sliced bread #2

Some look at things that are, and ask why. I dream of things that never were and ask why not.

Monday, January 31, 2005

pictures are worth a thousand words... and some nights are worth $1000...





--------------------

alcohol certainly makes people do some strange things...

so i'm sitting here in constitutional law being bored to tears with discussions about chickens and eggs and hogs and wheat... the finest legal minds of our country at work... the supreme court of canada obviously had nothing better to talk about during the 60's and 70's... god bless our prof, but these lectures are the equivalent of a barbituate overdose...

well, this weekend was something else... it's been a long while since i've been out with the guys, so i was quite looking forward to hanging out (even though i'm not much for clubbing these days)... let's just say friday night reminded me why i had so much fun during those party days (and why i can't afford -- physically or financially -- doing it every weekend nowadays)... nevertheless, it was time well spent and i definitely am grateful to have maintained my friendships through highschool and undergrad, despite all the life changes that have occurred since...


One's friends are that part of the human race with which one can be human.
-- George Santayana

--------------------

Current mood: chipper
Current music: Ciara -- One-Two Step

Thursday, January 27, 2005

aaaaaaahhhhhhh...

--------------------

*not to be confused with aaahhhhh*


notice this time that there's a bit more of an accent on the first part...

oh, i don't know what the hell i'm saying anymore... i'm just rambling and writing for the sake of relieving stress... i haven't been able to go to the gym since before NYC so this is my only other outlet to get my mind off everything that is (or isn't) happening right now...

i've just spent about 8 hours at the library (give or take, with the nap and everything else)... i can't really say if i'm being productive or what, i'm just basically skimming through the hundreds of pages of reading that i'm behind, so i don't know how much (if any) of it will stick come exam time... and i guess, by then, it'll be too late to do anything about it...

why do i keep saying yes when asked to do something? or rather, why is it that i have a hard time saying 'no' to certain things but absolutely have no qualms about disappointing certain people? i can't even introspect my motivations anymore cuz even i don't know what they are at this point... i need to sit down and figure out priorities and not just be so "go go go" with no real sense of direction...

ok, so this really doesn't make sense, but no one's paying attention anyway, so it doesn't matter much... all i can say is that i've got a truckload of stuff that i'm signed on to do, and i can't make heads or tails about my priorities... i miss my friends and i feel that i've drifted from them, even though i have quasi-contact with them everyday and it hasn't been all that long since i've seen them... i'm feeling bogged down and alone at school, even though i'm more involved now and talk to more people than before, but i still don't get that "vibe" that i'm a part of something... i don't know... maybe i should stop trying to "fit in" and acknowledge that certain cliques have cemented and that i've got my own life to live anyway... or just ask me about it in a day or two and i'll probably have a compeletely different weltenschaung...

yeah, i just had to throw that word in...

--------------------

Current mood: lacunal
Current music: Staind -- So Far Away

Monday, January 24, 2005

popping the big apple cherry






--------------------

they say pictures are worth a thousand words...


to say that i had a fantastic time in NYC would be an understatement... not only did i learn a lot about the city and the legal culture, i also got to meet some great people and make some great friends on the trip... they say that you live a lifetime in a new york minute... these past few days have certainly been worth a thousand lifetimes... i love this city!




--------------------

Current mood: amazed
Current music: Frank Sinatra -- New York, New York

Tuesday, January 18, 2005

"Per legem ad justitiam: Through law to justice"

--------------------

"impunity no more, silence no more"


january 17th is officially designated as "raoul wallenberg day" in canada... he is only one of two honourary canadian citizens (nelson mandela being the other)... it was a great honour and privilege to have been able to attend the inaugural symposium held in his memory today and yesterday at osgoode hall law school... i admit that i knew nothing of the man until then, but after this experience, i can only hope now to have as much courage and impact as he had as one human being...

the conference was attended by a literal "who's who" of the canadian legal community... former supreme court justices, sitting appellate judges, senior partners of major law firms, government officials, leading scholars and academics, and students came from across the country to commemorate the wallenberg legacy and discuss pressing human rights issues of our day... also notably present as speakers were harold koh (dean of yale law school), richard goldstone (chief prosecutor of the UN International War Crimes Tribunal for yugoslavia and rwanda), and albie sachs (a current justice of the Constitutional Court of South Africa and a former political prisoner)... to say that it was an honour and privilege to be in the presence of such powerful people is a serious understatement...

