3 ms·

The modern American take on a corporation is the existent majority of successful corporations. That's certainly how casinos operate. I'm not saying this is the

by imagist 10y ago

The modern American take on a corporation is the existent majority of successful corporations. That's certainly how casinos operate. I'm not saying this is the kind of corporation I want--on the contrary, I despise that such organizations are allowed to exist. But saying that corporations shouldn't act immorally when they can make more money by acting immorally is like saying termites shouldn't eat wood. It's the nature of corporations to seek profit at all cost and if you don't want that, you don't want a corporation, at least in the sense that corporations exist today.

SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
Again, I disagree. That's not how the majority of corporations exist today, nor reflects how most people believe they should operate. It's the behavior of a small percentage of large corporations, largely supported by people like you throwing their hands up and going "well, that's just the way of it!" Expecting corporations to behave ethically is no different than expecting people to behave ethically -- and we should do the same thing about both situations, establish rules and police them. It's nothing at all like termites and wood: it's a voluntary choice made by people, not a biological imperative from an unthinking creature. It's the policing that has collapsed, because people like you have bought the propaganda that we should accept and normalize such behavior from corportations.
- EdHominem 10y ago
  The laws exist to remove legal culpability. It's not throwing our hands up, it's recognizing the source of the problem. Until we fix the laws, the entire point of a corporation is to diffuse legal responsibility. Yes, it needs to change, but it can't change from the ignorant position that we're fixing leaks and will eventually have a waterproof system. It's intentionally setup to be this way and nothing short of an entire overhauling will fix it.
  - SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
    The profit-driven focus hinges on one interpretation of a court case, and nothing at all to do with liability shielding from corporate status. Similarly, the punishments doled out aren't constrained by matter of law from being effective, but rather, by the dynamic of the system and the willingness of the public to accept it from judges and prosecutors. My point was that you've been propagandized to believe that the law permits the current system, when really the present system is likely illegal already and instead results from the lack of political will to replace corrupt government officials who enable poor corporate behavior. The system would be much better if we actually enforced it... Which you guys refuse to demand from officials, because you've bought in to the notion that what they're doing is legal.
    - EdHominem 10y ago
      > The system would be much better if we actually enforced it. Right. But ... > Which you guys refuse to demand from officials, because you've bought in to the notion that what they're doing is legal. No. Many of us demand that but nobody listens because they know they don't have to. Realize that making the laws unenforceable is the intent. This is what I mean by patching vs replacing. Let's say we managed to get a few hundred bankers arrested for 2008. Then what? They change the rules slightly and next time we don't. Instead we need to repeal all limited liability for any group. That way in the future it's not us vs them, it's us vs us, which is winnable. And I agree that's it's already illegal. But it's constitutionally illegal, we don't grant government the right to create a privileged class and yet it did. And if our ancestors were dumb enough to sign off on this, we don't have to be. We, the people, don't have to be bound to the muck that is our common law. The government is ours to charter as we wish and if huge swaths of it aren't working they can be thrown out wholesale. If we get bogged down in trying to navigate our(!) ruleset we've already lost the game.
      - SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
        Limited liability for corporations isn't unconstitutional. However, Im very interested to hear how you propose to make an economy work without limited liability. I dont think you have anything like a plan for that, and have confused the behavior of a few large corportations with corporatioms in general, while simultaneously missing the actual social structures causing the problems you list and the benefits of corporations.
- imagist 10y ago
  I think you're deeply misunderstanding my position. I don't think we should accept and normalize this behavior from corporations, I think we should reject corporations as valid entities with a right to exist entirely. Expecting corporations to behave ethically is not a reasonable expectation. Unlike individual humans, corporations only have incentives to make money. I think policing is necessary, but it won't ever work as long as we treat corporations as capable of ethics. It should be assumed that corporations will do the wrong thing the instant it becomes profitable. Corporations should be considered guilty until proven innocent.
  - SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
    Im sorry, but your position just sounds like uninformed radicalism. Most corporations manage to act ethically; corporations (big and small) have non-profit motives; and limited liability is pretty much required to have a functional economy. Your arguments are largely about scale, locality, and control structure, and nothing about corporations per se.
    - imagist 10y ago
      > Im sorry, but your position just sounds like uninformed radicalism. Don't be sorry for labeling my position, just don't do it. If you had a defensible position you could defend it without name calling. > Most corporations manage to act ethically; Inasmuch as it is profitable to do so, sure. It rarely remains profitable to do so, however. Could you point out some examples of successful corporations acting ethically when it was not profitable to do so? > corporations (big and small) have non-profit motives Examples? > and limited liability is pretty much required to have a functional economy. Is it? Iceland put their bankers in jail and recovered more quickly from the subprime mortgage crisis than anyone. Limited liability allows economies to function for the rich, but that's a rather narrow view of functioning. The stock market is not the economy. You cannot support policing and limited liability--limited liability means that policing has no teeth.
      - SomeStupidPoint 10y ago

