3 ms·

> "Juridical personhood is the central defining feature of the corporate form; 'cancel corporate personhood' means 'abolish corporations'." if we remove corpor

> "Juridical personhood is the central defining feature of the corporate form; 'cancel corporate personhood' means 'abolish corporations'." if we remove corporate personhood, will businesspeople then all of the sudden become less motivated to create companies and incorporate them so they have the opportunity to make money? i'm quite skeptical of such a claim. the corporate veil is unnecessary, just like the capital gains tax advantage, for promoting business. it's only encouraged bad behavior and protected incumbents, rather than supporting new innovation.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> if we remove corporate personhood, will businesspeople then all of the sudden become less motivated to create companies and incorporate them so they have the opportunity to make money? Incorporation doesn't create the opportunity to make money—or even the opportunity to combine with others to do that—partnerships can do both. Incorporation is special because it creates a separate legal person—corporate personhood—who is the target of legal action against the business enterprise, and for whose liabilities the investors have limited legal accountability.
- InitialLastName 8y ago
  > Incorporation is special because it creates a separate legal person—corporate personhood—who is the target of legal action against the business enterprise, and for whose liabilities the investors have limited legal accountability. Part of the issue is that these separate "persons" aren't actually able to be held accountable. When corporations do something illegal by, say, killing people out of neglect, they aren't imprisoned (shut down temporarily) or executed (dissolved).
  - billbrown 8y ago
    There it is: the corporate death penalty. They are held accountable through lawsuits. Do you seriously contend that when a company kills someone out of neglect, they face no accountability? They are sued individually and through classes to the tune of millions (and billions in some cases).
    - s73v3r_ 8y ago
      I think most people would believe that, in most cases, the amount of liability they receive is disproportionate to the amount of harm they cause. And as more and more companies seek to ban class actions and require binding arbitration, saying that they actually face liability for their actions seems laughable.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Part of the issue is that these separate "persons" aren't actually able to be held accountable. They are able to be. Government just chooses not to do so. > When corporations do something illegal by, say, killing people out of neglect, they aren't imprisoned (shut down temporarily) or executed (dissolved). They can be, and have been (the latter more often than the former.)
travisoneill1 8y ago
> if we remove corporate personhood, will businesspeople then all of the sudden become less motivated to create companies and incorporate them so they have the opportunity to make money? It's not about opportunity for profit, but protection from loss. When Elon Musk rolled some of his money from the Paypal exit into Spacex he did it knowing that if it fails, he would only lose what he put in. You are talking about a situation where the only two options are take no risk, or risk everything. Do you really think that this wouldn't discourage people from starting a low probability of success business?

dragonwriter 8y ago

> if we remove corporate personhood, will businesspeople then all of the sudden become less motivated to create companies and incorporate them so they have the opportunity to make money? Incorporation doesn't create the opportunity to make money—or even the opportunity to combine with others to do that—partnerships can do both. Incorporation is special because it creates a separate legal person—corporate personhood—who is the target of legal action against the business enterprise, and for whose liabilities the investors have limited legal accountability.

InitialLastName 8y ago
> Incorporation is special because it creates a separate legal person—corporate personhood—who is the target of legal action against the business enterprise, and for whose liabilities the investors have limited legal accountability. Part of the issue is that these separate "persons" aren't actually able to be held accountable. When corporations do something illegal by, say, killing people out of neglect, they aren't imprisoned (shut down temporarily) or executed (dissolved).
- billbrown 8y ago
  There it is: the corporate death penalty. They are held accountable through lawsuits. Do you seriously contend that when a company kills someone out of neglect, they face no accountability? They are sued individually and through classes to the tune of millions (and billions in some cases).
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    I think most people would believe that, in most cases, the amount of liability they receive is disproportionate to the amount of harm they cause. And as more and more companies seek to ban class actions and require binding arbitration, saying that they actually face liability for their actions seems laughable.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Part of the issue is that these separate "persons" aren't actually able to be held accountable. They are able to be. Government just chooses not to do so. > When corporations do something illegal by, say, killing people out of neglect, they aren't imprisoned (shut down temporarily) or executed (dissolved). They can be, and have been (the latter more often than the former.)

travisoneill1 8y ago

> if we remove corporate personhood, will businesspeople then all of the sudden become less motivated to create companies and incorporate them so they have the opportunity to make money? It's not about opportunity for profit, but protection from loss. When Elon Musk rolled some of his money from the Paypal exit into Spacex he did it knowing that if it fails, he would only lose what he put in. You are talking about a situation where the only two options are take no risk, or risk everything. Do you really think that this wouldn't discourage people from starting a low probability of success business?