again, as i've written before, this is not simply a matter of "look who i met today"... i am still in the "oh my gosh, i just met _______ " phase, but i can't help but think of how lucky i am to be in a field of study that allows me to interact on a very real and personal level with people who can make things happen... and while i'm sure that many of these great people demur at the idea that they are somehow put on a pedestal, i say it's an earned accomplishment given the kinds of things they've done and the ways they've touched people's lives...

volunteering at coat check, i had "first crack" at welcoming the VIPs and guests, amongst whom (his identity unbeknownst to me at the time) was a man missing an arm... only during his eloquent and moving presentation did i realize that i had been face to face with justice albie sachs... the conference finally came full circle and became jarringly real for me when i got to shake his hand — his remaining hand... the hand of a man who'd seen and experienced some of the worst human suffering and survived to help bring justice to others — as he was leaving the building...

"the next generation of leaders" -- supposedly to whom this symposium was aimed as part of their education -- was left by the minister of justice with these questions to ponder and challenges to fight for:

  • how do we combat intolerance at home and abroad?
  • what is the principled approach to balancing rights and security?
  • how do we combat and prevent mass atrocities?
  • how do we deliver justice to the victims?
  • how do we protect the vulnerable?
  • do we practice respect for human dignity in our daily interactions?

--------------------

Raoul Wallenberg (August 4, 1912 – [date of death uncertain]) was a Swedish diplomat and a member of the influential Swedish Wallenberg family. As a Legation Counsellor in Budapest, he used his diplomatic status to save many Hungarian Jews during the later stages of World War II, by issuing temporary Swedish "protective passports" and claiming the bearers as Swedish subjects awaiting repatriation. He also skillfully negotiated with Nazi officials such as Adolf Eichmann for the cancellation of deportations by playing on their fear of the consequences of having perpetrated war crimes. He is thought to have saved the lives of between 20,000 and 100,000 Jews.

Wallenberg was arrested by the Red Army on January 7, 1945, probably on suspicion of being a spy for the United States. He disappeared 60 years ago yesterday as he headed to Soviet headquarters in eastern Hungary. What happened to him since is not known — the official Russian version is that he died in captivity on July 17, 1947, but a number of testimonies have placed him alive in Siberian or Russian prisons as late as the 1960s.

--------------------


"All evil needs to flourish is for good men to do nothing." -- Edmund Burke



Monday, January 17, 2005

which mental disorder do you have?

You scored as Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder. Congratulations! You are obsessive-compulsive! You know nothing curbs images of mutilating your mother like a good counting/checking/washing ritual... wait, DID you forget to turn off the stove???

Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder

67%

Borderline Personality Disorder

42%

Unipolar Depression

42%

Eating Disorders

33%

Schizophrenia

25%

Antisocial Personality Disorder

8%

Which mental disorder do you have?
created with QuizFarm.com

Monday, January 10, 2005

Carrie Bradshaw on relationships...

--------------------

"Later that day I got to thinking about relationships. There are those that open you up to something new and exotic, those that are old and familiar, those that bring up lots of questions, those that bring you somewhere unexpected, those that bring you far from where you started, and those that bring you back. But the most exciting, challenging and significant relationship of all is the one you have with yourself. And if you can find someone to love the you you love, well, that's just fabulous."

--------------------

Sunday, January 09, 2005

Disaster challenges belief

--------------------

Where was God two weeks ago when tectonic plates shifted under the Indian Ocean, sending a tsunami roaring across the seas on a journey of death, terror, destruction and grief? Shaken by the magnitude of a natural disaster which has claimed some 145,000 lives, believers and non-believers alike ponder the question as religious leaders struggle to interpret the disaster in terms of faith and theology. How could a benevolent, all-caring God allow it to happen?

Traditional answers will get us only so far, says Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury and spiritual leader of the world's 70 million Anglicans. The question of "how you can you believe in a God who permits suffering on such a scale is very much around at the moment, and it would be surprising if it weren't, indeed it would be wrong if it weren't," Williams wrote in an article published in a British Sunday paper.

