|
|
|
|
Baseball Primer Newsblog— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
Monday, July 02, 2012
My favorite play in baseball is the second base steal. In the play, the base runner watches the pitch, and at just the right moment, he sprints toward second. The catcher snatches the pitch, springs up and rockets the ball to the second baseman who snags it and tries to tag the runner as he slides into the base. As the dust clears, all eyes are on the second base umpire who, in a split second, calls the runner safe or out. When the play is over, the players dust themselves off, and the game goes on.
Some on the field may disagree with the umpire’s call. However, the umpire’s decision is final, and arguing can get you ejected. To stay in the game, great teams simply adjust their strategy based on the umpire’s call.
|
Support BBTF
Thanks to
Don Malcolm
for his generous support.
Bookmarks
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
Newsblog: Pinstriped Bible: Albin: Is Ichiro done? (19 - 2:27am, May 18)Last: Ray (RDP)Newsblog: BBTF SOFTBALL GAME IN NEW YORK--AUG 17 (261 - 2:23am, May 18)Last: The Yankee ClapperNewsblog: BPro: Listen to What the Heyman Said (178 - 1:59am, May 18)Last: villageidiomNewsblog: OMNICHATTER for May 17, 2013 (162 - 1:34am, May 18)Last: Joey B. has ignited his October #NatitudeNewsblog: Beer and Loathing: Taking Stock of the Best and Worst Ballpark Suds | Extra Mustard - SI.com (135 - 1:21am, May 18)Last: TuqueNewsblog: Studying the art of pitch framing by catchers such as Francisco Cervelli, Chris Stewart, Jose Molina, and others - Grantland (22 - 12:53am, May 18)Last: cardsfanboyNewsblog: Dunson: The Campaign For Mariano Rivera To Start The All-Star Game Is A Backhanded Compliment (31 - 12:31am, May 18)Last: cardsfanboyNewsblog: MLB: Talking past, present and future with Ryne Sandberg (12 - 12:31am, May 18)Last: botemanNewsblog: [OTP-May] Politico: Congressional baseball game, May 1, 1926 (3201 - 12:15am, May 18)Last: The Yankee ClapperNewsblog: OT: The Soccer Thread, May 2013 (777 - 12:05am, May 18)Last: puckNewsblog: MLB draft bonus pool up 8.2 percent (6 - 11:43pm, May 17)Last: Walt DavisNewsblog: Josh Hamilton's allergies not linked to drug use, doctors say (27 - 9:49pm, May 17)Last: The Yankee ClapperNewsblog: MLB hoping for large replay expansion in 2014 (47 - 9:33pm, May 17)Last: Bruce MarkusenNewsblog: TB Times: Crash victim works to forgive former Ray Bush (41 - 9:18pm, May 17)Last: RobertMachemerNewsblog: Powerball odds? Juan Pierre's homers are long shots, too (6 - 8:16pm, May 17)Last: bobm
|
|
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Rights can't be designated. That's stupid.
The government currently argues that, and I am part of a large contingent of humans who would like to change the government's mind about such stupidity. Your argument isn't based on governmental rulings, though, Dan. You're arguing that a fictive legal entity has natural, existential rights. You're arguing that an artifact of legal writing has human rights. It's like arguing that your blog post has rights.
I didn't say anything about size there. I said great, unlimited *power*. That's a criticism of function - I clearly don't think the actual functions the government would be performing should be unlimited.
It also differs if we're talking philosophy or what one would actually do. As I noted before, I'm clearly a libertarian and would like us to be able to achieve a libertarian society some day, but from a practical matter, I'm far more interested into stopping our society from moving farther away from the goal rather than instantly transform us to one. As a dictator or just plain someone elected to office, my actions wouldn't be all that far from that of a generic DLC Democrat.
If the government declares the sun to be a star, its declaration has no impact on whether it is, in fact, a star.
Services rendered to the Union during the late unpleasantness.
