Unlike every other institution created or run by humans?
Of course individual corporations abuse their rights and privileges. Especially if you count using a right or privilage to the disadvantage (including economic disadvantage) of another as an abuse. Of course, in this sense of the word abuse, every time we pass a bum on the street, we are abusing our right to earn money.
In the end, a corporation is simply a group of people who have pooled their money for some purpose. If that purpose is legal or moral, then the corporation is legal or moral. There is nothing inherent in the basic structure of a corporation which makes it tend toward or away from legality or morality.
Now, the fact of the matter is that corporate law is much more complicated than simply “a group of people”. There are many aspects of it which may in fact push corporations to more or less moral behavior. But this tendancy has more to do with the government making rules to dictate behavior than it does with any fundemental flaw in the way corporations are instituted.
If all that is valid then in return for the rights and protection afforded by the nation as a whole perhaps the corporation could also be drafter in wartime?
The high officials could be given a general’s rank and pay and so on down the hierarchy. The shareholders would forgo their dividents, or perhaps take a modest payment.
I realize that there will be the immediate cry, “But you’re confiscating private property!” Well, if private property is so sacrosanct then as an alternative maybe we could have an amendment to the constitution to the effect that everyone’s body, mind, and the life lead are “private property.”
I don’t think every institution lends itself to abuse, because not all organizational methods are created with the intent of shielding parties from personal responsibility for their decisions. I really don’t think this is just some trivial point.
How so?
If that was all it was, we wouldn’t need corporations. We’d just have people purchase property together and make decisions in whatever authoritarian or democratic method they saw fit.
I find this suspect, still. Consider a society that didn’t have laws governing “obviously” improper behavior like killing. I mean we all know it is wrong. When compared to a society that actively discouraged killing, do you suppose one society has a tendency towards killing when compared to the other? Of course, as a personal matter I do not kill because there is a law against it, but because I think it is wrong; but if this were so universal than we’d never need the law, would we? We’d never need the accountability, because people would be accountable to themselves in the first place.
If the corporation is a legal construct, as stated here in this thread and not yet disputed, than any government regulations concerning corporations are also part of the “definition”, no?
I’m not sure what country you’re living in (or what planet you’re on, frankly) but if you’re using a computer to acess the internet, you’re already benefitting from products produced and marketed by corporations. If corporate property could be seized at will, the internet could be shut down at will, since many of the backbone servers we use are owned by corporations.
We could go back to the days of ARPAnet, I suppose, and rely solely on university and government computers. Fun, fun, fun.
I hate to break it to you, but who do you think owns the corporation? Robots from Jupiter?
That’s already covered by the fifth amendment regarding due process of law. If you can prove in a court that a corporation has done something illegal, then you can impose fines. Turning a right into a mere privelege is pointless. Besides, define “losing them”. Forever? If a government decides a newspaper isn’t sufficiently “wholesome” and “valid”, is the newspaper toast? Can the newspaper be closed by its stockholders and then reopened? Can a candy company be shut down for not being sufficiently “wholesome”? An adult film company? Can you define “wholesome”?
Well, this guy has compiled a list, though I haven’t personally verified the contents. It includes nine-figure fines and even mentions a jail term here and there.
Well, a corporation doesn’t have voting rights, and by definition a corporation can’t murder someone (only the people who work for a corporation can pull that off) . Corporations have been broken up against the wishes of their owners, usually in anti-trust actions, so maybe that’s a form of execution.
It’s not an imbalance. A human person and a legal person (i.e. a corporation) are not required to even have a balance in the first place. The legal person serves a useful role in society, allowing one or more human persons to pool their recources and accomplish certain goals. A right held by an individual does (and must) still exist in some form when applied to a group of individuals, or else it is meaningless.
No, let’s stick to “evil” and not try to hide agenda behind euphamism.
Just kidding. In wartime, certain rights can be limited by acts of congress, so I actually don’t have a problem with what you’re describing, though I’d want it to be actual wartime i.e. after a formal declaration by congress, and not just their approval of presidential action.
Well, this thread pretty much took off over the long weekend. Sorry to dredge up page-one stuff, but I’ve got a couple more points I’d like to make before I bug off for the evening.
This is all well and good, but the structure of the economy is such that the two are, by necessity, happening at the same time. You’ve got companies who are planning for the long term, lending money to reasonable risks, investing in infrastructure, etc. Then you’ve got the companies who are on the recieving end of those loans or cash from sale of goods who can just cut and run right then. The gap between the value of money now and money later is quite large. The people who have it right now can afford to make both long-term investments(with substantial yield) AND live well until they come to fruition. Those who build more gradually must make do with lower standards of living until their long-term investments come to fruition and even then they may not yield enough over what the short-termers got to be worth it. To make the “money later” idea worth doing it has to be a LOT more money than I can achieve by doing something to get “money now”. Long-term investments just aren’t at that point in most cases. Doing something unscrupulous so you can both live well in the meantime AND pad a substantial long-term portfolio is a very attractive option. It is also a viable option.