Making sense of a great disaster is a challenge simply because those who are closest to the cost are the ones least likely to accept some sort of intellectual explanation, however polished, Williams wrote. And, he asked, why should they? The extraordinary fact is "that belief has survived such tests again and again not because it comforts or explains but because believers cannot deny what has been shown or given to them."

Every single random, accidental death, Williams wrote, is something that "should upset a faith bound up with comfort and ready answers. Faced with the paralyzing magnitude of a disaster like this, we naturally feel more deeply outraged and alone, more deeply helpless."

And maybe we are on our own in a world where tectonic plates shift and other natural forces occasionally cause appalling catastrophes, says Richard Dawkins, the noted Oxford professor and avowed atheist. In a letter to The Guardian newspaper, Dawkins said religious explanations for natural disasters range from the "loopy" (its payback time for Original Sin) through "vicious" (disasters are sent to try our faith) to "violent" (heretics were hanged after the devastating Lisbon earthquake of 1755). While it is "psychologically possible to derive comfort from sincere belief in a non-existent illusion," Dawkins wrote, "I thought believers might be disillusioned with an omnipotent being who has just drowned 125,000 (now 145,000) innocent people, or an omniscient one who failed to warn them."

Hallett Llewellyn, a United Church theologian and member of Trinity St. Paul's United Church pastoral staff, applauds Williams for his courage and honesty in admitting his own personal struggle with the meaning of faith. Better that than "the certainty that allows no kind of room for people to question their faith."

The tsunami catastrophe and other natural disasters can't help but force anyone with a serious, reflective mind about faith to question the traditional Christian characterizations of God, Llewellyn said in an interview. They challenge "those traditional attributes of omniscience and omnipotence — the all-powerful God. You can't help but question why they are not in play."

Llewellyn says his own faith is challenged enormously and he asks the same questions when one child is killed in a natural disaster: "I do tend to separate my belief in God from my faith in God trusting no matter what happens there is a supreme good purpose underlying the realities of life. It is something I continue to hold on to."

In an interview, Anglican Primate, Archbishop Andrew Hutchison said there has not been a disaster in his lifetime forcing him to abandon his faith even for a moment. But there have been moments when he has wrestled with the kind of questions now being raised. "How can you believe in a God who permits suffering on such a scale?" he said. "How can you, indeed? There is no answer to that. And yet you do."

-- MICHAEL MCATEER, The Toronto Star (01/09/2005)
--------------------

more than just consumers


--------------------

About the same time the tsunami was hitting the shores of southeast Asia, North Americans were hitting the stores in the usual Boxing Day shopping frenzy. In other words, North Americans were behaving in a way we consider "normal." Indeed, the desire to accumulate ever more material possessions is regarded today as not just normal, but basic to human motivation. What is considered less normal — if not downright aberrant — is the spree of giving that broke out unexpectedly among ordinary people as the scope of the tsunami tragedy unfolded in the past two weeks.

The outpouring of concern and generosity toward helpless people halfway around the globe came as something of a surprise here, prompting initially tight-fisted governments to come up with responses more in keeping with the spontaneously generous impulses of their citizens.

Could it be that there's more to the human personality than our business-dominated culture encourages us to believe? Maybe we're not all just walking replicas of Homo Economicus — the robot-like character whose motivation revolves around his insatiable appetite for material gain — that lies at the heart of modern economic theory. Despite our indoctrination in the joys of a life devoted to consumerism, there seems to be some sort of deep human inclination to connect with our fellow human beings — an inclination that isn't really part of the main script of capitalism.

On a CBC Radio phone-in show, callers were making suggestions for government action that were right off the charts — like urging Ottawa to send a chunk of the multi-billion-dollar federal surplus to tsunami victims. One caller suggested that $1 billion would be appropriate. (Obviously, somebody hasn't been to business school.)

But our business school mentality would be mystifying to those who lived before the rise of capitalism a few centuries ago. Traditional societies discouraged greed, seeing voracious economic appetites as potentially destructive to the social bonds of the community.

This changed under capitalism, which hailed greed as the engine of growth that would lead to prosperity for all — a contention still routinely invoked, despite plenty of evidence around the world to contradict it.

