5 ms·

I've long thought that that is one of the main functions of corporations. There's a reason they're called limited liability. The fact that you can conjure up ne

by larsrc 2y ago

I've long thought that that is one of the main functions of corporations. There's a reason they're called limited liability. The fact that you can conjure up new companies at a whim makes it easy to shuffle responsibility into an obscure corner. This is a strong reason that corporations should not be considered people. People are long-lived entities with accountability and you can't just create or destroy them at will.

atoav 2y ago
The buck has to stop somewhere and a human has to be responsible for things.
- rwmj 2y ago
  Oh sweet summer child. Companies are frequently structured and created in multiple jurisdictions to obscure beneficial ownership, responsibility, profits and taxes.
  - atoav 2y ago
    What I said is how it should be, not how it is.
627467 2y ago
I agree with the feeling, but State orgs are effectively eternal (think the various level of government) and still great at diffusing accountability to various scapegoats
- lesuorac 2y ago
  State orgs (and federal ones) often have length processes before they can do stuff though. As well as after they do something there is typically a recourse path provided by that org for you to protest their decisions and if that doesn't resolve favorable you can also sue them. Which differs from the article because the corporation doesn't provide any protest path nor did it have to publish any memo/etc describing how they're going to downsize cleaning for cost-savings. But you can still sue them (but good luck showing damages over an unclean room)!
  - InsideOutSanta 2y ago
    "the corporation doesn't provide any protest path" This. The problem with "voting with your wallet" is that you can't vote "no", you can only vote "yes" or abstain from voting altogether.
    - f1shy 2y ago
      That can be said of many many democracies around the world.
InsideOutSanta 2y ago
Yeah, this dysfunction is not a bug, it's the feature. In some ways, it's useful, because it allows positive risk-taking that could not be taken if anyone was actually held (or even just felt) accountable. But at this point, as a society, we've shifted too far towards enabling accountability-free behavior from corporations. I think a good example of the dichotomy here is Starlink. On one hand, it's an incredibly useful service that often has a positive impact. On the other hand, a private corporation is just polluting our low earth orbit with thousands of satellites. It's not clear to me where exactly the right balance for something like this should be, but I do think that as of today, we're too far on the lessez-faire side.
- dale_glass 2y ago
  > I think a good example of the dichotomy here is Starlink. On one hand, it's an incredibly useful service that often has a positive impact. On the other hand, a private corporation is just polluting our low earth orbit with thousands of satellites. Seems like a terrible example to me. I'm no fan of Musk, but I don't see how that is "polluting". They provide an excellent service. They're a minor hindrance for astronomy, true, but I think it would be hard to make a good case for that a few people having a good view of the sky is more important than millions having good communications. Then there's that there's nothing really special about Starlink. It's merely one of the first users of cheap rocket launches. It could be somebody else, or 1000 different entities launching smaller numbers, in the end the effect on astronomy would be the same.
  - InsideOutSanta 2y ago
    "Then there's that there's nothing really special about Starlink" I didn't say there was, and this isn't about Musk. I'm just using Starlink as an example, my point is not about Starlink. "I don't see how that is polluting" Starlink satellites create light pollution and disrupt radio frequencies. Astronomers are already running into issues with research due to the light from Starlink satellites. There's also the issue of reentry. We now have a Starlink reentry almost every single day, which is at least damaging to the ozone layer, and very likely causing other issues. But like I said, this is not about Starlink. It's just an example to illustrate accountability sinks having both positive and negative effects.
RandomLensman 2y ago
Limited liability corporations are a relatively new concept and there is certainly scope to change how/when/where they could be created and run, for example.
- ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago
  I recently had to submit a copy of my drivers license to the feds, for my LLC. I have heard that they are working on the accountability shield for LLCs.
izacus 2y ago
Just to be clear, LLC is supposed to be about limited financial liability, not criminal liability. But we seem to have forgotten that on the way.
7952 2y ago
At a more basic level money eliminates the need for social obligation. There is no expectation of reciprocity or mutual respect. You pay for a product, it is delivered and that is the end of it. Corporations do this within their own internal economy or with partner companies. A cost centre pays an amount of money and delegates responsibility.
- swayvil 2y ago
  Enjoying the benefits of living in a society (a degree of trust, no deadly combat, services like police) without suffering its liabilities (mandatory politeness and respect). It's the profitable course.
tucnak 2y ago
> People are long-lived entities with accountability and you can't just create or destroy them at will. This notion is currently being contested
arp242 2y ago
> I've long thought that that is one of the main functions of corporations. Ambrose Bierce already hit the nail on the head in 1911: "Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility." It has long since baffled me this isn't being talked about more – I guess everyone is just so used to it. As far as I'm concerned the entire concept of "fining a company" should be abolished and replaced with the criminal persecution of those who did the illegal thing.

by larsrc 2y ago

atoav 2y ago

The buck has to stop somewhere and a human has to be responsible for things.

rwmj 2y ago
Oh sweet summer child. Companies are frequently structured and created in multiple jurisdictions to obscure beneficial ownership, responsibility, profits and taxes.
- atoav 2y ago
  What I said is how it should be, not how it is.

