3 ms·

I'd say flip that around. If people own things in their own names, they're welcome to reasonable privacy. But the corporation is a special government program t

I'd say flip that around. If people own things in their own names, they're welcome to reasonable privacy. But the corporation is a special government program to enable certain kinds of collective action because we get broader economic benefits from things like the ability to limit liability. If people want special government support for financial activities in the broader economy, which is what corporations are, then I say key information should default to being public. If people don't like that, well, they don't have to use the government program. But like any government program, I think voters should have enough information to be sure that it's not being misused.

solidsnack9000 3y ago
Should the names and addresses of all shareholders of all public corporations be public record? What about private corporations?
- wpietri 3y ago
  The SEC already requires any significant investment to be publicly disclosed: https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/us-sec-shortens-stock-disclosure-deadline-5-days-2023-10-10/ https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/us-sec-shortens-stock-dis... And there's really no such thing as a "private corporation". The whole point of a corporation is to get government recognition for acting under another name. But assuming you're referring to companies so closely held that they're not not publicly traded, then yes, absolutely, ownership should be a matter of public record. I just recently filed for a CA LLC and my name is listed for all the world to see.
- anticensor 3y ago
  Not all shareholders, but anyone with more than $1 million of shares should be considered public.
codexb 3y ago
It's not like companies didn't exist before the US created LLC's in the 1970's. You don't need legal, registered corporations to have companies. Companies would still exist. And even without explicit limitations on liabilities created by LLCs, any reasonable court is going to limit the liability of a company. It's trivial to create private agreements and EULA's that do effectively the same things as LLC law. The thing you're failing to realize is that the concept of "ownership" and "benefit" aren't black and white. There are stockholders, investors, beneficiaries, members, clients, subscribers -- they all have at least some level of benefit from a company or organization, and depending on how it is organized, they may have some direct control or liability of it as well. What you are asking for is mandatory violations of privacy with no legitimate purpose. It's the kind of "if you've got nothing to hide, then you shouldn't be worried" type of mentality that typically isn't tolerated elsewhere.
- wpietri 3y ago
  All modern corporations limit investor liability to the amount invested, something that did not become standard until the mid-1800s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_Liability_Act_1855 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_Liability_Act_1855 This is a huge government support of investors. It has some societal benefits, which is why we do it, but it's often abused. The notion of "privacy" when people are taking government-supported action in the public sphere is nonsensical. If people have a legitimate purpose for trying to dodge liability and responsibility for their actions, I think having that on the public record is a minimum.

solidsnack9000 3y ago

Should the names and addresses of all shareholders of all public corporations be public record? What about private corporations?

wpietri 3y ago
The SEC already requires any significant investment to be publicly disclosed: https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/us-sec-shortens-stock-disclosure-deadline-5-days-2023-10-10/ https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/us-sec-shortens-stock-dis... And there's really no such thing as a "private corporation". The whole point of a corporation is to get government recognition for acting under another name. But assuming you're referring to companies so closely held that they're not not publicly traded, then yes, absolutely, ownership should be a matter of public record. I just recently filed for a CA LLC and my name is listed for all the world to see.
anticensor 3y ago
Not all shareholders, but anyone with more than $1 million of shares should be considered public.

codexb 3y ago

It's not like companies didn't exist before the US created LLC's in the 1970's. You don't need legal, registered corporations to have companies. Companies would still exist. And even without explicit limitations on liabilities created by LLCs, any reasonable court is going to limit the liability of a company. It's trivial to create private agreements and EULA's that do effectively the same things as LLC law. The thing you're failing to realize is that the concept of "ownership" and "benefit" aren't black and white. There are stockholders, investors, beneficiaries, members, clients, subscribers -- they all have at least some level of benefit from a company or organization, and depending on how it is organized, they may have some direct control or liability of it as well. What you are asking for is mandatory violations of privacy with no legitimate purpose. It's the kind of "if you've got nothing to hide, then you shouldn't be worried" type of mentality that typically isn't tolerated elsewhere.

wpietri 3y ago
All modern corporations limit investor liability to the amount invested, something that did not become standard until the mid-1800s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_Liability_Act_1855 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_Liability_Act_1855 This is a huge government support of investors. It has some societal benefits, which is why we do it, but it's often abused. The notion of "privacy" when people are taking government-supported action in the public sphere is nonsensical. If people have a legitimate purpose for trying to dodge liability and responsibility for their actions, I think having that on the public record is a minimum.