With the emergence of a particularly mean-spirited form of capitalism in the last two decades, greed is now positively celebrated. No longer considered an ugly human trait, greed has gone mainstream. As high-profile consumer Barbara Amiel unabashedly told Vogue magazine, "I have an extravagance that knows no bounds." Imagine her saying she had a "callousness" or an "insensitivity" that knew no bounds.

A magazine ad for Mitsubishi nicely captures the new spirit of unbridled greed. Beneath a photograph of a well-dressed executive surrounded by pricey personal communication devices, the caption simply states: "The world doesn't revolve around you ... But we're working on it."

So pervasive is the consumer culture in our society that one could easily conclude acquisitiveness is what humans are all about. But Karl Polanyi, the late economic historian and anthropologist, disputed this. He argued that while every society is designed to meet the basic material needs of its members, an intense focus on greed and material acquisitiveness is unique to modern capitalist societies. By contrast, pre-capitalist societies typically focused more on family, clan, religion, honour, etc.

Polanyi argued that the most basic human characteristic — found in every human society across the ages and around the globe — isn't material acquisitiveness but rather a need to relate to other humans, to feel part of a larger community. Above all, we're social animals, Polanyi insisted. Aristotle made a similar observation centuries earlier. This suggests that preserving our communities — and the natural environments that sustain them — may be essential for human well-being.

You'd certainly never guess this from the way our governments behave. Under pressure from the business elite, they've directed their energies in recent years toward helping corporations maximize profits. Meanwhile, governments have reduced their role in protecting what used to be called the "common good" — a notion that some would regard as almost as "quaint" as the Geneva Conventions.

But it's encouraging to occasionally be reminded — as we were with the public response to the tsunami disaster — that our obsession with consumption and material acquisitiveness may not be part of our human hardwiring, but just a behavioural defect we've developed under capitalism.

It's interesting to note that in medieval times, merchants determined to make large profits — the equivalent of today's business executives — were seen as anti-social, even repulsive. One tract from the 14th century attacked such people as "Man-haters, opposite to the Common good, as if the world were made only for them."

To which, Mitsubishi would now reply: "Not yet, but we're working on it."

-- LINDA MCQUAIG, The Toronto Star (01/09/2005)
--------------------

Friday, January 07, 2005

politicizing a tragedy...

--------------------

There ought to be eligibility rules for finger-pointing in a global crisis.

The impulse to find fault seems universal. From Ottawa to Stockholm, Washington to London, the airwaves and newspapers are full of diatribes against western leaders who reacted too slowly or responded too stingily to the Boxing Day tsunamis that devastated southern Asia. Some of the criticism is fair and thoughtful. Much of it is facile and knee-jerk. There would be more of the first kind — and less of the second — if those passing judgment followed a few simple guidelines:

  1. Anyone who accuses a politician of failing to react quickly or generously enough to a disaster must be satisfied with his or her own initial response. That would disqualify me. Although I made my first donation on Dec. 26, the amount was not commensurate with the magnitude of the catastrophe. I subsequently sent two more cheques.
  2. Anyone who criticizes a national leader for not taking charge must be prepared to say exactly what he or she thinks the government should do. Almost none of the commentary published or broadcast in the wake of the South Asian tragedy meets this test. There were plenty of calls for action, leadership, visibility and boldness. But when it came to the practical, well-informed suggestions, the silence was deafening.
  3. Anyone who castigates a prime minister or president for vacationing during a crisis must have cut short his or her own holiday without hesitation. It is curious that most of the complaints about Martin's absence from Ottawa, Blair's absence from London and Bush's absence from Washington came four or five days after the tsunamis struck. In the immediate aftermath of the disaster, most pundits and opposition MPs were nowhere to be found.
  4. Anyone who pans a decision-maker's performance with the wisdom of hindsight, must acknowledge the fact. It is true that Canada's initial offering of $ 1 million in humanitarian assistance was embarrassingly inadequate. But it was made on Dec. 26, when no one understood the enormity of the destruction. At that point, the estimated death toll was 13,300. (It is now 150,000.) Other major donor nations had yet to announce any aid. Ottawa's second instalment — an additional $3 million — also looks paltry in retrospect. But on Dec. 27, when it was announced, aid groups were still gearing up to deliver relief. The presumed death toll stood at 23,700. The United States had anted up just $15 million. By Dec. 29, when the catcalls started pouring in, Ottawa's commitment had risen to a respectable $40 million. It now stands at $80 million, with more to come.
  5. Anyone who catalogues what a government did wrong in a disaster, must also mention what it did right. In Ottawa's case, there were several things. The Canadian government (along with Germany's) took the lead in promoting debt relief for the countries affected by the tsunamis. It undertook to match every dollar donated by individuals to charities leading the relief effort. And it made clear, from the beginning, that Canada would stay involved for the long haul.
  6. Finally, anyone who sets herself up as an arbiter of disaster management must continue to track a government's actions long after the spotlight has moved on.
If past earthquakes, hurricanes, floods and epidemics are any guide, few of today's self-styled authorities will pass that test. The most voluble critics tend to have the shortest attention spans. They might want to think about this though: Cheap shots reveal more about the accuser than the intended victim."

