4 ms·

From a shareholder perspective Facebook and Google have done pretty great. In fact, as an investor I hope the dual class structure continues. I’d much rather le

From a shareholder perspective Facebook and Google have done pretty great. In fact, as an investor I hope the dual class structure continues. I’d much rather leave it to the founders and not have activist investors pushing their own agenda.

PavlovsCat 8y ago
But it's totally fine for corporations to meddle with the democratic process to push their own agendas, right? Being and operating as a corporation is not some kind of natural right. It's a privilege, granted by citizens, via the the proxy of governments and their regulations.
- paulddraper 8y ago
  > Being and operating as a corporation is not some kind of natural right. Isn't it? Isn't being able to make decisions as a group "right to assembly" sort of stuff.
  - PavlovsCat 8y ago
    > the individual right or ability of people to come together and collectively express, promote, pursue, and defend their ideas That's something entirely different than, say https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_incorporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_incorporation > the duration (perpetual by default) Natural rights aren't granted nor can they be subject to limited duration. Even if the natural rights of someone else might mean that, say, someone "has to get locked up", that doesn't revoke any right, it's just overruled by the likewise unrevokable rights of others. Nothing is stopping people from working together without creating a corporation etc., as the people they already are with the rights they have, but then you also don't have limited liability and all those other things.
  - harry8 8y ago
    edit: (I may have missed that Pavlov's Cat had covered this, sorry). Corporation is different from a group of folks in so far as a corporation limits liability. The group of folk can take money out of the corporation while the going is good. When the going goes bad the obligations of the corporation do not confer the right to go after the "group of folk" and their assets. Limited liability. It's been a crucially important thing in the funding of risky investments. I'd say on balance it's been amazingly good for the world but you could make the opposite case. No reason you couldn't end limited liability while retaining right to assembly and so on. It's an extremely radical policy to pursue in my opinion and would have very dramatic consequences.
    - paulddraper 8y ago
      True, thank you for your correction. Limited liability isn't a "natural" right.
    - PavlovsCat 8y ago
      I think limited liability is flat out necessary for a lot of good things. Just like, say, diplomatic immunity is. But it's still something that is given, and IMO not something for companies (or diplomats) to take for granted and get drunk on.

PavlovsCat 8y ago

But it's totally fine for corporations to meddle with the democratic process to push their own agendas, right? Being and operating as a corporation is not some kind of natural right. It's a privilege, granted by citizens, via the the proxy of governments and their regulations.

paulddraper 8y ago
> Being and operating as a corporation is not some kind of natural right. Isn't it? Isn't being able to make decisions as a group "right to assembly" sort of stuff.
- PavlovsCat 8y ago
  > the individual right or ability of people to come together and collectively express, promote, pursue, and defend their ideas That's something entirely different than, say https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_incorporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_incorporation > the duration (perpetual by default) Natural rights aren't granted nor can they be subject to limited duration. Even if the natural rights of someone else might mean that, say, someone "has to get locked up", that doesn't revoke any right, it's just overruled by the likewise unrevokable rights of others. Nothing is stopping people from working together without creating a corporation etc., as the people they already are with the rights they have, but then you also don't have limited liability and all those other things.
- harry8 8y ago
  edit: (I may have missed that Pavlov's Cat had covered this, sorry). Corporation is different from a group of folks in so far as a corporation limits liability. The group of folk can take money out of the corporation while the going is good. When the going goes bad the obligations of the corporation do not confer the right to go after the "group of folk" and their assets. Limited liability. It's been a crucially important thing in the funding of risky investments. I'd say on balance it's been amazingly good for the world but you could make the opposite case. No reason you couldn't end limited liability while retaining right to assembly and so on. It's an extremely radical policy to pursue in my opinion and would have very dramatic consequences.
  - paulddraper 8y ago
    True, thank you for your correction. Limited liability isn't a "natural" right.
  - PavlovsCat 8y ago
    I think limited liability is flat out necessary for a lot of good things. Just like, say, diplomatic immunity is. But it's still something that is given, and IMO not something for companies (or diplomats) to take for granted and get drunk on.