A corporation is a legal construct, a fictitious person, basically a fantasy. The share holders have invested in this person as a person, like putting all their money in a pile and saying that money is a person, legally they are at risk, meaning all that value can be taken if that fictitious person loses it. If one steals from a corporation, they are not stealing from the shareholders as they have relinquished this right for the exchange corporate person hood, and the protection it brings. The society that allows the corporation is at fault for allowing this non-entity to exist at a person, when it is not.
A case can be made that the shareholders are delusional in that the corporation has real person hood, and therefor were incapable of investing in the first case. Or that the state is at fault for promoting a false hood as truth,
But in any case, when you do steal from a corporation who are you stealing from morally?
Also a aside, Someone steals a big screen TV from Walmart, can I as a shareholder of Walmart sue them civilly and have a case for my percentage of that value?
It seems like the shareholders have already relinquished that right to property, it is no theirs but the new entitiy’s
If I purchase 50% of the shares in a company, and their premises burn to the ground, I still own the same percentage, but i’ve certainly lost out in revenue. That the value is at risk is true of all things that have value.
Morally, you’re stealing from anyone who has some stake in the corporation in question which is harmed by your theft. That might mean shareholders who as a result will get less money, or employees who as a result might have their wages cut or lost their job.
Morally, when you steal from a corporation you are stealing from the people who own the corporation, whose property has been devalued by your crime. The other stuff you’ve been talking about is irrelevant or just plain wrong.
I’m not doubting that there can be loss, I’m doubting your claim that you have personally been robbed (if theft has occurred) or more specifically your right to claim personal theft since you created a new entity to isolate yourself from it being personally connected to you.
It seems like you want to take both sides here, it’s a separate person when it serves you but it is you when that serves you, morally doesn’t seem to be able to co-exist. You live by the rules you die by them.
If I steal you car, and by that you don’t go out to dinner that night, did I steal from that waitress you would have tipped?
There’s a difference between legal and moral entitites, I would say. That there may be essentially legalistic corporate “citizens” doesn’t mean that morally I am obliged to recognise the personhood of a corporation as a distinct entity.
Edit; They are not “my” rules. I am not the one campaigning to treat corporations as if they have such rights or should be treated in such way. On what basis are they “my” rules?
Look, Kanicbird, if you want to ask a question about moral consequences then you should quit trying to obfuscate with arguments about the legal consequences.
Lets look at it from another side also. A chemical is known hazardous and a carcinogen, continues to be distributed by companies because it always has been and it seems like the law looks the other way. Should a shareholder be held personally criminally responsible, or civilly liable for the resulting harm? If no how can a shareholder claim personal theft?
Both, depending on circumstances. If the act is against the law, and done by the say-so, assent, or knowledge of without reporting of the shareholder in question, then they should be held criminally responsible. If there is no law against the act, they may be held civilly liable by an injured party. If the shareholder has no knowledge of the act, then they aren’t legally responsible. Either way, it’s not necessary that ownership, in part or in total, means liability for actions commited by or on behalf of the owned business, morally or legally.
There’s the question of the extent to which precautions are taken. Let’s take an example of a situation where the owned thing has some indepedent ability; an owner of a horse. If I own a horse, and don’t take basic safety precautions to ensure it is not a danger, then I may be liable for some sort of legal suit even if I don’t deliberately direct it to cause harm, or know that it is causing harm. In the same way, you might argue that there are some basic precautions that a shareholder should take when buying into a corporation to ensure it is above board… but i’m not sure to what extent that should go, either legally or morally.
There are shareholder lawsuits based on lost value. They typically go after the Board or the CEO though (Bill Lerach was the king of these at one point).
If you can sue the Board for lost value, you could sue a thief for your lost value as well. Of course, you would need to be able to document the loss that you as an individual shareholder took due to the stolen TV from Walmart (or pirated software or music). It would turn into a class action suit pretty fast too.
Not worth it at a court level, but what is the minimum for small claims court?
Ownership of shares doesn’t equal particular ownership of assets. That doesn’t mean that removing those assets doesn’t remove revenue.
Edit: I don’t know the legalities. If they don’t know, I suspect it would be a matter of proving a point of insufficient precautions, but again i’m uncertain what exact point you’d need to be able to draw from on that. I would say as a general rule that ignorance means innocence, with caveats, of course.
Morally it appears like a corporation from a individual’s standing is a part of themselves that has been isolated from the rest. basically dividing themselves into 2, those being 1: their personal self and 2: a combined entity with others.
If it is moral to divide oneself to avoid legalities and the like or not is another issue