Polk was easily the worst corps commander in the Confederacy, Hood's actions while in command during the Atlanta campaign probably shortened the war (Yes, excellent division commander. Probably the third best among the Confederates. Behind Cleburne and A. P. Hill). Bragg was a good trainer and a lousy battlefield commander. Again, his actions probably shortened the war.
Wait, so now what matters is what you're "keen on" rather than what, like, exists in the reality we're talking about?
To say that Microsoft does not have rights infringes on the right of Bill Gates to freely designate the use of his rights.
So? You're crying about state tyranny when the state has granted Microsoft special privileges not accorded to Bill Gates. In exchange for those privileges, Microsoft also accepts limits on its rights that Bill Gates does not have. If Bill Gates does not like that, he is still free to exercise his rights without doing so through the fictitious entity the state has recognized as "Microsoft." WTF is your problem with this arrangement? The state should only recognize and grant special privilege to corporations on the assumption that it's socially beneficial and desirable to do so. Their reason for being begins and ends with the extent to which their fiction is a useful one.
The people that cooperate to make BTF happen certainly have the right to cooperate with the people that make MurrayChass.com happen, if both parties should voluntarily agree that the have mutual goals that they should work together to achieve.
Dan, how does a corporation come into being?
No, but when the government says a Microsoft shareholder isn't liable for Microsoft's torts, breaches of contract and the like, the shareholder isn't.
Can you say that again in English, please?
Well, yes, Dan. The PEOPLE that "cooperate" have those rights. The corporations they have formed for the purposes of certain business activities don't.
You really can't grasp the basic distinction between people and legal artifacts? (Much less the distinction between "cooperating" and "forming a corporation."?)
And again, if Libertarians would actually bother to acknowledge the existence of 20th century philosophy, we wouldn't keep going around in these circles. There Is No Spoon.
Did...did you just write fanfic about websites falling in love?
Tart it up, throw in some spanking games and call it 50 Shades of Nay.
Sure they do - I have the right to delegate particular rights to a third party under certain conditions that I lay out. I designated upon the group of people who voluntarily own Disney the right to republish what I write under the conditions that I [edited]. Whatever they do with the rights I have designated them, so long as they fulfill their ends of the contract, is their business.
No, but when the government says a Microsoft shareholder isn't liable for Microsoft's torts, breaches of contract, and the like, the shareholder isn't.
Again, I don't particular agree with the automatic assumption of limited liability, either. Again, limited liability should be a point of negotiation in contracts, not an assumption.
Bill Gates designates Microsoft as a group of people designated to exercise a specific right of his. If a government announces that Microsoft cannot designate that specific right of his, it's stepping on Bill Gates's rights.
Those words don't mean what you think they mean.
I'm sure members of the Muslim Brotherhood would love to "deep penetration" Michele Bachmann. Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all day!"
So why would a corporation exist, if not to protect investors from the liabilities incurred by the company?
I can experience the sun through sense perception without any legal mediation. It is a natural body. Can you see a corporation? Experience it without the mediation of state laws? You can't. It only exists in relation to the state and to laws.
I agree with SugarBear plenty, but I've never seen any tendency from SBB to waste posts giving high-five and well saids to those that agree with him.
You're not really part of the official circle jerk, either, as some of those guys actually post things with content. Content that I disagree with, of course, but actual arguments. You're more of an associate circle-jerker, sent out to pick up Red Bull and 8-balls.
Are we still in the realm of "because Dan says so" or are you eventually planning to advance an argument here. The statement as worded is an assertion. Bill Gates can designate Microsoft to do anything he wants-- until the state grants it standing, it can't actually do anything. Unless, again, you're arguing that legal fictions have natural rights.
It's one of many reasons. Just because Christians says that God is responsible for my lunch doesn't mean that I have to thank God for eating my lunch.
There would be no (or exceptionally few) corporations without the legal protections granted in the law.
Except there are lots and lots of corporations with unlimited liability (partnerships, sole proprietorships) so we know that's not true. Groups of people that make up corporations would simply negotiate limited liability in their contracts. Companies write contracts that define the limit of their liability *all the time*. This would simply add another time that they have to do it.