Quarter-driven thinking is dangerous, but it is demonstrably a better way to get your wealth up to the point where the dangers don’t apply to you personally faster than longer-term thinking. Once you’ve achieved “Fuck You Money*” levels then you really don’t care about what a bunch of tree-huggers say about how you got there. The golden rule still obtains. He who has the gold makes the rule. Make billions by the time you’re 30 and you can tell people to fuck off when they bitch about how you treat your employees like shit. You don’t need them and they can’t touch you. The CEOs are racing for Fuck You Money levels and the best way for them to get there is maximum profits as fast as possible for the shareholders. No one wants money later as much as they want money now.
*"Fuck-you money (FUM) is whatever amount of money it takes to make an
individual pretty much able to do whatever they want, whenever they want, even when that
conflicts with what other people want, fuck you very much. (I.e., Larry Ellison lands at
SFO whenever he damn well pleases, and pays the after-curfew landing fine.) "
Certainly not. Corporations can be abused in ways that other institutions cannot. But that does not mean that corporations are abusive by their nature. The fact that a corporation shields investors from losing more than thier investment, does not contribute to any tendency for the corporation to act in an irresponsible way.
Because if we count keeping our own money for ourselves when others are disadvantaged by that as abuse, then we stray into the void of “all property is theft”.
But that is exactly what a corporation is. There are certainly other rules. A “corporation” has to be acknowledged by the state. As such it cannot be constituted for illegal purposes. Additionally, there are a couple officers which are required. In Arizona you must have a president and a secratary. They have certain responsibilities to report earnings and things to the state. But basically, when you write your articles of incorporation, you are devise any sort of command structure you want. You can sell voting and non voting shares. You can sell shares publically (with certain other state requirements) or not.
I’m not at all sure. It seems to me that the reasons that a society would chose not to discourage killing would either be they felt not enough killings occured to worry about it, or that they did not feel killing was a bad thing. Perhaps in the second case more killings would occur. But perhaps people would take personal defense more seriously and fewer would occur. I’m not entirely sure.
Well, universal in this case does not necessarily mean that every single person is opposed to killing in all cases without exception. Society as a whole can be opposed to killing without requiring that sort of universality.
I’ve been operating under the idea that a corporation can be pointed to in America. We’ve strayed often into the “idealized” corporation once or twice, but generally I’ve been considering corporations as legal entities that are constituted in this country. My point was that laws which govern corporations may, in fact, tilt their behavior one way or another, but that such laws are not necessarily part of the definition of a corporation in the ideal sense.
This may be true in the physical sense of the terms. A company with investment money is under no physical constraints to use that money to deliver promised goods. However, I don’t think this is typical behavior for corporations. Also, I’m pretty sure that there is not charactieristic of corporations which encourages such behavior. I think it would be considered fraud. As such, I think it is specifically discouraged.
It can be, but it really depends on the investment. A couple hundred dollars in the 1970 was just a couple hundred dollars. But a few shares of Microsoft purchased back then would be worth quite a lot today.
Possibly. The other choices you have for spending the money will dictate how much a LOT is in your case. If you are thinking of investing your milk money, for instance, you’d need a substantiall higher return than if you were thinking of investing your “mad money”.
I’m not sure which investments you are considering. The long term investments aren’t “at that point” in many cases, certainly. But the specifics for a particular investment and for a particular investor can be quite complicated.
Well, except that you have now added the risk of your unscrupulousness getting in the way or your payoff.
In some circumstances, surely. But I think you have restricted the number of long term investments which are now worth the effort, not increased them.
I think you’d have to demonstrate this. I think longer term thinking is much better. Living paycheck to paycheck is demonstably not the way to become rich. Investing for the future (long term) is demonstrably a much better way.
The problem with this is that the destruction of forests is not simply a matter of a small fine. One could argue that the destruction of property which is not your own puts you in a position where you are responsible to replace that property.
I actually don’t even have time to reply at all, but can’t resist at least this:
Um… nice try. Let’s not try and hide agenda behind undefinable terms that are emotionally loaded.
I suggested that phrase because it was actually a clearly defined, unlike “evil” which has so many nuances it’s possible to spend eternity just arguing about what it means.
Actually, your stance strikes me as craven backpedaling. The emotion-charged word “evil” has been shot down, so you tried to establish a fallback position with a softer term.
Still, you at least admit that a corporation has rights and priveleges (how else could they be abused?). I just think your premise that this should be shifted to priveleges only has no reasonable basis and might stem from a misguided belief on your part that corporations are, in fact, evil.
I’d still like to see your definition of “wholesome, valid benefit to society”, by the way, as well as examples of companies that meet and don’t meet that criteria.
Oh absolutely, and it shouldn’t be a Congress that is paniced into giving the President carte blanche to start any war he thinks advisable. I’ve heard of such an outrageous occurance, although I can hardly believe it.
