Conservatives: What are your principles? - Page 31 - Politics and Society -- Two Plus Two Poker Forums

Until 1855 the possibility to be any form of limited liability company was granted only by Royal or Parliament act in Britain and was essentially not possible at all in the US until the first laws were passed in NY in 1811. So yes the concept existed for a few centuries before but had ~nothing to do with enabling the industrial revolution because it did not apply to any of the new companies being set up at the time.

Quote

08-31-2019 , 10:05 PM

#753

pvn

Guest

Posts: n/a

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inso0

The concept of shareholder limited liability for "corporate" ventures goes back at least into the early 1600s with the Dutch East India Company.

yeah, it's not a free-market, small-government concept. It's purely the invention of heavy state intervention in markets.

Quote

08-31-2019 , 10:26 PM

#754

D-Beat

banned

Join Date: Mar 2018 Posts: 3,009

Quote:

Originally Posted by pvn

yeah, it's not a free-market, small-government concept. It's purely the invention of heavy state intervention in markets.

There's the whole slavery and colonialism things which weren't small govt, free-market concepts either.

Quote

08-31-2019 , 10:31 PM

#755

Trolly McTrollson

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 37,107

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inso0

The concept of shareholder limited liability for "corporate" ventures goes back at least into the early 1600s with the Dutch East India Company.

I'm really confused about why you put scare quotes around "corporate" here.

Quote

08-31-2019 , 11:33 PM

#756

Abbaddabba

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 5,807

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willd

Given most limited liability laws weren't introduced until 3/4 of the way through or entirely after the industrial revolution that seems like a bit of a stretch. To be precise I'm considering the industrial revolution to be roughly 1760 to 1830 and as far as I can tell the first significant limited liability laws in the US were put into place around the 1810s (and at that time only in a few states) - in the UK the laws weren't in place until the Limited Liabilities Act of 1855.

There are certainly good arguments that some sort of limited liability is useful for allowing more innovation and efficiency in businesses but claiming that these sorts of corporate laws were a requirement for the industrial revolution is not very accurate.

Are there good arguments for LLCs as they stand though?

Low net worth investors have bankruptcy to escape life shattering outcomes, and if you were still concerned about people being reluctant to invest in companies because the worst case scenario could ruin them, you could put limits on personal liability where there's some personal safety net that can't be touched through litigation.

There're tons of ways to deal with it - LLCs seem like a lousy approach. It's practically egging people on to do shifty stuff... taking risks that they know wouldn't be justifiable if they had to pay in full for low probability / high cost outcomes.

Quote

09-03-2019 , 04:38 PM

#757

pvn

Guest

Posts: n/a

mods should rename this thread "Conservatives: you have no principles"

Quote

09-05-2019 , 04:04 AM

#758

lagtight

banned

Join Date: Aug 2017 Posts: 10,279

Quote:

Originally Posted by pvn

mods should rename this thread "Conservatives: you have no principles"

I haven't posted lately, but I have been lurking a bit.

If you had actually read the first few pages of this thread, you would have seen two posts of mine where I listed 14 Conservative Principles.

Perhaps mods could start a new thread called, "Please Read a Thread Before Making Snarky Comments in It."

Edit: Back to my Politics Forum hiatus.

Last edited by lagtight; 09-05-2019 at 04:07 AM. Reason: :)

Quote

09-05-2019 , 05:11 PM

#759

pvn

Guest

Posts: n/a

Samuel Johnson quotations are platitudes more than principles.

Quote

09-06-2019 , 02:29 AM

#760

WaitingForMPJ

banned

Join Date: Jul 2019 Posts: 2,452

No u

Quote

09-06-2019 , 06:01 AM

#761

lagtight

banned

Join Date: Aug 2017 Posts: 10,279

Quote:

Originally Posted by pvn

Samuel Johnson quotations are platitudes more than principles.

So, do you disagree with Dr. Johnson's quote? I think that the quote is a rather pithy way of reminding us that even good ideas can have unintended negative consequences.

I think that you make a good point, though. There can be a fine line between a "principle" and a "platitude."

Quote

09-06-2019 , 04:44 PM

#762

bahbahmickey

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 15,341

Quote:

Originally Posted by pvn

mods should rename this thread "Conservatives: you have no principles"

2p2 spends years running 90% of the good conservative posters on the site out of political threads then opens a thread asking conservatives their principles. Then to top it off liberals are surprised more conservatives aren't eager to explain these beliefs.

I think lagtight is the stalagmite of the conservatives in this echo chamber by standing up here:

Quote:

Originally Posted by lagtight

Back in the 1990's, a local writer penned a number of Op-Ed pieces for the Orange County Register in California.

One of these articles was titled "A Baker's Dozen or so Rules to Govern By", published on July 13, 1993.

Here were the writer's "rules" (I have omitted the article's brief commentary on each point):

1. "He'll is paved with good intentions." - Samuel Johnson
2. People have a right to enjoy the fruits of their own labor.
3. "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."- George Santayana
4. Human nature cannot be improved by social engineering.
5. Only individuals, not groups, have rights.
6. The seriousness with which a problem is taken cannot be measured merely by the amount of money expended on its solution.
7. Government is not the institution to satisfy human desires.

To be continued....

Quote:

Originally Posted by lagtight

Continuing....

