5 ms·

Corporations are just a group of people with legal status. How many people beyond which you won't accept that argument? 1? 10?

landryraccoon 10y ago
Not the OP but: A corporation crosses the line when it has a single person who is protected from the legal actions of the corporation by statue (i.e., a shareholder). At this point the quasi-libertarian theory of a corporation as "just a bunch of guys" completely breaks down as there is a special legal protection for shareholders. A corporation isn't a partnership. A partnership is just a group of people who have agreed to do business together. All of them are jointly legally liable for the criminal actions and liabilities of the corporation. A corporation, on the other hand, has legal protection for shareholders. A VC can bankroll eMurder.com and the VC isn't liable when the officers of the corporation go on a shooting spree. The options are : Investors get no special legal protection, and creditors and the law can pursue them and their personal assets for the liabilities and crimes of the corporation OR a corporation really is a special instrument of the State, and only has particular standing because we as a society believe the corporate veil provides social benefits.
- kefka 10y ago
  The state can still attack people in the corporate structure individually. For example, if VP Jones decides to go execute a competitor, VP Jones can be brought to trial for murder. But if that company decides to, say dump toxic chemicals in the waterways, it's only a few hundred thousand dollars, versus millions to dispose of them. Or if the company decides to refuse doing a recall because the cost of recall doesn't equal or exceed its liability, well, too bad. Corporations can, and do, a great deal of harm. And many of those behaviors are collective across multiple levels and people. But yet, the most we do is a hand-slap of a fine.
  - witty_username 10y ago
    > Or if the company decides to refuse doing a recall because the cost of recall doesn't equal or exceed its liability, well, too bad. Is that wrong (I think that's what you're implying)? I'm serious. More money can be used to make things safer, but there's a point where the benefits become marginal compared to the costs.
  - smsm42 10y ago
    > Corporations can, and do, a great deal of harm. People can, and do, a great deal of harm. There's nothing in corporation that is not actions of people consisting it. Corporations are not able to do anything by themselves, there's always some person that takes specific action. "Company" never decides to dump toxic chemicals, there's always a person deciding to do it, and there's always a person doing it. At least until we invent AI, then we may have something else. Until then, there's only people all the way down.

landryraccoon 10y ago

Not the OP but: A corporation crosses the line when it has a single person who is protected from the legal actions of the corporation by statue (i.e., a shareholder). At this point the quasi-libertarian theory of a corporation as "just a bunch of guys" completely breaks down as there is a special legal protection for shareholders. A corporation isn't a partnership. A partnership is just a group of people who have agreed to do business together. All of them are jointly legally liable for the criminal actions and liabilities of the corporation. A corporation, on the other hand, has legal protection for shareholders. A VC can bankroll eMurder.com and the VC isn't liable when the officers of the corporation go on a shooting spree. The options are : Investors get no special legal protection, and creditors and the law can pursue them and their personal assets for the liabilities and crimes of the corporation OR a corporation really is a special instrument of the State, and only has particular standing because we as a society believe the corporate veil provides social benefits.

kefka 10y ago
The state can still attack people in the corporate structure individually. For example, if VP Jones decides to go execute a competitor, VP Jones can be brought to trial for murder. But if that company decides to, say dump toxic chemicals in the waterways, it's only a few hundred thousand dollars, versus millions to dispose of them. Or if the company decides to refuse doing a recall because the cost of recall doesn't equal or exceed its liability, well, too bad. Corporations can, and do, a great deal of harm. And many of those behaviors are collective across multiple levels and people. But yet, the most we do is a hand-slap of a fine.
- witty_username 10y ago
  > Or if the company decides to refuse doing a recall because the cost of recall doesn't equal or exceed its liability, well, too bad. Is that wrong (I think that's what you're implying)? I'm serious. More money can be used to make things safer, but there's a point where the benefits become marginal compared to the costs.
- smsm42 10y ago
  > Corporations can, and do, a great deal of harm. People can, and do, a great deal of harm. There's nothing in corporation that is not actions of people consisting it. Corporations are not able to do anything by themselves, there's always some person that takes specific action. "Company" never decides to dump toxic chemicals, there's always a person deciding to do it, and there's always a person doing it. At least until we invent AI, then we may have something else. Until then, there's only people all the way down.