you have been approving, shaping and guiding their actions. Do you see the difference between these examples? Do you understand that you have failed to even address the point I bring up at all?
Well, let's go back over your previous post then, shall we?
this is a sure fire way to unjustly cripple our economy by removing the value of education and instead focusing on ethics. Don't misunderstand me, ethical standards are important. But they are not enforceable on an individual level.
Now, let's ignore the fact that I hadn't mentioned education or the value of it at all, you have made a clear statement that focusing on ethics will cripple the economy. Unjustly no less. You say that ethical standards are important, as long as we don't enforce them individually and maintain limited liability for corporations.
Maybe it would help you overcome your misunderstanding if I point out that "consequences" does not necessarily equal "criminal charges".
I haven't mentioned accountants.
When corporations continually get away with behaviour that would land a normal citizen in gaol for lengthy terms, yes they do.
How about a real world example, Sony's rootkit. We both know that if I had done that, I would now be serving a long prison sentence, but Sony doesn't even get a slap on the wrist, more like a gentle pat on the hand. In my view, since the company defended the case, they should be held responsible to an equivalent level as a person, perhaps have their assets frozen for a number of years (as equivalent to a gaol sentence, they are temporaril
Since in any job you take you could be downsized at any time, it would not make significant difference to workers at that level. It just wouldn't allow the argument "Let the corporation off, won't you think of the workers" to hold any weight. Not true. Let's say your employee started to commit fraud against customers and your company benefits. You find out about it when charges are brought against your company. If you don't want to be held responsible, you have to throw them to the wolves, no corporate protection from liability for them. If you decide to defend the case as a corporation (or they can prove you instructed them to do it) and the court decides on a "prison sentence" eg: you can't operate for a year, your corporation shouldn't get leniency because some innocent employees will suffer from the loss of their jobs. Not everyone would be charged with fraud, but they won't be protected from consequence either. The idea being that people would become more reluctant to break the law for the company, even to the point of preferring to lose their jobs rather than risk being charged, leading to a shortage of workers for companies that behave unethically. You think it's a good idea to behave unethically if you will make more money? This is exactly the idea I am opposing. The idea of personal responsibility for actions is the basis for the rule of law, supposedly a cornerstone of western civilisation. I can't fathom why you think it is a good idea to allow corporations to exist outside the rule of law.
Well, http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ignorance agrees with you (except for a theological reference), but "ignore" still seems to me to be the base of that word. Your example of not knowing about organic chemistry: you haven't learned it yet because you have decided not to (presuming that you are capable of at least learning more by doing some reading). You are correct that you are ignorant of it, but that's not shameful as I was saying unless you have some obligation to have learned it.
It seems likely that ignorance is one of those words that has changed meaning through the common incorrect use by people (ignorant people?). So I concede that you are correct about the meaning, but that meaning seems to me to have come about through the deterioration of the language.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to secure my computer against attack by hackers.
Stupidity and gullibility are shameful, but people probably wouldn't recognise that they are stupid and gullible so would not feel shame.
My understanding of ignorance is that someone has ignored knowledge, which they would have to know they had done and should therefore feel shame. So I would classify ignorance with "willing acceptance of bogosity".
ShieldW0lf kills tjstork, state imprisons/executes ShieldW0lf, tjstork's heirs inherit the property.
tjstork kills ShieldW0lf, state indemnifies tjstork against all legal liability.
One problem with this topic is the idea many people seem to have is that corporations in the form we have today are a part of a free market. In particular, Limited Liability Corporations only exist as a result of regulations. The idea that you can act without repercussions is not compatible with a free market but is instead a characteristic of sovereign rulers. The fiduciary duty that causes corporations to put profit above every other consideration is based on regulation, it is not a result of a free market (although such contracts may happen in a free market).
Eliminate limited liability protections of corporations and see how they really survive in a free market. What you are suggesting is not regulation of a free market, it is to solve a problem created by regulation with more regulation. To be honest, I'm not optimistic about the success of this plan. I'm not against all regulation but it does seem to often cause problems way out of proportion to the goals that motivate it.