As long as we’re going to treat corporations as people, all the way to having essentially the same free speech and religion rights, then they should be treated as people in other contexts. The can’t just get the freedoms without getting the consequences.
In any case, when we incarcerate a criminal, his/her children and spouses suffer, even though they did nothing criminal. Are you against incarceration for natural persons as well?
FWIW, I’m not a fan of corporate personhood and I think white collar crimes should be punished more severely than they are now. To the quoted comment, there is a huge difference between the suffering of an incarcerated criminal’s spouse/children (if there are any) and the damage caused to an economy when hundreds/thousands/tens-of-thousands of people become unemployed overnight.
I think corporate personhood makes sense in some contexts (signing docs, limited liability), but not other contexts (same speech and religious freedoms). However, the fact is, corporate persons have those other rights, so there should be consequences as well. In a different world, where they weren’t treated like natural persons in so many ways, stricter enforcement of white collar crime would be sufficient. Maybe shutting them down for years is too much - dissolve their board and require new incorporation docs? Require a new owner?
As a general rule your career suffers if you cause $46 million in damage against a profit of $1.8 million.
This sort of horseshit needs called out every time it is used. The guy did not get “LIFE” (OMG!!!) for selling $20 worth of weed. Nobody gets life for selling $20 worth of weed.
He got life because he is a recidivist. He was convicted of four prior felonies according to your own cite.
Oppose recidivist laws if you want; I’m not very supportive of them as applied, but don’t shit all over the board by giving the impression that some 19 year old kid can walk out on the street and get life for ONLY selling weed. It is a dishonest argument tactic.
Confiscate and place under management of a state’s trustee, then put up for sale before or after reorganization (whichever makes for a better deal). Execs and directors who abided the malfeasance must go and surrender all stock and options.
To that you have to go back to the reason why corporations were first invented. British ship owners who took consignment of traders’ goods would be personally bankrupted in the event that a ship sank, as they would be held liable for the loss of all the goods aboard.
So there was a disincentive to overseas trade. But overseas trade was beneficial to the economy as a whole. So the corporate entity was invented wherin liability would be limited to the company assests alone, not extending to the personal assets of the company officers.
Invoke the 13th Amendment. When a corporation is convicted of a crime, it can be sentenced to a period of involuntary servitude, when its assets work for the government.
Until relatively recently (15 years, maybe?), the British Lloyd’s still had its associates personally liable. It ended when some disaster at sea or another ended up bankrupting a number of them (who didn’t expect that to actually happen).
Even though it’s probably useful for the economy, stock holders still benefit from what is essentially a gigantic privilege : not being liable for an activity you engage in. If I accidentally drop a flower pot on someone’s toe, I’m liable. But if I own, say, 35% of a chemical corporation and dictate policies that result in a 5 000 deaths when a very toxic chemical leaks (assuming not illegal actions), I’m not.
I sometimes amused myself by mentioning to Libertarian types that in Libertaria, stock-holders should be personally liable and so that they should agitate for policies abolishing this privilege.
I’m aware of why corporations were formed. And I can see a good argument for how it benefits the overall economy to allow people to place limits on the financial liability they acquire from making investments.
I can’t see any argument, economic or otherwise, where it benefits society to allow corporations to be used to shield people who are breaking the law.
To some extent that is true but stock holders have so little influence over company policies and they are pretty removed from the decision-making process. The only things they usually have a say in is whether to keep the current leadership.
Yeah, I agree with you. But Enron CEOs went to jail or killed themselves or (got off scott free like Lou Pai the luckiest MF ever born) once they were shown to be dishonest. Enron were cowboys though so relatively easily caught. Today’s fraudster in a suit is usually harder to catch but I can’t say it’s the nature of corporations that allows them to evade the law. I think it’s more that the types of malfeasance so common today are really hard to prove in a court of law.
What specific corporate shield did you have in mind to discuss?
Oh I see, you were talking about controlling shareholders. Yes, I agree.