627467 2y ago

I agree with the feeling, but State orgs are effectively eternal (think the various level of government) and still great at diffusing accountability to various scapegoats

lesuorac 2y ago
State orgs (and federal ones) often have length processes before they can do stuff though. As well as after they do something there is typically a recourse path provided by that org for you to protest their decisions and if that doesn't resolve favorable you can also sue them. Which differs from the article because the corporation doesn't provide any protest path nor did it have to publish any memo/etc describing how they're going to downsize cleaning for cost-savings. But you can still sue them (but good luck showing damages over an unclean room)!
- InsideOutSanta 2y ago
  "the corporation doesn't provide any protest path" This. The problem with "voting with your wallet" is that you can't vote "no", you can only vote "yes" or abstain from voting altogether.
  - f1shy 2y ago
    That can be said of many many democracies around the world.

InsideOutSanta 2y ago

Yeah, this dysfunction is not a bug, it's the feature. In some ways, it's useful, because it allows positive risk-taking that could not be taken if anyone was actually held (or even just felt) accountable. But at this point, as a society, we've shifted too far towards enabling accountability-free behavior from corporations. I think a good example of the dichotomy here is Starlink. On one hand, it's an incredibly useful service that often has a positive impact. On the other hand, a private corporation is just polluting our low earth orbit with thousands of satellites. It's not clear to me where exactly the right balance for something like this should be, but I do think that as of today, we're too far on the lessez-faire side.

dale_glass 2y ago
> I think a good example of the dichotomy here is Starlink. On one hand, it's an incredibly useful service that often has a positive impact. On the other hand, a private corporation is just polluting our low earth orbit with thousands of satellites. Seems like a terrible example to me. I'm no fan of Musk, but I don't see how that is "polluting". They provide an excellent service. They're a minor hindrance for astronomy, true, but I think it would be hard to make a good case for that a few people having a good view of the sky is more important than millions having good communications. Then there's that there's nothing really special about Starlink. It's merely one of the first users of cheap rocket launches. It could be somebody else, or 1000 different entities launching smaller numbers, in the end the effect on astronomy would be the same.
- InsideOutSanta 2y ago
  "Then there's that there's nothing really special about Starlink" I didn't say there was, and this isn't about Musk. I'm just using Starlink as an example, my point is not about Starlink. "I don't see how that is polluting" Starlink satellites create light pollution and disrupt radio frequencies. Astronomers are already running into issues with research due to the light from Starlink satellites. There's also the issue of reentry. We now have a Starlink reentry almost every single day, which is at least damaging to the ozone layer, and very likely causing other issues. But like I said, this is not about Starlink. It's just an example to illustrate accountability sinks having both positive and negative effects.

RandomLensman 2y ago

Limited liability corporations are a relatively new concept and there is certainly scope to change how/when/where they could be created and run, for example.

ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago
I recently had to submit a copy of my drivers license to the feds, for my LLC. I have heard that they are working on the accountability shield for LLCs.

izacus 2y ago

Just to be clear, LLC is supposed to be about limited financial liability, not criminal liability. But we seem to have forgotten that on the way.

7952 2y ago

At a more basic level money eliminates the need for social obligation. There is no expectation of reciprocity or mutual respect. You pay for a product, it is delivered and that is the end of it. Corporations do this within their own internal economy or with partner companies. A cost centre pays an amount of money and delegates responsibility.

swayvil 2y ago
Enjoying the benefits of living in a society (a degree of trust, no deadly combat, services like police) without suffering its liabilities (mandatory politeness and respect). It's the profitable course.

tucnak 2y ago

> People are long-lived entities with accountability and you can't just create or destroy them at will. This notion is currently being contested

arp242 2y ago

> I've long thought that that is one of the main functions of corporations. Ambrose Bierce already hit the nail on the head in 1911: "Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility." It has long since baffled me this isn't being talked about more – I guess everyone is just so used to it. As far as I'm concerned the entire concept of "fining a company" should be abolished and replaced with the criminal persecution of those who did the illegal thing.