4 ms·

It is too easy for people to hide behind corporate entities and to the detriment of public accountability.

brnt 4y ago
This avatar-like use of Legal persons is undesirable, fully agree. A major component in international money laundering and criminal enterprises is discovering whose avatar $some_co or $my_foundation belong to. Small jurisdictions, mine included unfortunately, are easy targets for friends-of-friends-of-friends to allow such hidden ownership, and the international community should forbid it both at home and abroad.
tracker1 4y ago
Unfortunately, anything short of a constitutional amendment explicitly stating that corporations and other collective entities do not have $list_of_rights that one may possess as an individual would be very difficult to keep in practice. Of course, this also would have to be limited to collective representation, not a group of people in person (such as at a physical protest). It could be very messy at this point. And it all sucks. I think tethering legislation to making corporations exempt from income taxes, and refactoring taxation on profits and loans secured against corporate ownership might be the only way to get it through.
- undersuit 4y ago
  Corporations were made without a constitutional amendment, they can be regulated without one. Don't like it? Lots of ways to run a company without using the government vehicle/definition.
  - disillusioned 4y ago
    Corporations are people, my friend.
    - ldoughty 4y ago
      That concept was created by the US supreme court judges interpretation of laws made by Congress. At any point since then, we (Congress) could have passed a late to clarify language or simply say "corporations are not people".
      - tracker1 4y ago
        The trouble is actually breaking that premise. The SC has ruled, effectively that money is analogous to speech. Undoing that would pretty much need an amendment to overcome. They could also find that trying to limit corporations at this point could be a violation of the 14th amendment. I don't like it, I really don't agree with it, but the reality is that's what it would likely take to overcome counter arguments in favor of continuing corporate personhood. As I mentioned, it might be tolerated if it came with tax exemption, in leiu of new taxes against corporate/stock loans and more taxation on profit distribution.
        smsm42 4y ago
        CU vs FEC did not rely on the concept of corporate personhood. If anything, if this concept didn't exist it would be even stronger, because then there would be absolutely no legal reason to treat a group of people differently just because they're acting together. What would be the argument - you can do it individually, but once you gather in one building and have a banner at the entrance and a receptionist, you all suddenly lose your free speech rights?
        omniglottal 4y ago
        No, you (the individual) do not lose any of your rights. However, the manifestation of a corporate entity should not generate a new right-bearing entity. I get only one vote - making Me, Inc. should not provide me a path to be represented twice - as though to cast a second vote. Money is not speech. This is tge court's error. Treating a thing as though it's a different thing or concept than what it is breaks everything and is quite literally insane. Else, with my free speech, I ought to just act as a mint. Either my self-generated fiat is now legal tender or actual, government-minted legal tender is already spoken for and means something precise, distinct from the transaction where it purportedly speaks. A group of people can speak and transact - the solution to this dilemma is recognizing that a corporation is still full of individuals with unhindered rights, but no trickery allows those individual rights to be replicated - only represented.
- unequiv88 4y ago
  It won’t take an amendment, just enough government officials to interpret the meaning of the documents differently.
  - tracker1 4y ago
    Not just govt officials... judges, and SC.
- puffoflogic 4y ago
  Would unions be more like protests or like corporations? I'm trying to figure out the underlying principle used to determine whether a group of people has rights or not. Stripping unions of their rights might be a bit controversial. On the other hand, "collective representation" is essentially the definition of a union.
smsm42 4y ago
We've been running that "public accountability" experiment with twitter mobs (and sometimes actual arsonist mobs) running around "holding people accountable" for whatever they don't like... And I'm not sure we actually want more of this. It doesn't seem somehow to improve anything.
- fwipsy 4y ago
  I don't think you're using the same definition of public accountability as the parent comment. I think parent comment just means that they are able to be identified and held accountable by law enforcement.
  - smsm42 4y ago
    Law enforcement can request the documents, subpoena the contractors and see the chain of ownership - just like the judge did. Not sure what this has to do with the "public".
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 4y ago
  That’s not public accountability. That’s vigilantism. Vigilantism occurs when the judicial branch fails to do the barest minimum of their fucking job. In case you’ve forgotten, the rules in society are written in blood. Whenever the government neglects their responsibility society at large will refresh the ink on the contract. As regrettable as this may be, the people to blame are not the ones in the mobs, but the ones who neglected to exercise their authority to enforce the social contract and hold criminals to account. Want it to stop? Stop acting shitty, take responsibility, learn and adapt. or retire to make room for those understand contemporary society if becoming a better person is so distasteful. Enduring the consequences of one’s actions with complaint is not accountability, it’s a temper tantrum. Whether the consequences are administered by vigilantes or courts is immaterial to the earnestness of anyone’s accountability. The vast majority of people being publicly shamed have an elementary understanding of accountability and their hollow efforts are an insult to the time of everyone subjected to their rambling excuses, projections, victim blaming, lies, and other erroneous thought patterns. I don’t want more bystanders getting caught up in the courts because they took action when our leaders sat on their hands. That said, I have no sympathy for the public figures having their legacies dragged through the mud after careers of horrendous behaviors get brought to light.
mushbino 4y ago
The wealthy owner class benefits heavily from this structure so don't count on it changing ever.