by imagist 10y ago

SomeStupidPoint 10y ago

Again, I disagree. That's not how the majority of corporations exist today, nor reflects how most people believe they should operate. It's the behavior of a small percentage of large corporations, largely supported by people like you throwing their hands up and going "well, that's just the way of it!" Expecting corporations to behave ethically is no different than expecting people to behave ethically -- and we should do the same thing about both situations, establish rules and police them. It's nothing at all like termites and wood: it's a voluntary choice made by people, not a biological imperative from an unthinking creature. It's the policing that has collapsed, because people like you have bought the propaganda that we should accept and normalize such behavior from corportations.

EdHominem 10y ago
The laws exist to remove legal culpability. It's not throwing our hands up, it's recognizing the source of the problem. Until we fix the laws, the entire point of a corporation is to diffuse legal responsibility. Yes, it needs to change, but it can't change from the ignorant position that we're fixing leaks and will eventually have a waterproof system. It's intentionally setup to be this way and nothing short of an entire overhauling will fix it.
- SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
  The profit-driven focus hinges on one interpretation of a court case, and nothing at all to do with liability shielding from corporate status. Similarly, the punishments doled out aren't constrained by matter of law from being effective, but rather, by the dynamic of the system and the willingness of the public to accept it from judges and prosecutors. My point was that you've been propagandized to believe that the law permits the current system, when really the present system is likely illegal already and instead results from the lack of political will to replace corrupt government officials who enable poor corporate behavior. The system would be much better if we actually enforced it... Which you guys refuse to demand from officials, because you've bought in to the notion that what they're doing is legal.
  - EdHominem 10y ago
    > The system would be much better if we actually enforced it. Right. But ... > Which you guys refuse to demand from officials, because you've bought in to the notion that what they're doing is legal. No. Many of us demand that but nobody listens because they know they don't have to. Realize that making the laws unenforceable is the intent. This is what I mean by patching vs replacing. Let's say we managed to get a few hundred bankers arrested for 2008. Then what? They change the rules slightly and next time we don't. Instead we need to repeal all limited liability for any group. That way in the future it's not us vs them, it's us vs us, which is winnable. And I agree that's it's already illegal. But it's constitutionally illegal, we don't grant government the right to create a privileged class and yet it did. And if our ancestors were dumb enough to sign off on this, we don't have to be. We, the people, don't have to be bound to the muck that is our common law. The government is ours to charter as we wish and if huge swaths of it aren't working they can be thrown out wholesale. If we get bogged down in trying to navigate our(!) ruleset we've already lost the game.
    - SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
      Limited liability for corporations isn't unconstitutional. However, Im very interested to hear how you propose to make an economy work without limited liability. I dont think you have anything like a plan for that, and have confused the behavior of a few large corportations with corporatioms in general, while simultaneously missing the actual social structures causing the problems you list and the benefits of corporations.
imagist 10y ago
I think you're deeply misunderstanding my position. I don't think we should accept and normalize this behavior from corporations, I think we should reject corporations as valid entities with a right to exist entirely. Expecting corporations to behave ethically is not a reasonable expectation. Unlike individual humans, corporations only have incentives to make money. I think policing is necessary, but it won't ever work as long as we treat corporations as capable of ethics. It should be assumed that corporations will do the wrong thing the instant it becomes profitable. Corporations should be considered guilty until proven innocent.
- SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
  Im sorry, but your position just sounds like uninformed radicalism. Most corporations manage to act ethically; corporations (big and small) have non-profit motives; and limited liability is pretty much required to have a functional economy. Your arguments are largely about scale, locality, and control structure, and nothing about corporations per se.
  - imagist 10y ago
    > Im sorry, but your position just sounds like uninformed radicalism. Don't be sorry for labeling my position, just don't do it. If you had a defensible position you could defend it without name calling. > Most corporations manage to act ethically; Inasmuch as it is profitable to do so, sure. It rarely remains profitable to do so, however. Could you point out some examples of successful corporations acting ethically when it was not profitable to do so? > corporations (big and small) have non-profit motives Examples? > and limited liability is pretty much required to have a functional economy. Is it? Iceland put their bankers in jail and recovered more quickly from the subprime mortgage crisis than anyone. Limited liability allows economies to function for the rich, but that's a rather narrow view of functioning. The stock market is not the economy. You cannot support policing and limited liability--limited liability means that policing has no teeth.
    - SomeStupidPoint 10y ago