I dont see one(a problem), and I think It's a good idea.
Though the corporation was set up to limit the ?owners?, or whatever, from negative repercussions that might stem from the operation of a big business, I see it more as a shield for the weak. It gives corrupt individuals a veil of ambiguity, letting said individuals wreak havoc in the system.
I will not try to claim that I know much about the free market construct but what I find despicable is the corporation as it relates to modern politics. Men with power will use it and many of the bigger corporations are using their power (meaning cash), to affect domestic policy. A government, in my opinion, that allows itself to be aided/funded by special interests groups, looses the ability to be a government of the people, by the people.
Let me give an example, but please not I can not back this up with any definitive proof or links, so don?t ask.
Marijuana. Relaxing, some say healing, and cheap. You could grow it in your own home with little to no trouble and you would be putting no one in danger by doing so. Why is it illegal? My uncle has an advanced case of arthritis that is not going to be going away and his back also is hurt from playing sports in high school. The drugs that he was taking for arthritis did not do much for him he claimed, and in fact was latter taken off the market due to findings that showed he had a much, and I mean much, higher chance of heart failure, if anyone took them. There was only one last place for him to go. Weed.
I?ve thought many times about why its outlawed, I can find no reason. You could tax the hell out of it, and make tons. Lets not joke ourselves people, everyone smokes, and they are starting younger and younger. Potentially a huge source of income for the government. Now who stands to loose if it is legalized?
Lets all take a look at the drug companies. Tylenol, arthritis, any type of pain killer, relaxants, sleeping aides, you name it, I believe would shoot down in sales. And why not? Pot is inexpensive to grow, and can grow just about anywhere (it?s a weed). I still have not seen a news story saying, ? Man crashed car after smoking a bit or marijuana?, or anything showing that someone smoked and then went out and got into a bar fight.
People It?s simple, pot doesn?t start fights, its starts people running to Safeway.
So why hasn?t it been legalized you ask? The drug companies are paying the government big bucks to make sure that they pass bills that help them. Look what happened when people started going to Canada to buy prescription drugs. It was MUCH cheaper to do and almost immediately once the public knew it could do this, the drug companies took a big hit to sales. So what did they do? They got Congress to pass a bill that made it illegal to do that.
Is that in the best interest of the people? I don?t think so, and you shouldn?t ether. I should in all right be able to spend my money wherever I please. For the people thinking right now that that might be bad for American business I say, who cares. The people don?t, I am still yet to hear a true cry of outrage from the working class about the outsourcing of all the jobs being sent overseas.
This is just one point in many, but I?d like to hear about the up side of the corporation. How is the modern day corporation helping me?
Sean.
This post reaffirms my belief that you are just an angry simpleton. If it is money that makes you happy then good for you, but some people aren?t so material.
WhipperSnapper
Lifer
- Oct 30, 2004
- 11,442
- 32
- 91
If we had real laissez-faire capitalism--just police, military, and courts to protect against the initiation of physical force with 100% freedom of contract, in which case the government wouldn't regulate apartment leases at all in any way other than to enforce contracts, you would need a lawyer to help you rent an apartment. (In fact, you would need a lawyer to help you negotiate a contract to do just about everything else in life since just about every activity is regulated, directly or indirectly, in some way. You would need a lawyer to help you enter into a liability agreement for a purchase of a stick of gum since the sellers would insist that you waive all tort claims in case that particular piece of gum ended up being poisonous, etc.)
As far as corporations go, it's an interesting subject and I really don't have much input. Changing the laws to allow full liability above and beyond the investment (price of stock purchased) would dramatically change how people invested their money. One benefit would be that small, closely held corporations where the shareholders have actual control would be held liable for dishonest and tortious conduct. (Ie, the local window repair company that takes people's money in advance, then claims bankruptcy, bilking its customers.)
I tend to think that large corporations wouldn't be affected so much since they have billions of dollars of capital and could afford to pay legal judgments, but what about something like Enron or the kind of liability that the manufacturers of asbestos faced? In some way, the proposed change to the law would dramatically change how people invested their money. I suppose one of the issues is--does the benefit to society from having the current system (which would seem to encourage economic activity) outweigh the harm of having legal judgments that cannot be collected?
Dissipate
Diamond Member
- Jan 17, 2004
- 6,815
- 0
- 0
A major misconception that people have about capitalism is they conflate state-capitalism with real capitalism. Corporations are a product of state capitalism, and not truly representative of what real capitalism would be like. Without the government firms would still exist, but not corporations and all the legal protections they receive.
True, but capitalism in its purest sense would lead to a buyer beware environment and the need for limited liability would not exist.
"A 'buyer beware environment?' I can't really say I know what you are talking about."....Ebay?..........
Cerb
Elite Member
- Aug 26, 2000
- 17,484
- 33
- 86
It's not big vs. small business. It's that everyone in a corporation, or running it at least, are people, and get personal rights as an organization, and can form groups of friendly competitors, which can also be treated with the rights of a person. That the corporation has these rights is bad. That they can make groups for political lobbying and PR purposes is worse.
Running anything capitalistic without corporations at all would just cause things to fall apart. They need to be controlled, especially in their political power.
Dissipate
Diamond Member
- Jan 17, 2004
- 6,815
- 0
- 0
Why do you say that? I believe you are conflating no government with no law. This is not the case.