-- Carol Goar, The Toronto Star (01/07/2005)

--------------------


the disaster that took place is most certainly a tragedy... every day, however, countless lives are lost to equally tragic events, with much less media coverage or outpouring of sympathy and support... how do we, as moral beings, account for the differences in our reaction? what makes one catastrophe a worthy cause to marshal our resources against and another not even worthy of a byline in the newspaper? how do we draw the line on where to give and how much is enough? commentators worldwide express similar surprise at the level of support and donations that have poured in for tsunami relief... but how long can we sustain this goodwill? and why can't it be transferred every day to the hundreds of different causes and tragedies that take place locally and worldwide?

--------------------

"It would be unrealistic to expect 2005, born amidst devastation and death, to be an annus mirabilis. But it can still be a year of hope, healing and lasting progress. Seldom have we entered a New Year feeling so profoundly connected to the 6 billion other people who share this planet. Never have we responded so swiftly and open-heartedly to a global disaster. This outpouring of grief and generosity will taper off in the weeks ahead. Few of us are capable of unstinting altruism for long periods of time. But the Boxing Day tragedy in Asia has widened our sense of the possible, sharpened our awareness of how far below that level we usually operate and given us proof that we can do better.

Global tragedies force us to rethink the limits we place on ourselves. They give an incentive — and the means — to raise our sights. What will matter is how generous and sustained our response is, how much we learn about giving and how close we come to making the behaviour of the past 10 days the new normal."

-- Carol Goar, The Toronto Star (01/05/2005)

--------------------

Sunday, January 02, 2005

Idea of the Year

--------------------
"The most logical thing in the world: Take away corporations’ privilege to offer shareholders limited liability" -- Jurriaan Kamp, Ode Magazine


People’s priorities at home are far different than those at work. You’d almost think their house was in a separate world from their office. This may be one of the most remarkable things about modern society. There’s not a father on the planet that would consider pouring poison in the backyard where his own children play every day. But at the office this same man—yes, it’s mainly men involved—expresses little concern about dumping polluted waste water from a factory he manage into a river that flows alongside the yards of his children’s friends. Another father creates an ad campaign encouraging children to drink coffee—a new market, higher sales. It is unlikely that at home this same father would push caffeine on his kids in the interest of making a few bucks. Outside the house, businesspeople do things they would consider absurd at home.

Somehow a moral breach has emerged between home and work. You can get away with more at work; the boundaries are less strict. And this moral gray area ultimately leads to excesses so vast that’s its frontpage news—Enron, Bhopal, the S&L crisis, Worldcom, the Exxon Valdez and World Online. Why does this happen so frequently with people who otherwise are law-abiding citizens? It is the legal structure of corporations that spawns such abuses. Companies profit from an historical privilege: limited liability. That means that the responsibility of a company’s owners—the shareholders—never goes beyond the money they invested. And this set-up incites many corporations to dump the responsibility—and expense— of their action on other parts of society.

