5 ms·
The thing is corporations exist precisely to limit liability. You don't have to start a corporation - you can run your own business out of your own pocket and
by dnautics 8y ago
The thing is corporations exist precisely to limit liability. You don't have to start a corporation - you can run your own business out of your own pocket and accept all the legal liability. However, we make this activity undesirable through policy: (personal income is taxable in a much more punishing way than corporate income, and the legal system is incredibly expensive - the more customers you have, the more you are likely to be exposed to a crazy customer who is going to abuse the system and personally bankrupt you with frivolous lawsuits. Who would want to start a business in that climate?
- pavel_lishin 8y agoYou're talking about legal liability; deogeo sounds like they're talking about social liability.
- deogeo 8y agoCorrect.
- dnautics 8y agoone is free to start a company with those rules in the corporate charter. Heck, I'd even work there, but I'm wouldn't count on my job being around for long.
- deogeo 8y agoNor would a company be around for long if it were the only one respecting environmental protections, workplace safety standards, or anti-child-labor laws.
- spamizbad 8y agoI'm not sure how this applies in this scenario: It looks like workers, rather than the board, cast a vote of no confidence on the CEO. Publicly traded companies seem to operate fine with boards being able to remove CEOs, so what's the problem here?