Without a centrally planned court system, law would merely be the natural result of the bargaining process in the free market.
If the government was the only entity keeping quality in the marketplace at acceptable levels, long ago we would have been up a creek without a paddle. Eliminate the bureaucratically and centrally planned court system, and you would see even more accountability in the marketplace, with disputes being resolved quicker and in a less costly manner.
Ahhh the second dimwit who didn't really read the first post (I even bolded the important part for them :roll: ).
MadRat
Lifer
- Oct 14, 1999
- 11,999
- 307
- 126
A better way to regulate corporations is to create a timed holding fund for all executive salaries over a common ceiling. The common ceiling should be capped across the board in every company, in the range of something like an amount equal to the current U.S. president's salary. If an executive breaks the law then they lose a proportion of their salary and that money is used to compensate the victim of the tort; minimal corporate funds outside the executive compensation fund should be reachable by lawsuits.
If their graduated fund has matured for 5 years then the executive recieves the time-dated money deposited into the fund. (Essentially they get a week to week or month to month 'performance' pay after the period of time expires.) In that way the executive is rewarded with just compensation for good decision making and the liability of the corporation's investors is minimized. Investors and potential victims of corporate abuse have plenty of time - let's say 5 years - to initiate a lawsuit against the executives. If the corporation's board tells an executive to do something illegal then they have an ethical responsibility backed by a monetary carrot to reject the pressure. This way the investors have minimal responsibility for illegal activities performed by bad executives and/or board members.
If executives can survive this kind of pressure then they are due every absurd salary promised.
If their graduated fund has matured for 5 years then the executive recieves the time-dated money deposited into the fund. (Essentially they get a week to week or month to month 'performance' pay after the period of time expires.) In that way the executive is rewarded with just compensation for good decision making and the liability of the corporation's investors is minimized. Investors and potential victims of corporate abuse have plenty of time - let's say 5 years - to initiate a lawsuit against the executives. If the corporation's board tells an executive to do something illegal then they have an ethical responsibility backed by a monetary carrot to reject the pressure. This way the investors have minimal responsibility for illegal activities performed by bad executives and/or board members.
If executives can survive this kind of pressure then they are due every absurd salary promised.
There's some misunderstanding as to what Infohawk is saying. Corporations != business. Corporations are entities used to limit a persons liability.
He isn't saying get rid of businesses.
-Amp
He isn't saying get rid of businesses.
-Amp
Right. :thumbsup: I had a disclaimer in bold but I knew there would still be some crappers who wouldn't read the post and just go off about communism.
corporation does not benefit everyone because too much money in the hands of the few is corrupt and unfair to others. businesses usually cares about making as much money as possible often not to the customers satisfaction. most of us end up with crap products that are not what it should be had they care more about the quality of the products. In the pursuit of money, profits earned is more important then perfecting a product that would meet our needs and want.
Why should something like cpu, laptop the high end ones cost as much as an arm and a leg yet cost next to nothing 5 years later? often they have to become obsolete before the price drops considerately. Why cost so much to begin with to reap profits for those who are selling the products that are not neccessary for life, rather for pleasure only?
The answer is that only those who make the most money can afford them leaving the poor dry as dust who infact does most of the work in the manufacturing of the products.
The only way the poors can enjoy them if the rich are willing to sell it cheap so most can buy but that is not something that happens often in America. We end up with used, refurbish stuff that are often rejected products that should had been thrown away.
To expand on my "buyer beware" comment. The assumption that free-market people should be against corporations is only valid in absence of other considerations.
1) Free market people are also in favor of more individual liability.
2) Limited liability entities allow investors not in control of a business to be shielded from liability.
3) Limited liability is only necessary because of the evolution of torts. When recourse was available against the person running a business operation, simply providing them with capital did not incur personal liability.
Also, the concept that corporations allow people to do shady/illegal deals is false. Under the UCC, owners who are involved in the operation of a company can be held personally liable. The corporate shield is only good when you own a company with professional management.
1) Free market people are also in favor of more individual liability.
2) Limited liability entities allow investors not in control of a business to be shielded from liability.
3) Limited liability is only necessary because of the evolution of torts. When recourse was available against the person running a business operation, simply providing them with capital did not incur personal liability.
Also, the concept that corporations allow people to do shady/illegal deals is false. Under the UCC, owners who are involved in the operation of a company can be held personally liable. The corporate shield is only good when you own a company with professional management.
This doesn't contradict Infohawk. Corporations are legal fictions, i.e. fictitious people created by law. They're obviously not real people, though they are treated in similar ways under the law.
There wasn't a US before the 18th century. If you want to talk about British corporations, that's another country.
Yes, the shareholder can walk away from the corporation's contracts; in fact, that's the entire point of corporations--your liability is limited to your investment in the corporation.
I think that would be an excellent start to reigning in the power of modern corporations. The 14th amendment was intended to free the slaves, not to institute corporate personhood. Once corporations are no longer legally considered to be people with all the rights listed in the Constitution, we can then start removing some of their more dangerous capabilities. I would like to restore the rule of law that the US had before the 1886 SC case that is used as the precedent for corporate personhood. I'd like to see laws like the ones we used to have, proclaiming that:
1. Corporations may not donate money to politicians or political causes.
2. Corporate charters are granted only for a limited time and purpose.
3. Corporate charters can be revoked if corporations violate the law.
4. Corporations cannot own stock in other corporations.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter