This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Yes there is a severe misunderstanding.
My position is that limited liability and fictitious entities are entirely a creature of governmental systems. In a government-free stateless system of contractual ethics, things would go quite differently, there would be no concept of limited liability.
Consider the following scenario, which I and my family and friends of mine have all faced many times:
X is a rich real estate investor. X forms ABC property corp, with X as primary shareholder and head honcho. X hires a number of contractors to build buildings for ABC Property corp, excavation to electrical. ABC Property corp fails before completion of the building due to economic circumstances, declares bankruptcy. The contractors are unable to collect money from ABC property corp beyond a possible subordinate lien on the half-finished building. X still has his non-ABC property, his house and his nice cars and his investment portfolio of other investments in stocks etc.
Under a stateless system, I see no ethical reason why the contractors wouldn't get together (along with their friends, patrons, hired thugs etc.) and go to X and say: You owe us money, you signed the contract, sell your house sell your Mercedes sell your stocks and pay us. Certainly historically, it wouldn't be uncommon for the contractors or their patrons to collect his violently, even selling X and his family! The only thing that would keep X free from liability would be his own capacity for violence, his own patrons and hired collections of thugs.
Under a state system, we shrug and say well actually your debt was owed by ABC not by X, X can't be held liable, no matter how rich he is or how much you need the money, he said the magic words and maintained the sacred rituals so his liability is limited. Occasionally insult is added to injury: X forms DEF corp and buys the ABC corp assets at a cut-rate price. That can only occur as a result of legal fictions, as a result of the state and the state's monopoly on violence. Primarily on utilitarian rather than ethical grounds: it is good for investors to be able to protect their assets from liability as it encourages investment. But without a state the idea of "X hired me and signed the papers, but when he did that he was the agent of ABC not X, he didn't sign the papers as X."
One comment brought up "You Didn't Build That!"; to me the argument that government's can't change the rules of LLCs rings of "Keep your Government Hands off my Medicare!"
More options
Context Copy link