8. High taxes are bad for the economy
9. People achieve ( or fail to achieve) success and happiness primarily as a result of their own initiative, intelligence, and integrity, and not as a result of their social class, ethnicity, race or gender.
10. Government policy should encourage wealth creation, not wealth redistribution.
11. A "societal" problem is not necessarily a "governmental" problem.
12. Public policy should promote and strengthen the "traditional" family.
13. Government cannot protect people from themselves.
14. Caution is always advisable, because even well thought-out policies invariably have unintended consequences.

Full disclosure: I was the author of this article. If need be I can prove my identity to a mod.

Quote

09-06-2019 , 08:55 PM

#763

Huehuecoyotl

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 29,283

Quote:

Originally Posted by lagtight

Quote:

11. A "societal" problem is not necessarily a "governmental" problem.

12. Public policy should promote and strengthen the "traditional" family.

Putting these next to each other...

Quote

09-06-2019 , 11:48 PM

#764

lagtight

banned

Join Date: Aug 2017 Posts: 10,279

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huehuecoyotl

Putting these next to each other...

Thank you for doing so. They are a lovely couple, aren't they? They complement each other quite well, don't you think?

Quote

09-07-2019 , 12:48 AM

#765

uke_master

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 16,135

Quote:

Originally Posted by bahbahmickey

Odd that you leave out, ya know, that bit about the site owners shutting down the politics forum and most of the liberals you are talking about going off to start their own forum.

Quote

09-07-2019 , 03:43 AM

#766

lagtight

banned

Join Date: Aug 2017 Posts: 10,279

Quote:

Originally Posted by uke_master

Odd that you leave out, ya know, that bit about the site owners shutting down the politics forum and most of the liberals you are talking about going off to start their own forum.

If their new forum is anything like the old one was here, I'm sure it's a delightful place to exchange ideas in a respectful manner.

Last edited by lagtight; 09-07-2019 at 03:46 AM. Reason: Added a was

Quote

09-07-2019 , 08:57 AM

#767

bahbahmickey

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 15,341

Quote:

Originally Posted by uke_master

Odd that you leave out, ya know, that bit about the site owners shutting down the politics forum and most of the liberals you are talking about going off to start their own forum.

Haha. This is news to me. What is the new forum? Echochamber.com? Banconservatives.com? Everythingisracist.com?

It is probably a good idea for 2+2 to nuke politics since they proved for years they can’t find someone capable of modding in that space.

Quote

09-07-2019 , 01:54 PM

#768

uke_master

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 16,135

Quote:

Originally Posted by bahbahmickey

Something like that. https://unstuckpolitics.com

Whatever you might think of the old forum, or the splinter forum, the result clearly is that this current iteration on 2+2 is NOT the kind of liberal echo chamber that bans conservatives and thinks everything is racist. Case in point: you're here.

Quote

09-07-2019 , 04:57 PM

#769

pvn

Guest

Posts: n/a

Quote:

Originally Posted by uke_master

Whatever you might think of the old forum, or the splinter forum, the result clearly is that this current iteration on 2+2 is NOT the kind of liberal echo chamber that bans conservatives and thinks everything is racist. Case in point: you're here.

of course the old forum wasn't like that either, that was just the crybaby persecution syndrome of triggered conservatives who had to constantly invent things to be outraged by

Quote

09-07-2019 , 05:00 PM

#770

suzzer99

Save the Cheerleader, Save the World

Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 99,989

The last straw was one poster calling SHS fat and ugly and a mod not being around to immediately dispense discipline.

That is called "looking for an excuse".

Quote

09-07-2019 , 05:20 PM

#771

DudeImBetter

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 10,666

Old acquaintance on social media began explaining how because he's half black and doing well that reparations aren't necessary.

I had a respectful counterpoint to express, as you might imagine. Then I got this.

"...because handing out checks has helped so much? True the government did not follow through on their word.
I’m not sure how one would tally what is owed and to whom. I’m mixed... so I get half?
The point of my post is that slavery is happening right now and not much is being done.
Last while white men bought slaves.... I have to ask: who sold them?
Either way, I’m free now.

This conservative principle of blaming black people for chattel slavery is new to me. AYFKM?!

Quote

09-07-2019 , 06:50 PM

#772

chezlaw

Limey Bastard

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 47,188

Quote:

Originally Posted by suzzer99

The last straw was one poster calling SHS fat and ugly and a mod not being around to immediately dispense discipline.

That is called "looking for an excuse".

Indeed. The die had been cast some time before unless there was some dramatic change.

Whatever we think of the rights and wrongs of it, posters can hardly have been surprised and the final straw is, as always, pretty much irrelevant.

Quote

09-07-2019 , 07:14 PM

#773

lagtight

banned

Join Date: Aug 2017 Posts: 10,279

Quote:

Originally Posted by uke_master

Well said. Seem to be as many conservatives in this forum as liberals. The people who made the Old Forum a toxic waste dump are gone.

Quote

09-08-2019 , 03:11 AM

#774

Abbaddabba

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 5,807

Quote:

Originally Posted by bahbahmickey

Those principles are self contradictory.

Human nature can't be improved, yet we should seek to promote and strengthen the family unit?

Most of what's on that list bares little if any resemblance to conservatism by historic standards. It's mostly just neoliberalism with a couple of empty platitudes that nobody would disagree with.