An example. In 1979 General Motors launched a new model of car on the market, the Chevrolet Malibu. The car’s fuel tank was placed way in the back, which was unusual. In the prototype phase it became clear that this significantly increased the risk of fire in the event of a collision. General Motors was aware of this, as later became apparent from an internal memo. The memo included a calculation that it would cost two dollars and forty cents (U.S.) to make the fuel tank safer, but that it would be cheaper to pay any damage claims from potential victims. General Motors did nothing. The judge, who in 1999 awarded a large sum of money to a woman and her children who suffered serious burn injuries following an accident with a Chevrolet Malibu, noted the placement of the fuel tank was meant to “maximize profits at the expense of public safety.” In other words, General Motors’ limited liability meant that the company could transfer the costs of its serious mistake to society as a whole. Current laws allow a company—which is ultimately a group of people who jointly work to get something done—to carry out an absurd, inhuman decision that each of those involved would never get away with in his or her private life.

An individual who consciously does harm to another runs the risk of landing in jail. But if a corporation causes the same damage, the consequences are minimal. The company may be forced to pay a fine. The fine may even be substantial but it is often—note the paradox—tax deductible. It could face a boycott by consumers. Shareholders may see the price of their stocks fall and might sell their stake. And even though supervisory board members and management can now be prosecuted for mismanagement, in practice such cases are rare. After a disaster, the company’s senior executives usually leave and go to work for another company. Society, the general public, is left with the damages and the company simply continues with its activities under new management.

Enlightened businesspeople hope that “corporate social responsibility” will help root out the causes of such disasters. They hope a moral revival will remove this ugly outgrowth of modern capitalism. Even though every initiative encouraging the business community to take a greater degree of responsibility deserves all our support, this new trend will never be completely successful. That’s because—as Milton Friedman, who won the Nobel Prize for Economics, once said very succinctly—the only social responsibility for a company is to make a profit for its shareholders. In other words, as long as limited liability for shareholders remains the law, corporations will never fully embrace social responsibility. Corporate social responsibility does little to change the principle aim of a corporation: protecting its shareholders from the consequences of the company’s dealings.

The vast majority of corporations will become responsible players in society only if the rules of economic trade are changed. The transformation of the business community can begin only if the rules of business law are changed to include responsibilities for companies that go beyond ensuring profits for shareholders.

It’s a remarkable turn of history that turned business ventures into institutions that carry less responsibility to society than ordinary people do. Up to the sixteenth century the Chinese and Arabs were the most successful traders in the world. They were wealthier and had better ships than their European counterparts. When the first European, Vasco de Gama, rounded the Cape of Good Hope in 1497 his African hosts—who were accustomed to visits from large Chinese trading ships—wondered where he had found the nerve to set out to sea with such pathetic ships. But in the decades that followed, the Chinese lost their advantage. Why? Because in Europe discovered an extremely effective system of generating income: the corporation.

The corporation, a business firm with shareholders, is without a doubt the engine of modern capitalism. Nearly all economic progress of recent centuries, most wealth and prosperity, almost all inventions have been realized with the help of the corporate structure for business. Without these corporations there would be no planes, no cars and no fuelling stations to fill them up with gas. The foundation for this success was established in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The world’s first multinational was Holland’s Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie (VOC, or Dutch East Indies Company), founded in 1602.

Dutch merchants back then had discovered they needed more investments to finance risky trade expeditions to Asia. Up to that time, companies were partnerships. The people involved in a firm made joint investments and ran their company together. Managers and owners were one and the same. That concept constrained the size of investments: there was a limit to the number of partners who could successfully work together. The new model created by Dutch tradesmen involved detaching the company’s ownership and management. There were shareholders, who invested money but didn’t go to sea and weren’t involved in other company dealings. Thanks to this structure, the Dutch VOC was able to raise a lot more money from a greater number of people to pursue its plans.

But there was one obstacle. The expeditions the company and its counterparts in England and other countries embarked upon were high risk, comparable in our era to space exploration. Ships often sank during the lengthy voyages. In other words, major investments could be easily lost and—even worse—shareholders could be held liable for big losses when a storm in the Pacific or a pirate raid meant suppliers couldn’t be paid or a shipment didn’t make it to buyers. At that time it was commonplace to transfer debts from one generation to the next until they were settled. This severely curtailed investments. Shareholders weren’t terribly enthusiastic about investing in companies in which they had no influence and that could burden them—and their offspring—with debts. VOC’s solution? Limited liability. Investors and shareholders could never lose more than their investment. And that creative and lucrative system marked by a limited risk of loss and an unlimited opportunity for profit still exists today—with huge consequences for all of society.