Those aren't corporations. Those are companies.
Thus proving that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were fascists.
That the government has designated itself the power to grant the existence of a corporation does not mean that a corporation could not exist without the power of government. Just like marriage can exist without the government taking the power to declare a marriage so, so can a corporation.
Given that I've said several times now that I think Andy's wrong about wanting to shoot anyone, I don't see how I'm "defending his behavior" at all. I'm just saying that Dan's 2MPH car hypothetical was dumb.
What do you expect me to say? I don't fellate the Founding Fathers.
Yes, in this respect, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were fascists.
OK, Sheridan would have been game for whatever level of harshness was desired and neither Grant nor Sherman would have done more than register disapproval. But their opinion mattered.
And #1499 A military occupation is very expensive. Particularly since any attempt to change the system would have been violently opposed. Basically "the troubles" (IE Northern Ireland at its worst) across the entire South. ( not sure how it would have played out in the various territories)
I agree with your summary. A century of segregation and "re-enslavement" seems accurate. I just think that it's as good as could likely be achieved. An awful lot of groundwork had to be done first.
And people are more than free to call something a corporation even if it has no legal rights. I fail to see what your point is.
Organizations of individual people requiring the government to form a legal entity is a product of the government being more powerful than those individuals are, not any inherent right of a government to sanctify the relationship.
And how would that work? They could call themselves a "corporation", but what good would it do them?
Likewise, with a marriage, two people can call themselves married if they wish, without government endorsement. But all that does is allow the people in the marriage to say it is so; everyone else makes up their own mind how to recognize the union.
What benefit would that be to a corporation?
If I have a gun and you do not, and I take your wallet, I'm not granting you the privilege of retaining your life, I'm stealing your wallet.
Again, why would you form a corporation at all if not for legal protections?
We already have the right to choose to do or not do business with a corporation. If I buy an ipod, I'm recognizing the right of Apple to sell me an iPod. If I don't, it doesn't matter whether I consider Apple a corporation, a group of people, a magical submarine, or a fruit basket.
So if a corporation owes me money when it declares bankruptcy and I get only a fraction of what's owed to me, I have the right to track down investors and demand that they repay the rest of the debt?
This is completely unresponsive to the question asked.
The ability to more effectively use your rights, through collective designation
And again, limited liability would still exist, it would just be enshrined differently.
I'm pretty sure the unlimited donations to PACs in the election cycle is a direct result of CU, but I'll defer to the lawyers (excepting David and Ray.)
Sure it could. But you're missing the part where other people are compelled, by the state, to recognize its existence. Without the state there to recognize the existence of the corporation, its power is severely limited, to the point where it may as well not exist.
You're refusing to recognize that you want the state to compel others to recognize the fiction. Without the state there to compel this recognition, there's no Disney to own Mickey Mouse. As a person exercising his free speech rights, I can write stories about Mickey doing all sorts of unsavory things, and no authority can compel me to stop, because the entity known as Disney has no legally-recognized capacity for action or ownership. You want the state to enforce your very particular notion of rights, which favor very particular notions of ownership and power, on your say-so alone.
Sure I did. If I want to interact with that collective, I'll likely need to acknowledge what they call themselves, in order to interact with them. If I don't wish to interact with that collective, it doesn't matter if I acknowledge them or not. People already make countless decisions about who they interact with base on what they know about the other entity - that's why I'm more likely to buy a car manufactured by Honda than Biff's Auto.
I think I see what you're getting at, but the problem is that not all liablities of the group can be negotiated so as to affix only to the group. What if an Apple employee driving on company business looks down at his iPod and hits a school bus with a dozen gifted kids, killing them all? With the special privileges its granted, only Apple in its corporate form is liable for that; without the corporate form, all of the shareholders would be, jointly and severally.
How would you "effectively use your rights" without the legal protections at issue?
Even this doesn't trump the great Customer Service War.
