3 ms·

The first part of your question seems like a different question to me. We have fundamental problems within our own legal framework that allow us to capture only

The first part of your question seems like a different question to me. We have fundamental problems within our own legal framework that allow us to capture only the upside, which is the issue I am bringing up. You are expanding this to other jurisdictions. I think this is a fair question, but a different subject. I am not convinced that we should jail shareholders. I am also not convinced that legal entities designed to limit liability should exist. As for the second part of your question about those who inadvertently and ignorantly own shares in criminal enterprises, I think it is a good question and I do not have an answer. Maybe pension funds should be responsible for their investments.

hx8 2y ago
As much as I agree with investing alongside your values, I don't think holding shareholders criminally liable for the companies they own fits alongside my concept of justice. Reasons why I'm against shareholder criminal liability * Shareholders do not directly commit crimes. We should hold those that directly commit the crime liable. * Shareholders often hold assets that hold stocks. Should I be responsible if I own an index fund with stocks in a company that owns stocks in a company that commits a crime? * Shareholders do not have perfect information about the inside operations of a company. I cannot read internal emails to determine if I own a shares in a company that is planning on committing a crime. * Shareholders can physically be outside of the legal jurisdictions that the company is operating from. Is it fair if Venezuelan shareholders are effectively unpunished while US resident shareholders are held responsible?
- mcculley 2y ago
  These are all good questions. If shareholders were legally responsible for the actions of the companies they own, they would expect and be entitled to more transparency. I remain unconvinced that the system we were born into just happens to be the right way to do things. I can currently extract profit by owning pieces of corporations that harm individuals and society. This seems less than ideal to me.

hx8 2y ago

As much as I agree with investing alongside your values, I don't think holding shareholders criminally liable for the companies they own fits alongside my concept of justice. Reasons why I'm against shareholder criminal liability * Shareholders do not directly commit crimes. We should hold those that directly commit the crime liable. * Shareholders often hold assets that hold stocks. Should I be responsible if I own an index fund with stocks in a company that owns stocks in a company that commits a crime? * Shareholders do not have perfect information about the inside operations of a company. I cannot read internal emails to determine if I own a shares in a company that is planning on committing a crime. * Shareholders can physically be outside of the legal jurisdictions that the company is operating from. Is it fair if Venezuelan shareholders are effectively unpunished while US resident shareholders are held responsible?

mcculley 2y ago
These are all good questions. If shareholders were legally responsible for the actions of the companies they own, they would expect and be entitled to more transparency. I remain unconvinced that the system we were born into just happens to be the right way to do things. I can currently extract profit by owning pieces of corporations that harm individuals and society. This seems less than ideal to me.