5 ms·

> because there is a clear dampening factor for aggregate blame and accountability There isn't, legally. If anything, corporate status provides a clearer frame

> because there is a clear dampening factor for aggregate blame and accountability There isn't, legally. If anything, corporate status provides a clearer framework for holding people properly accountable when they coordinate their actions as a group. Without corporate case law, it would be much easier to shirk accountability. > But BP can spill 4.9 million gallons of oil in the gulf because not a single person will go to jail, the fees are a negligible cost of doing business, and nobody feels bad because everyone was "just doing their job" You're conflating a lot of distinct issues - principally, the effects of being a corporation and the effects of being incredibly wealthy and politically influential. > No, I don't believe corporations deserve any rights whatsoever. This statement is logically equivalent to "I don't believe that people should have any rights to coordinate their actions". The irony is that it sounds like a populist statement that's sticking up for the little guy against the machine, but in actuality it's an incredibly radical statement in favor of stripping power away from the poor in order to preserve the power and status of the extremely wealthy.

sooheon 9y ago
> Without corporate case law, it would be much easier to shirk accountability. To my eyes, a large part of the purpose of corporations is to shirk individual responsibility. What else would LLC stand for? >You're conflating a lot of distinct issues - principally, the effects of being a corporation and the effects of being incredibly wealthy and politically influential. I attempted to make it clear that the act of incorporating, ceasing to become merely an individual and existing as part of a group in and of itself has dehumanizing influences. The corrupting influence of group-think, moral smokescreening, and increased degrees of separation from the repercussions of one's actions is orthogonal to the corrupting influence of power. Nazi guards could sleep at night after a long day of executions because they were part of a corrupt group that absolved them of responsibility, not because they were mega rich. To take BP's example, the blame for the spill results from countless decisions which add up to supreme negligence. But it's hard to pin on a single person, it is the organization itself (and its goals) which caused the problem. This negative influence needs to be curtailed, so I think it's inappropriate to consider a group of individuals as having the exact same rights as its constituents summed. When it comes to rights, I just don't buy that 2+2=4. >>No, I don't believe corporations deserve any rights whatsoever. >This statement is logically equivalent to "I don't believe that people should have any rights to coordinate their actions" It was a bit inflammatory of me to word it that way, but I still disagree that those two things are "logically equivalent". I just don't think it makes sense to think of rights in aggregate. Aggregating rights in the form of corporations leads to weighting of rights by the amount of money you have. The son of the chairman of Samsung can exert far more influence across his network of conglomerates and paper companies than I ever can. Does his million-fold monetary advantage over me give him a million times more rights across his corporate appendages than me? Should I buy a third of a share in his textiles company which has the president's ear if I want to express my rights? Fuck that. Those aren't rights, it's the pure expression of power and violence, the very thing I want society to curtail.
Retric 9y ago
>There isn't, legally. Look at the number of people put into prison after a corporation commits a crime. In almost all cases being part of a corporation provides protection above and beyond what an individual has on their own. Arguably, this is the entire point of corporations over just having groups of individuals. Consider a world where there was zero corporate law and a group of people was dumping illegally. Each of them would have massive individual liability.

sooheon 9y ago

> Without corporate case law, it would be much easier to shirk accountability. To my eyes, a large part of the purpose of corporations is to shirk individual responsibility. What else would LLC stand for? >You're conflating a lot of distinct issues - principally, the effects of being a corporation and the effects of being incredibly wealthy and politically influential. I attempted to make it clear that the act of incorporating, ceasing to become merely an individual and existing as part of a group in and of itself has dehumanizing influences. The corrupting influence of group-think, moral smokescreening, and increased degrees of separation from the repercussions of one's actions is orthogonal to the corrupting influence of power. Nazi guards could sleep at night after a long day of executions because they were part of a corrupt group that absolved them of responsibility, not because they were mega rich. To take BP's example, the blame for the spill results from countless decisions which add up to supreme negligence. But it's hard to pin on a single person, it is the organization itself (and its goals) which caused the problem. This negative influence needs to be curtailed, so I think it's inappropriate to consider a group of individuals as having the exact same rights as its constituents summed. When it comes to rights, I just don't buy that 2+2=4. >>No, I don't believe corporations deserve any rights whatsoever. >This statement is logically equivalent to "I don't believe that people should have any rights to coordinate their actions" It was a bit inflammatory of me to word it that way, but I still disagree that those two things are "logically equivalent". I just don't think it makes sense to think of rights in aggregate. Aggregating rights in the form of corporations leads to weighting of rights by the amount of money you have. The son of the chairman of Samsung can exert far more influence across his network of conglomerates and paper companies than I ever can. Does his million-fold monetary advantage over me give him a million times more rights across his corporate appendages than me? Should I buy a third of a share in his textiles company which has the president's ear if I want to express my rights? Fuck that. Those aren't rights, it's the pure expression of power and violence, the very thing I want society to curtail.

Retric 9y ago

>There isn't, legally. Look at the number of people put into prison after a corporation commits a crime. In almost all cases being part of a corporation provides protection above and beyond what an individual has on their own. Arguably, this is the entire point of corporations over just having groups of individuals. Consider a world where there was zero corporate law and a group of people was dumping illegally. Each of them would have massive individual liability.