brnt 4y ago

This avatar-like use of Legal persons is undesirable, fully agree. A major component in international money laundering and criminal enterprises is discovering whose avatar $some_co or $my_foundation belong to. Small jurisdictions, mine included unfortunately, are easy targets for friends-of-friends-of-friends to allow such hidden ownership, and the international community should forbid it both at home and abroad.

tracker1 4y ago

Unfortunately, anything short of a constitutional amendment explicitly stating that corporations and other collective entities do not have $list_of_rights that one may possess as an individual would be very difficult to keep in practice. Of course, this also would have to be limited to collective representation, not a group of people in person (such as at a physical protest). It could be very messy at this point. And it all sucks. I think tethering legislation to making corporations exempt from income taxes, and refactoring taxation on profits and loans secured against corporate ownership might be the only way to get it through.

undersuit 4y ago
Corporations were made without a constitutional amendment, they can be regulated without one. Don't like it? Lots of ways to run a company without using the government vehicle/definition.
- disillusioned 4y ago
  Corporations are people, my friend.
  - ldoughty 4y ago
    That concept was created by the US supreme court judges interpretation of laws made by Congress. At any point since then, we (Congress) could have passed a late to clarify language or simply say "corporations are not people".
    - tracker1 4y ago
      The trouble is actually breaking that premise. The SC has ruled, effectively that money is analogous to speech. Undoing that would pretty much need an amendment to overcome. They could also find that trying to limit corporations at this point could be a violation of the 14th amendment. I don't like it, I really don't agree with it, but the reality is that's what it would likely take to overcome counter arguments in favor of continuing corporate personhood. As I mentioned, it might be tolerated if it came with tax exemption, in leiu of new taxes against corporate/stock loans and more taxation on profit distribution.
      - smsm42 4y ago
        CU vs FEC did not rely on the concept of corporate personhood. If anything, if this concept didn't exist it would be even stronger, because then there would be absolutely no legal reason to treat a group of people differently just because they're acting together. What would be the argument - you can do it individually, but once you gather in one building and have a banner at the entrance and a receptionist, you all suddenly lose your free speech rights?
        omniglottal 4y ago
        No, you (the individual) do not lose any of your rights. However, the manifestation of a corporate entity should not generate a new right-bearing entity. I get only one vote - making Me, Inc. should not provide me a path to be represented twice - as though to cast a second vote. Money is not speech. This is tge court's error. Treating a thing as though it's a different thing or concept than what it is breaks everything and is quite literally insane. Else, with my free speech, I ought to just act as a mint. Either my self-generated fiat is now legal tender or actual, government-minted legal tender is already spoken for and means something precise, distinct from the transaction where it purportedly speaks. A group of people can speak and transact - the solution to this dilemma is recognizing that a corporation is still full of individuals with unhindered rights, but no trickery allows those individual rights to be replicated - only represented.
unequiv88 4y ago
It won’t take an amendment, just enough government officials to interpret the meaning of the documents differently.
- tracker1 4y ago
  Not just govt officials... judges, and SC.
puffoflogic 4y ago
Would unions be more like protests or like corporations? I'm trying to figure out the underlying principle used to determine whether a group of people has rights or not. Stripping unions of their rights might be a bit controversial. On the other hand, "collective representation" is essentially the definition of a union.

smsm42 4y ago

We've been running that "public accountability" experiment with twitter mobs (and sometimes actual arsonist mobs) running around "holding people accountable" for whatever they don't like... And I'm not sure we actually want more of this. It doesn't seem somehow to improve anything.

fwipsy 4y ago
I don't think you're using the same definition of public accountability as the parent comment. I think parent comment just means that they are able to be identified and held accountable by law enforcement.
- smsm42 4y ago
  Law enforcement can request the documents, subpoena the contractors and see the chain of ownership - just like the judge did. Not sure what this has to do with the "public".
Red_Leaves_Flyy 4y ago
That’s not public accountability. That’s vigilantism. Vigilantism occurs when the judicial branch fails to do the barest minimum of their fucking job. In case you’ve forgotten, the rules in society are written in blood. Whenever the government neglects their responsibility society at large will refresh the ink on the contract. As regrettable as this may be, the people to blame are not the ones in the mobs, but the ones who neglected to exercise their authority to enforce the social contract and hold criminals to account. Want it to stop? Stop acting shitty, take responsibility, learn and adapt. or retire to make room for those understand contemporary society if becoming a better person is so distasteful. Enduring the consequences of one’s actions with complaint is not accountability, it’s a temper tantrum. Whether the consequences are administered by vigilantes or courts is immaterial to the earnestness of anyone’s accountability. The vast majority of people being publicly shamed have an elementary understanding of accountability and their hollow efforts are an insult to the time of everyone subjected to their rambling excuses, projections, victim blaming, lies, and other erroneous thought patterns. I don’t want more bystanders getting caught up in the courts because they took action when our leaders sat on their hands. That said, I have no sympathy for the public figures having their legacies dragged through the mud after careers of horrendous behaviors get brought to light.

mushbino 4y ago

The wealthy owner class benefits heavily from this structure so don't count on it changing ever.