I am not surprised that something being able to exist without being created by government is something that would make zero sense to a progressive. Yes, this is pointless, like all these idiotic political threads.
You'll have to describe this one to me.
If I can sit through the ####### Ring cycle, Boris Gudonov, and and every symphony of Mahler, you'd better believe I have the patience to go through every damned post of this thread and find these so I can determine the validity of this high-five crap you guys can't get enough of talking about. From both sides.
Yes, this is pointless, like all these idiotic political threads.
Disagree.
What? Again, this is simply not a response to the question asked. The question was, what benefit would it be for a corporation to call themselves a corporation without the legal protections that define a corporation?
Your problem here is that you seem to be conflating the terms "collective" and "corporation". But they're not the same thing! No one's arguing against the right to assemble and for that assembly to do business together.
sure you do, they also have the right to slam the door in your face and call the police for trespassing.
What you can't do is sue them (ok you can, but you are gonna lose)
We would still have legal protections, as a matter of the contracts governing our arrangement. Limited liability is granted millions of times in millions of places every day - just because it's automatically granted by the government in one context does not preclude people from continuing to negotiate limited liability in that context, as is done a multitude of times.
In post #1721, I specifically distinguished between natural bodies that exist regardless of the legal situation in which they are found, and legal fictions like corporations which only exist in relation to the legal statutes which enable and privilege them.
You decided, nonetheless, that it would be funny to radically mischaracterize my argument in order to make an half-joke about progressives. This is why I am done with talking to you today. Whether you are acting this way entirely in bad faith, or out of some fit of pique that will pass, it is entirely obvious that further engagement will be pointless.
MCoA out.
Not if the investors did not agree to assume liability as condition of investment into the collective.
How is this corporate speech any different from J Random BigCompany?
High five! Very well said.
There's a reason why people distinguish between freedom of speech and freedom of the press. The press is a unique sort of organization in the world. (Or at least, it was.)
A corporation is only a legal fiction because the government demands it be so.
See I don't know if:
A: Dan is trolling;
B: Does not know what a corporation is;
C: Has become Humpty Dumpty: "When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.";
D: Knows full well what a corporation IS, but doesn't agree.
That's it perhaps
Again, Dan, how do corporations come into existence?
Drugs.
Motive for free speech is irrelevant to justification of free speech.
What would a corporation look like if the government didn't demand that it be a creature of law?
By application to government, because government has declared that only it has the power. Just like gay marriages are marriages, no matter what the government says - a contract between two freely consenting parties.
Which would only apply to companies that have the power to limit liability to investors.
Which is something that they'd need the government to enforce.
I damn well know what a corporation is, by government decree. I was asked a question about how I felt about limited liability. I said that I'm not keen on it. Clearly, we're talking in theoreticals. I darn well know that what I believe is not law.
Now you are just trolling, a corporation is a legal fiction because the government created it in the first place- it exists because a government got together and said, "Hey we need a mechanism to make business more efficient, I have a neighbor who is working on a project I'd like to invest in, but if it goes belly up I don't want to get sued and lose everything... no I don't want to loan him money and get interest back, I want to share in profits..."
There were companies and organizations before there were corporations- people always could and did from them- but corporatios are creatures of government
Libertarians Alternative to Government Action
I have no problem with government enforcing contracts. Liability would simply be subject to the contractual arrangement concerning liability rather than what the government declares liability to be.
See, that's not really what a marriage is, either - you're highly romanticizing the term. A marriage is a social/legal institution that affords privileges upon the people in the union, and it's always been that way. And as I'm sure you know, marriage for most of its history has only occasionally been an issue of "free consent" for the involved parties anyway. It's not something that fell out of the sky for free people to enjoy until governments starting mucking around with it, and in fact quite the opposite. It's an authoritarian institution.
To be clear, I'm not disagreeing with you in practical terms - I support gay marriage, too. I don't care if a group of 50 people get together and call themselves "married". That's their call. But it's not a "marriage" in any common use of the word, because "marriage" implies a set of legal rights and privileges that those 50 people do not get under current law.