Well, that’s getting a little beyond the scope of this thread, though there are any number of GD and Pit threads where specific recent history is being discussed. In any case, a formal declaration of war does allow congress to take certain actions, which can include imposing on its citizens and corporations for the overall good of the nation.
Huh? Then let me ask you, when does someone or something have a tendency to act irresponsibly if not when they are shielded from decisions and not held accountable? What would you consider encouragement of irresponsibility, other than a little devil on the shoulder whispering naughty things?
I’m not sure if I am reading you correctly but this statement is absolutely false. Companies who have recieved capital from investors are, in fact, under certain obligations to those investors. A venture capitalist does not simply hand over a check and say “go make money” (unless it’s 1997). A company cannot just take a shareholders money and say “thanks for the cash…we’re off to the Caymens”. Investors and creditors expect to get PAID.
My finance professor had a fond saying - “in the long run, we are all dead”.
Forget stupid terms like “Fuck You Money”. Money now is better than money later…period. The reason for this is because there is an ever increasing risk that either you or the money won’t be there for some reason or another. Companies need to think long-term, but they also have bills that need to be paid now. People are the same way.
A desire for greater profit up-front does not necessarily require unethical action. I could be a millionare by making a small investment in a shotgun and a ski mask and rob armored cars. Why don’t I do this? Because there is HUGE inherent risk in such a venture.
Companies are able to engage in unethical enterprises when 1) there is a demand for that product/service (cigarette and gun companies could not exist without a market) 2) adequate legislation and enforcement does not exist to restrict those activities 3) such activities are profitable.
And all I meant was that there is no physical law, like gravity, which requires someone to uphold his agreements. However, you are entirely correct that there are many laws of man, so to speak, which do so.
I think the difficulty we are having is in our understanding of irresponsible behavior. I suspect that you have a very different picture of it than I do. We started this thread examining the possibility that corporations are evil. I’ve been trying to keep loosly to that standard. So, we are looking for something in the way corporations are structured that encourages people to commit evil acts. Investors are shielded from the financial debts of the corporation so that they cannot lose more than their investment (unless fraud or some other crime can be proven). However, the officers of the corporation are not shielded from their own actions if the corporation commits illegal acts. So, while it is true that one could form a corporation, borrow money in the corporation’s name, pay that money to the shareholders, and then have the corporation declare bancrupcy, the consequences of such actions would not necessarily be shielded from the officers or shareholders. Especially if you could prove that was the intention all along.
I’m somewhat at a loss to come up with a scenario which constitutes evil, involves the corporate structure in and of itself (that is could not be perpetrated without it), and is not already illegal. However, I suspect that I am not using a sufficiently broad definition of evil.
I wasn’t very clear, sorry about that. The specific situation I was trying to get across was the payday the company received, a large sum of cash in hand at the moment. I didn’t mean to suggest non-delivery of the promised goods. Just that at one particular moment this company has a large amount of cash and could choose to take their short-term profits and simply retire.
Depends on the actual scruples involved. There are tons of ways to wiggle around the law and consequences of shitty behavior with very little risk.
Sure, but a lotto is different from a paycheck. Pulling a Worldcom or an Enron isn’t a paycheck, it’s a shot at the lotto. Win and you walk away and never play again. Some other poor bastards may have to pick up the costs and reconstruct the pieces but you’ve already got your piece of the pie.
One could argue that, but that is not in fact the law of the land. In fact this is the whole idea of limited liability. Imagine a small company, a few thousand shareholders, dumps tons of toxic emissions and destroys acres of wetland. The costs of restoring that wetland would be higher than the sum total of the equity represented by all the shares issued. Who will repair the wetlands? Where will the money come from? The people who owned that stock still got their dividend payments, they lost whatever value the stock once had, but they probably weren’t ruined. If the executives had one of the far-too-common “Golden Parachute” contract clauses then odds are the people who made the decision to dump toxic waste wasn’t personally liable at all. The risk/reward analysis for dumping the waste becomes like Pascal’s wager in this scenario. There are scenarios like this every day.
I’m not sure what experiences or evidence you are accessing for this assertion. But it has been my experience that just the opposite is true. There are ways to avoid detection, but they involve remaining small. Large scale cons on the order of Enron are nearly impossible to keep secret.
I don’t think anyone who invested but did not participate in the scam in either company was intending to commit any bad acts. Those who did commit bad acts (or many of them) are being tried right now. Not exactly an example of walking away scott free.
Well, as I alluded to, limited liability is not absolute. Criminal behavior is not covered, for instance. Golden parachute clauses are nothing like you are insinuating. They do not reduce the liability that an executive faces except for being fired. If his actions end up causing the corporation financial harm, he may still be liable for financial punishment. Most have a feduciary responsibility. Your assertion that there are scenarios like this every day is just that. Can you name 3?
(I.e., Larry Ellison lands at