3 ms·

I think the point of OP was that in many ways companies have many of the same rights and privileges as individuals, but cannot be punished in the same ways.

robertlagrant 2y ago
I don't really understand that as a point, though. What would punishing a company look like? Why wouldn't we want to figure out how to punish (or hold accountable) individuals, instead of focusing on the fact that we can't punish legal entities? We can't punish countries either, even though they can also do these things. We can only punish people. So what?
- BiteCode_dev 2y ago
  Actually, it's the same point. We are currently trying to punish entities (with fines), and it's ineffective. We should move back to punishing people more, and moving back the responsibility to people, instead of pretending companies are people, and therefore responsible.
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    But it's such a strange angle. Should we stop companies having bank accounts in order to do that? Who cares if they have a bank account?
    - BiteCode_dev 2y ago
      Quite the opposite, since they have bank accounts, let's: - Make them more liable. - Make the people behind them more liable. - Give companies limitations. What would be the equivalent of jail for a company ? Unable to sale for x years ? How long a company should be able to exist ? Right now there is way too much power and shielding at the same time.
      - robertlagrant 2y ago
        > What would be the equivalent of jail for a company ? Unable to sale for x years ? How long a company should be able to exist ? If they can't sell then they don't have money, and everyone is fired. Is that what you mean? Why are you trying to make companies into physical people who can be punished separately to their employees/shareholders, instead of thinking of the actual outcome you want and coming up with something to achieve that?
- oersted 2y ago
  You can definitely punish countries as an independent entity: with trading sanctions, refusal to give in on certain diplomatic compromises, or different degrees of military retaliation. Same with companies: mostly fines, but also limits on how they can operate, additional oversight... Of course, the consequences trickle down to people, but these punishments are not meant to target any given individual, and if the individuals in charge change, the ones that leave don't necessarily carry the punishment with them. This makes sense, legal entities like companies are guided by incentives. And it sometimes makes more sense to punish the legal entity to change its behaviour, by imposing disincentives, rather than punishing whichever people are running it at the time. For example, people within a company might pressure an individual to commit a crime, because even if that individual might get punished, the company may benefit as a whole. But if the company's (financial) survival is at stake, everyone is more likely to collaborate to prevent that situation, including the shareholders, if the punishments are big enough. The point here is, that for issues like negligence and fraud, the current punishments are not significant enough to act as a real deterrent. The punishment on the companies is too lenient (they can absorb the fines, they are rarely an existential threat), and the punishment on the individuals responsible is too lenient (difficult to attribute culpability, limited liability...). We do want to figure out how to hold individuals more accountable, as you said, we are just having a conversation about why it works like that right now and what could be changed to improve it.
- quonn 2y ago
  > Why wouldn't we want to figure out how to punish (or hold accountable) individuals, instead of focusing on the fact that we can't punish legal entities? Because limited liability means exactly that the owners are shielded to a degree. That‘s my point. That‘s why corporations were created as a concept. This concept is necessary because the company represents collective decisions and if each and every one of those would be individually accountable then less business would be done. As someone else pointed out it‘s a union type. Instead of person you could call it „entity“ and rewrite all the laws. Happy now?
anticensor 2y ago
Companies have fewer rights and less responsibility overall actually.

robertlagrant 2y ago

I don't really understand that as a point, though. What would punishing a company look like? Why wouldn't we want to figure out how to punish (or hold accountable) individuals, instead of focusing on the fact that we can't punish legal entities? We can't punish countries either, even though they can also do these things. We can only punish people. So what?

BiteCode_dev 2y ago
Actually, it's the same point. We are currently trying to punish entities (with fines), and it's ineffective. We should move back to punishing people more, and moving back the responsibility to people, instead of pretending companies are people, and therefore responsible.
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  But it's such a strange angle. Should we stop companies having bank accounts in order to do that? Who cares if they have a bank account?
  - BiteCode_dev 2y ago
    Quite the opposite, since they have bank accounts, let's: - Make them more liable. - Make the people behind them more liable. - Give companies limitations. What would be the equivalent of jail for a company ? Unable to sale for x years ? How long a company should be able to exist ? Right now there is way too much power and shielding at the same time.
    - robertlagrant 2y ago
      > What would be the equivalent of jail for a company ? Unable to sale for x years ? How long a company should be able to exist ? If they can't sell then they don't have money, and everyone is fired. Is that what you mean? Why are you trying to make companies into physical people who can be punished separately to their employees/shareholders, instead of thinking of the actual outcome you want and coming up with something to achieve that?
oersted 2y ago
You can definitely punish countries as an independent entity: with trading sanctions, refusal to give in on certain diplomatic compromises, or different degrees of military retaliation. Same with companies: mostly fines, but also limits on how they can operate, additional oversight... Of course, the consequences trickle down to people, but these punishments are not meant to target any given individual, and if the individuals in charge change, the ones that leave don't necessarily carry the punishment with them. This makes sense, legal entities like companies are guided by incentives. And it sometimes makes more sense to punish the legal entity to change its behaviour, by imposing disincentives, rather than punishing whichever people are running it at the time. For example, people within a company might pressure an individual to commit a crime, because even if that individual might get punished, the company may benefit as a whole. But if the company's (financial) survival is at stake, everyone is more likely to collaborate to prevent that situation, including the shareholders, if the punishments are big enough. The point here is, that for issues like negligence and fraud, the current punishments are not significant enough to act as a real deterrent. The punishment on the companies is too lenient (they can absorb the fines, they are rarely an existential threat), and the punishment on the individuals responsible is too lenient (difficult to attribute culpability, limited liability...). We do want to figure out how to hold individuals more accountable, as you said, we are just having a conversation about why it works like that right now and what could be changed to improve it.
quonn 2y ago
> Why wouldn't we want to figure out how to punish (or hold accountable) individuals, instead of focusing on the fact that we can't punish legal entities? Because limited liability means exactly that the owners are shielded to a degree. That‘s my point. That‘s why corporations were created as a concept. This concept is necessary because the company represents collective decisions and if each and every one of those would be individually accountable then less business would be done. As someone else pointed out it‘s a union type. Instead of person you could call it „entity“ and rewrite all the laws. Happy now?

anticensor 2y ago

Companies have fewer rights and less responsibility overall actually.