Of course in practice, individuals are rarely subject to unlimited liability. Even if you are found liable for some expensive mistake, you don’t have to pay for the damages you incurred if you don’t have the money. Which is why insurance is required for certain activities like driving a car. Nonetheless, individuals generally comply with social and legal rules because they expect others to do the same. People who always cut in line, drive recklessly and take advantage of others’ generosity usually face the social consequences of their selfish behavior. In contrast, however, it appears a selfish company that focuses on maximizing profit and transfers the resulting costs to society is considered quite normal.

In the imperial era, such “corporate egotism” served a general, public interest. Plundering of colonies was considered to be in the general interest of Dutch prosperity—the fact that this was a reprehensible vision is another story. The government granted companies like the Dutch VOC the right to confer limited liability on their shareholders, as long as it was clear the company served the public interest. The worst risk back then was a sunken or seized ship and the limited liability of shareholders involved financial debt. Nowadays there are significant other interests at stake—including environmental and public health. Corporate policies and actions can affect generations to come. Companies dump toxic waste that ends up in the food chain. Pharmaceutical manufacturers introduce powerful medicines on the market that will have consequences 100 years from now. Tanker ships carrying oil or chemicals can destroy natural areas for decades. Dangerous nuclear power and chemical plants are located near densely populated cities, turning mistakes into full-scale disaster. Today’s company is potentially one of the most dangerous forms of human activity. The list of possible accidents is long, the responsibilities are huge—endlessly greater than in the time of the Dutch VOC—but the legal form of incorporation has remained unchanged since the seventeenth century.

In fact things have gotten even easier for the business community. Dutch VOC executives had to negotiate with the government to limit the liability of their shareholders, while the modern businessperson simply goes to a lawyer’s office and fills out a form. Anyone can set up a company for a fee. The days are long gone when business owners must negotiate with the authorities regarding what would be done in return for the right to limited liability. More to the point, no one feels they are being granted special privileges when they set up a corporation.

Because all this has become so automatic, companies have become much more than a group of people jointly carrying out an activity. They are a kind of “social technology” with an independent existence. A company can continue when its founders die. Management comes and goes and the same is true for employees. A listing on the stock exchange means ownership of a company becomes diffuse. Parts of a company can be sold. Companies can merge. Despite all these changes, the company “lives on” as long as enough money is being earned to pay the bills. But that independent company has no soul and feels no pain. When a corporation damages something or someone, it does not express regret or say it’s sorry. Companies have the same rights as a person, but absolutely none of the obligations, moral and otherwise.

Which is why running a company this was not business-as-usual until recently. In the nineteenth century, the concept of limited liability was seen more as a weakness than a strength because the involvement of the owners was not assured. In the 1820s Sir Robert Peel, then the wealthiest British industrialist said: “It is impossible for a mill at any distance to be managed unless it is under the direction of a partner or superintendent who has an interest in the success of the business.” In the new world of America, companies with limited liability were once viewed with great suspicion. The corporate structure was accepted for particular projects such as building the railways, which was considered in the public interest, but not as a general form. The governor of New Hampshire, Henry Hubbard, stated categorically in 1842: “There is no good reason against this principle. In transactions which occur between man and man there exists a direct responsibility—and when capital is concentrated… beyond the means of single individuals, the liability is continued.”

Nonetheless, in 1830 Massachusetts had decreed that a company was not required to be involved in public works in order to be granted the privilege of limited liability. Connecticut followed in 1837 and then the whole process snowballed. In a letter written in 1864 Abraham Lincoln warned that “corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow …until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic is destroyed.”

Strong words, but for those who recognize the painful gap between rich and poor in today’s world and the enormous negative impact of modern business on nature, Lincoln stands as a visionary. Greed unleashed a monster. The corporation became simply too lucrative as a profit and wealth machine. Now, nearly a century and a half later, we can barely imagine how the world would have look without companies with limited liability. It goes without saying that there has also been a lot of positive change thanks to corporations. And yet we must face the facts: the old-fashioned limited liability business structure is no longer tenable in our time. If the influence of companies on society and on people’s daily lives is not curtailed, the liability of their owners cannot remain limited.

