3 ms·

It's good to see the SEC doing its job. It's not enough but it's progress. Ultimately, we need to bring back accountability by abolishing corporate personhood.

It's good to see the SEC doing its job. It's not enough but it's progress. Ultimately, we need to bring back accountability by abolishing corporate personhood. If corporations were treated the same as people, most of them would be incarcerated for life or on death row by now. The current approach of fining them gives them unlimited chances to illegally exploit the system. If I profited from doing something illegal, I would be jailed as an accomplice. If a corporation does it, the executives can simply claim that they didn't know. This is fundamentally unfair. The result is that nobody is responsible for any of the millions of bad things which happen in the world. Those who implement or are aware of the wrongdoings (the employees) don't have the power to change anything. This lack of responsibility is especially dangerous in our technology-driven age.

arrosenberg 6y ago
You can't get rid of corporate personhood. In the absence of that concept, one would have to sue each shareholder or executive of a corporation individually in order to bring any kind of liability suit. Allowing a corporation to be recognized as a single, fictional entity is a useful tool. A better solution is making executives criminally liable for the actions of the company, the same way HIPAA holds executives and directors of covered entities personally liable for breaches.
- cryptica 6y ago
  >> In the absence of that concept, one would have to sue each shareholder or executive of a corporation individually in order to bring any kind of liability suit. I don't see the problem with that. Imagine how much money a victim could earn from suing every person who participated in the wrongdoing. That would be totally fair IMO... Probably corporations wouldn't exist anymore (they would be sued out of existence), but that would be OK. The economy was working perfectly fine before corporations became commonplace. They are an unjust and unnatural construct IMO. It doesn't make sense to give an immortal fictitious entity the same rights as real mortal people.
  - arrosenberg 6y ago
    > I don't see the problem with that. Imagine how much money a victim could earn from suing every person who participated in the wrongdoing. Unless your hypothetical victim is independently wealthy, how are they going to afford the costs of litigation with dozens or hundreds of defendants? Seems like they'd need some sort of group, organized by a legal structure to fund such a venture... > They are an unjust and unnatural construct IMO. It doesn't make sense to give an immortal fictitious entity the same rights as real mortal people. Is this an ideological statement? In the US we have freedom of association, so I don't understand how they are "unjust". They are a natural result of the human desire for collaboration and growth, so I'm not sure I get that argument either. I don't think corporate entities should be allowed to participate in the political process, but it's a bit silly to say they shouldn't have the right to participate in the legal process.

arrosenberg 6y ago

You can't get rid of corporate personhood. In the absence of that concept, one would have to sue each shareholder or executive of a corporation individually in order to bring any kind of liability suit. Allowing a corporation to be recognized as a single, fictional entity is a useful tool. A better solution is making executives criminally liable for the actions of the company, the same way HIPAA holds executives and directors of covered entities personally liable for breaches.

cryptica 6y ago
>> In the absence of that concept, one would have to sue each shareholder or executive of a corporation individually in order to bring any kind of liability suit. I don't see the problem with that. Imagine how much money a victim could earn from suing every person who participated in the wrongdoing. That would be totally fair IMO... Probably corporations wouldn't exist anymore (they would be sued out of existence), but that would be OK. The economy was working perfectly fine before corporations became commonplace. They are an unjust and unnatural construct IMO. It doesn't make sense to give an immortal fictitious entity the same rights as real mortal people.
- arrosenberg 6y ago
  > I don't see the problem with that. Imagine how much money a victim could earn from suing every person who participated in the wrongdoing. Unless your hypothetical victim is independently wealthy, how are they going to afford the costs of litigation with dozens or hundreds of defendants? Seems like they'd need some sort of group, organized by a legal structure to fund such a venture... > They are an unjust and unnatural construct IMO. It doesn't make sense to give an immortal fictitious entity the same rights as real mortal people. Is this an ideological statement? In the US we have freedom of association, so I don't understand how they are "unjust". They are a natural result of the human desire for collaboration and growth, so I'm not sure I get that argument either. I don't think corporate entities should be allowed to participate in the political process, but it's a bit silly to say they shouldn't have the right to participate in the legal process.