5 ms·

>Founders need to have that as an option for an exit though. What are the alternatives? Limiting ownership to 49%? No they don't. To rephrase, you're suggestin

>Founders need to have that as an option for an exit though. What are the alternatives? Limiting ownership to 49%? No they don't. To rephrase, you're suggesting that companies are entitled to getting bought out. That's ridiculous. Owning a company is a privilege, people who abuse that privilege, billionaires, should be stripped of that power. Corporate America is cancerous, consuming and destroying everything indiscriminately for vanity, numbers on a screen, and authoritarian control over the less privileged.

ryan93 6y ago
It's not a privilege. The company is their property. Political opinions you dont like on facebook is just something you are going to have to get over.
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago
  You're talking past my arguments. Owning a company is a privilege just as much as owning guns are. Companies are registered with government and violators are prosecuted. Do I need to link to articles about children getting their lemonade stands destroyed by cops or what?
  - ryan93 6y ago
    Point taken. I just personally feel like the reasoning for taking a company needs to be insanely strong. A lot of current talk on both sides feels very partisan.
zepto 6y ago
> Owning a company is a privilege. A privilege you think should be held by the government?
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago
  Why would you assume I said that. Government has the job of arbitrating between the needs of all people. Companies should be meeting the needs and wants of consumers without causing harm. When Companies, and the people that own and operate them, cause harm, it is the obligation of government to remedy these problems through action, forceful if need be, against the offenders. Governmental failure to remedy problems results in vigilantism without fail.
  - zepto 6y ago
    > Why would you assume I said that. I didn’t. > Government has the job of arbitrating between the needs of all people. Companies should be meeting the needs and wants of consumers without causing harm. When Companies, and the people that own and operate them, cause harm, it is the obligation of government to remedy these problems through action, forceful if need be, against the offenders. Governmental failure to remedy problems results in vigilantism without fail. What has this ominous generalization got to do with the question?
jonas21 6y ago
You've gotta be kidding. 99% of companies in the U.S. are small businesses, and over half of those have annual revenue under $500K (that's revenue, not profit). In many cases, small businesses offer immigrants a pathway to the middle class, despite lack of credentials, connections, or English skills. Are you saying they shouldn't have the right to sell their business? You talk about "authoritarian control," but what could be more authoritarian than denying people basic property rights? And even if you limit discussion to only tech startup companies, taking away the option of selling the company in the future completely changes the risk calculation. You'd end up with fewer companies getting started, which would entrench the big players even more.

ryan93 6y ago

It's not a privilege. The company is their property. Political opinions you dont like on facebook is just something you are going to have to get over.

Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago
You're talking past my arguments. Owning a company is a privilege just as much as owning guns are. Companies are registered with government and violators are prosecuted. Do I need to link to articles about children getting their lemonade stands destroyed by cops or what?
- ryan93 6y ago
  Point taken. I just personally feel like the reasoning for taking a company needs to be insanely strong. A lot of current talk on both sides feels very partisan.

zepto 6y ago

> Owning a company is a privilege. A privilege you think should be held by the government?

Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago
Why would you assume I said that. Government has the job of arbitrating between the needs of all people. Companies should be meeting the needs and wants of consumers without causing harm. When Companies, and the people that own and operate them, cause harm, it is the obligation of government to remedy these problems through action, forceful if need be, against the offenders. Governmental failure to remedy problems results in vigilantism without fail.
- zepto 6y ago
  > Why would you assume I said that. I didn’t. > Government has the job of arbitrating between the needs of all people. Companies should be meeting the needs and wants of consumers without causing harm. When Companies, and the people that own and operate them, cause harm, it is the obligation of government to remedy these problems through action, forceful if need be, against the offenders. Governmental failure to remedy problems results in vigilantism without fail. What has this ominous generalization got to do with the question?

jonas21 6y ago

You've gotta be kidding. 99% of companies in the U.S. are small businesses, and over half of those have annual revenue under $500K (that's revenue, not profit). In many cases, small businesses offer immigrants a pathway to the middle class, despite lack of credentials, connections, or English skills. Are you saying they shouldn't have the right to sell their business? You talk about "authoritarian control," but what could be more authoritarian than denying people basic property rights? And even if you limit discussion to only tech startup companies, taking away the option of selling the company in the future completely changes the risk calculation. You'd end up with fewer companies getting started, which would entrench the big players even more.