What would the world be like if shareholders were once again held liable for the actions of the companies they partly own? Scrapping limited liability is a drastic, but extremely promising measure in the battle against the excesses of modern capitalism. If it were eliminated, shareholders would invest their money more carefully. They wouldn’t only consider a company’s profitability, but also the way it is run. They would choose companies with a good track record in the area of people and nature. And they would also want to know who the other shareholders were, because they would be sharing a joint responsibility.

In addition, shareholders would no longer spread their investments over many different companies, but instead concentrate them so as to be able to focus on the company for which they were responsible. They would be deeply involved in the company and keep an eye on management and company operations. They would want to know if the company was using child labor. They would want to know how waste water was being purified before it is dumped. Getting rid of limited liability would force shareholders to take responsibility for the activities in their company. Once again, people would be responsible for people. And the lack of responsibility that goes hand in hand with the current corporate structure would disappear.

Critics will wonder who would dare make the crucial, large-scale investments needed for economic advancement if there was no shield from large risks. It’s a relevant question but the challenge is less daunting that would appear. Eliminating limited liability would certainly not have a major impact on major companies, which have the greatest effect on society. Lawrence Mitchell, a law professor at George Washington University in Washington D.C. includes some interesting calculations in his book Corporate Irresponsibility. He takes the example of Microsoft and writes (in 2001) that over five billion shares (5,355,377,000 to be exact) of the company are in circulation. Imagine that Microsoft goes bankrupt and leaves ten billion U.S. dollars in debts—an enormous amount. This would mean that the shareholders would have to contribute two dollars each to settle the debts and repair the damage to society. Mitchell writes: “It’s at least worth asking whether this is too high a price to pay for the elimination of limited liability if in fact the result would be more responsible, long-term corporate behavior.”

Microsoft is a company that can incite a great deal of disquiet and create significant financial damage, but software is not directly life threatening. Take another example: Union Carbide, which, due to negligent maintenance and mismanagement, caused a disastrous gas leak in Bhopal, India in 1984, where 22,000 people lost their lives. After a great deal of legal back and forth, Union Carbide finally paid the Indian government $470 million U.S. in damages. A pittance, given the number of people killed. In addition to those killed, at least 100,000 were wounded (in comparison: the woman in the Chevrolet Malibu case was awarded around one billion U.S. dollars). At the time there were 155 million Union Carbide shares in circulation. It staggers the imagination to learn that Union Carbide’s shareholders were paid a total of nearly $25 U.S. in dividends per share from 1984 to 2001, when the company was acquired by Dow Chemical. Even if half that amount went to Bhopal, the lives of the wounded and next of kin would be drastically different today.

Might the Bhopal drama have been averted if limited liability for companies had not existed? Yes. Just as the introduction of limited liability has led to irresponsible and inhumane dealings, it is easy to see that it’s elimination would lead to a substantial increase in responsible, humane and attentive behavior in society. Changing just one rule can restore the humanity and justice that is currently so clearly lacking in capitalism. Once again, fathers and managers will be the same people—and all our backyards will be clean.

Sources: John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge, The Company: A Short History of a Revolutionary Idea (Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2003); Lawrence E. Mitchell, Corporate Irresponsibility, America’s Newest Export (Yale University Press, 2001); Marjorie Kelly, The Divine Right of Capital: Dethroning the Corporate Aristocracy (Berrett Koehler, 2001); Dean Ritz (ed.): Defying Corporations, Defining Democracy (Apex Press, 2001).

This article appeared in Ode issue: 20

--------------------

Saturday, January 01, 2005

take a chance and face the wind...

--------------------

2005 certainly started off on a curious note...

"curious" being a bad euphemism for sketchy and disastrous...


all i can say is that i'm sorry for what happened, both for the things that were my fault and even those things that were out of my control... i suppose an addendum to my previous post will be a determined resolution to (continue to) practise personal integrity in all my interactions... and to learn from the mistakes of the past so (again) as not to have to "re-solve" the same problems in the future...

here's hoping the rest of the year only gets better!

i can't wait for life to get back to "normal" on monday...


"maybe we need to let go of who we were...
to become who will be..." -- Carrie Bradshaw

--------------------

Current mood: tired
Current music: Brand New Life (from Who's the Boss?)