But again, the members of the collective have many more potential liablities than breaches of contract. The breaches of contract can be negotiated away, albeit very inefficiently, but the others can't be.
But you've already got what you want -- any group of people can join together and create a business that isn't subject to corporate laws. They just don't get to call themselves a corporation. Is the name the important thing?
They invented the word, not the concept. From the time that one guy had fire and one guy had raw food, the concept has existed. That it's easiest to have a corporation when the guys with all the weapons agree with it is irrelevant. We're a modern society and only in the last sliver of our existence have we recognized basic human rights. Now, it's time for us to take the next step, and recognize rights of groups of people without the blessing of the people with the weapons.
No, I want to know how they come into existence IN YOUR WORLD.
And lots of things probably *shouldn't* be. If a cigarette company committed fraud when lying about the effects of their product, why *should* any person who knew about it have any sort of limited liability?
Again, you're conflating the concepts of "collective" and "corporation". And no one is arguing against the former in any way. The only reason this discussion is ongoing is because you insist on redefining a word to something it doesn't mean - and would have no meaning if it meant what you want it to mean.
And for most of history, people have enslaved others. I was directly asked about my philosophical beliefs, so why are you acting shocked that I'm outlining my first principles, rather than the practical mess we have as an imperfect society?
If a corporation owes me money, and I don't agree to limit their liabilities, then I also wouldn't be bound by the corporation's agreement to limit the liabilities of their investors unless there are laws that do so.
So a corporation's agreement with an investor to limit their liability means nothing.
Mutual consent.
Did you mean "Microsoft cannot exercise", rather than "Microsoft cannot designate"?
I think I know what you're saying if it's the former, but if it's the latter I'm just totally at sea.
I'm not sure it's the founders who wrote specifically the distinction between speech and press into their bill of rights that were on the drugs, man.
Okay. Fine. You're using words in ways that have no meaning. You're applying Dan's Own Private Language to conversations that are occurring outside of your head. It's no wonder you can't convince others of your points of view and thus get frustrated and lash out.
No, but I have no problem giving those investors, in turn, a claim on the rest of the corporation that was stupid enough to grant you unlimited liability as a condition of the loan.
Oh please. Everyone here is outlining their own principles. What of it?
Sam's a founding father fetishist now? This idiotic thread has been worthwhile for a second reason, then.
Well, one reason may be that the person who knew might not be a shareholder. Many corporations are managed by people who don't own shares in the company and there is no requirement that even senior officers own shares to be granted the power to bind and otherwise govern the corporation.
How would you treat manager non-owners in your world?
I was asked a question. I answered it.
If I asked you if you liked cocaine and you stated that you did like cocaine, my pointing out for you that the government says that cocaine use is illegal would be completely pointless.
If people don't like to hear the answers, they shouldn't have asked the questions.
Add another column to your "Dan can't read" tally.
That sounds like chaos. It might make sense to have laws in place to wind down a conflict like that. You know, something that made liability clear in such cases.
Not That There's Anything Wrong With That
In which case (assuming for the example that one person knew) than that person would be the one to sue, not the corporation.
How would you treat manager non-owners in your world?
People with contractual arrangements with the corporation.
But if you asked me if I thought cocaine should be legal, and I said it should, that is rather pointful in a conversation about drug policy.
No worse the chaos resulting in suddenly explicitly ending corporate personhood. Or the chaos caused by suddenly uprooting and arbitrarily deciding that a few unelected, unanswerable bureaucrats to remake the health care for a third of a billion people by whim. Or suddenly telling California to release thousands of prisoners. Or letting government decide what speech is or is not allowed for hundreds of millions of people. Since when did progressives give a #### about chaos? Progressivism suddenly being concerned about consequences when a baseball writer turns out to be libertarian is a curious place to plant the flag of order.
You're counting your inability to use words in a way intelligible to others as the first, right?
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main