|
mmcplaid2086 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
I agree, but I don't think it's likely within the current legal framework. The whole system is tumorous and parasitical. It all needs to go.
mmcplaid2086 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
They certainly do when the company's shareholders put up a fuss or withdraw their capital. Of course, the careful, long-term investment of capital has been largely eroded by the inflation and artificially cheap credit stimulated by the Federal Reserve.
johnedwards1968 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
I think that's doable even without corporations to be totally honest. Nothing stopping people from working together in a framework that has nothing to do with 'creating a person with limited liability'!
johnedwards1968 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
It seems to me that most CEO's don't even bear responsibility for poor financial performance. I know this is the fault of the Board, and it reminds me of government in a way. Politicians will ALWAYS vote themselves a raise, and so will the Board of Directors. That's why there's been runaway compensation. Sorry, I know I'm rambling a bit here. lol
mmcplaid2086 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Although we ultimately share a similar standpoint in the sense that my philosophy is that there shouldn't even BE a government, so in that case there would be no entity to grant incorporation... but if a company along with dispute resolution organizations decided to work out something similar for the efforts of their own dispute mediations, they could.
mmcplaid2086 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
I agree with you that when someone bears no responsibility for their decisions, they are more likely to make poor decisions. But just because a CEO doesn't get sent to jail for an injustice committed by his/her corporation (albeit depending on what the injustice is) doesn't mean he/she doesn't bear any responsibility for the situation.The "legal rights of a person" thing is really just a legal formality. It sounds outrageous, but in terms of legal operations it's really not.
mmcplaid2086 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
...had they been limited to the assets/money of the individual, or few individuals who were directly responsible for whatever injurious incident occurred. The assets of the company cannot be seized, BUT the ownership of shares can be seized. This ultimately creates a situation where the corporation can be punished for its actions without going so far as to keep people from investing in the first place, or at all, for fear of too much unknown risk.
mmcplaid2086 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Being able to incorporate encourages capital investment by insuring limited liability for stockholders (i.e. you can only lose as much money as you put in) and by protecting personal assets. Declaring a corporation as a legal "person" collectivizes liability in the sense that the whole company is financially responsible for the actions taken on the behalf of all its employees. That means that a person could file a lawsuit and end up claiming a lot more money than they otherwise would have...
johnedwards1968 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Why disincentive? I'm not being a smartass, I really don't understand what you're getting at.That's fair enough. I respect your philosophical viewpoint. I think when someone makes decisions and bears no responsibility, they make poor decisions. That's what's gotten us into the mess we're in now.My philosophy is that the government should not be able to create an entity out of thin air with all the legal rights of a person. To be honest they probably have more rights!
mmcplaid2086 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Not letting people incorporate isn't going to get rid of government corruption though. All it's going to do is create disincentive to risk capital for new business practices. Furthermore, as I noted before, from a sheer philosophical standpoint, why should CEOs have to personally bear the responsibility of all the employees within a company? |
