4 ms·

If Corporations are people, and they commit felonies, maybe the US can assume control of the corp? In an ideal future of course

DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
> If Corporations are people, and they commit felonies, maybe the US can assume control of the corp? "Corporate death penalty" was a term people used to a use a lot. [It turns out it's already a real-thing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_dissolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_dissolution), but push-back from shareholders in response to attempts at accountability predictably led to nothing happening. I think the response is to make shareholders more legally, and especially unescapably, responsible for the companies they jointly own. Ignorance and the fact that _no-droplet-blames-itself-for-a-flood_ should be an excuse[1]. [1] Though I do think about how this might discourage _activist investors_ that willingly buy shares of immorally/amorally-acting publicly traded companies and then attempt to steer it in the right direction - so perhaps if we could exempt voting-shareholders who can demonstrate a clear and consistent voting record in the public good to the extent that their shares permitted them to then they would escape prosecution?
- drivingmenuts 6y ago
  “public good” is a highly variable term, though. While one person might argue that (example only) Palantir is the grossest public avil imaginable, another person could argue that they are a public good, on the basis of helping law enforcement. How do you derive a legally acceptable definition of public good in investment? An evil person could invest just as much as a supposedly good person, but with the intent of making money, but otherwise be amoral about everything else related to the investment.
polotics 6y ago
The same that say corporations are people tend to also be proponents of the death penalty. I wonder how that would work in practice.
snypher 6y ago
A real habeas corp-us.

DaiPlusPlus 6y ago

> If Corporations are people, and they commit felonies, maybe the US can assume control of the corp? "Corporate death penalty" was a term people used to a use a lot. [It turns out it's already a real-thing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_dissolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_dissolution), but push-back from shareholders in response to attempts at accountability predictably led to nothing happening. I think the response is to make shareholders more legally, and especially unescapably, responsible for the companies they jointly own. Ignorance and the fact that _no-droplet-blames-itself-for-a-flood_ should be an excuse[1]. [1] Though I do think about how this might discourage _activist investors_ that willingly buy shares of immorally/amorally-acting publicly traded companies and then attempt to steer it in the right direction - so perhaps if we could exempt voting-shareholders who can demonstrate a clear and consistent voting record in the public good to the extent that their shares permitted them to then they would escape prosecution?

drivingmenuts 6y ago
“public good” is a highly variable term, though. While one person might argue that (example only) Palantir is the grossest public avil imaginable, another person could argue that they are a public good, on the basis of helping law enforcement. How do you derive a legally acceptable definition of public good in investment? An evil person could invest just as much as a supposedly good person, but with the intent of making money, but otherwise be amoral about everything else related to the investment.

polotics 6y ago

The same that say corporations are people tend to also be proponents of the death penalty. I wonder how that would work in practice.

snypher 6y ago

A real habeas corp-us.