View Poll Results: Do you believe in corporate personhood?

Voters
34. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    3 8.82%
  • No

    26 76.47%
  • Other (Please explain)

    5 14.71%
Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 102

Thread: Corporate Personhood

  1. #61
    Sage
    Guy Incognito's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 07:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,216

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    That's not really whats being suggested, as far as I'm concerned but with limited liability removed, the change in corporate structures would be drastic, in my opinion.

    You're going to have smaller organizations, with investment in those being more personal, but those who commit torts in the organization, shouldn't be able to shield their personal assets from forfeiture.
    Well said. These arguments Kandahar and Maggie are making are sort of silly. It's like saying, "Well if you abolish slavery, what about that poor little old lady who only owns one slave, and is really nice to him?" As if that's some sort of an argument. It's plainly ridiculous.

    The fact is a shareholder is a part-owner of a company, and ought to be personally accountable just like any other owner of a company. Would that change the structure of business ownership? Certainly. But only for the better.

  2. #62
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    Well said. These arguments Kandahar and Maggie are making are sort of silly. It's like saying, "Well if you abolish slavery, what about that poor little old lady who only owns one slave, and is really nice to him?" As if that's some sort of an argument. It's plainly ridiculous.
    Nah. It's more like saying "If you abolish slavery, should you be able to sue some random guy who once gave $50 to someone who was a slaveowner, completely unbeknownst to him?"

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito
    The fact is a shareholder is a part-owner of a company, and ought to be personally accountable just like any other owner of a company. Would that change the structure of business ownership? Certainly. But only for the better.
    So far you haven't explained at all why it would be a change for the better. You've couched your argument in libertarian ideological terms in every single post (i.e. what you think is "right" or what businesses "should" be like), and not once have you addressed the practical aspects of what you are suggesting: A total lack of ability for businesses to raise money from stocks, sky-high interest rates for bank loans that price most businesses out of THAT market, and an inability to increase sales to customers due to lack of capital. In other words, you are turning off all three of a corporation's spigots of cash flow: Stockholders, banks, and customers.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 03-30-11 at 02:30 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  3. #63
    Sage
    Guy Incognito's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 07:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,216

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    A good recipe to destroy jobs and the economy in general.
    You sound like a southern plantation owner in 1864. Abolishing slavery hurt the economy for the South as well. But it was a good a necessary thing to do because the institution of slavery was morally illegitimate. Likewise, corporate liability shields are morally illegitimate. No practical argument you can make will alter this fact.

  4. #64
    Sage
    Guy Incognito's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 07:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,216

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Nah. It's more like saying "If you abolish slavery, should you be able to sue some random guy who once gave $50 to someone who was a slaveowner, completely unbeknownst to him?"
    There you go with the strawmen again I'm calling hack on you. I suspected it earlier, but I gave you a second chance, and you blew it.

  5. #65
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    You sound like a southern plantation owner in 1864. Abolishing slavery hurt the economy for the South as well. But it was a good a necessary thing to do because the institution of slavery was morally illegitimate. Likewise, corporate liability shields are morally illegitimate. No practical argument you can make will alter this fact.

    Is this the new Godwin?
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  6. #66
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Nah. It's more like saying "If you abolish slavery, should you be able to sue some random guy who once gave $50 to someone who was a slaveowner, completely unbeknownst to him?"
    That's the problem now though, call it the "negligent investor" theory, if you will.

    There is no compelling need for any investor to care whether or not a company commits torts, because he is only concerned with turning a profit from his or her investment.

    Personally, I bought shares in BP when the oil spill happened because I knew that the government would be rather light on them and that the situation would blow over.
    I've largely been right.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  7. #67
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    There you go with the strawmen again
    It was YOUR strawman. You're the one that brought up some moronic link to slavery. I just altered it to be a better analogy to the argument at hand.

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito
    I'm calling hack on you. I suspected it earlier, but I gave you a second chance, and you blew it.

    Oh noes! How will I go on? I guess I'll just have to live with your disapproval.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  8. #68
    Sage
    Guy Incognito's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 07:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,216

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Personally, I bought shares in BP when the oil spill happened because I knew that the government would be rather light on them and that the situation would blow over.
    I've largely been right.
    And you were right to do so. The law being the way it is it is stupid not to take advantage of limited liability. But what so many people seem to be failing to understand is that taking advantage of limited liability is just that, taking advantage.

  9. #69
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    That's the problem now though, call it the "negligent investor" theory, if you will.

    There is no compelling need for any investor to care whether or not a company commits torts, because he is only concerned with turning a profit from his or her investment.
    Well, they care about companies that commit torts to the extent that those torts eat into the company's bottom line, because it lowers the value of their shares.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla
    Personally, I bought shares in BP when the oil spill happened because I knew that the government would be rather light on them and that the situation would blow over.
    I've largely been right.
    So then the solution is to be harder on them, not to hold the investors responsible who had nothing to do with it. Are you suggesting that everyone who owned a share of BP stock at the time of the oil spill should have been sued personally...even if they didn't know that they owned it? With global stock markets and all sorts of funds of different types of stocks, it is not reasonable to expect every investor to research every stock and have perfect information about the inner workings of the company. Doing so would completely destroy the whole concept of raising money from stocks.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 03-30-11 at 02:42 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  10. #70
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Corporate Personhood

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Well, they care about companies that commit torts to the extent that those torts eat into the company's bottom line, because it lowers the value of their shares.
    Only temporarily, as time goes on the effects of the actions are limited, because of limited liability, so it doesn't really present a problem.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    So then the solution is to be harder on them, not to hold the investors responsible who had nothing to do with it. Are you suggesting that everyone who owned a share of BP stock at the time of the oil spill should have been sued personally...even if they didn't know that they owned it? With global stock markets and all sorts of funds of different types of stocks, it is not reasonable to expect every investor to research every stock and have perfect information about the inner workings of the company. Doing so would completely destroy the whole concept of raising money from stocks.
    No not every person should of been sued but the people responsible for the operations, should be liable.
    With their skin on the line, it would cause them to act with greater care to avoid losing their shirts.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •