| Topic: |
Science > Philosophy |
| User: |
"aka Guilt Trip" |
| Date: |
19 Jul 2004 12:38:27 PM |
| Object: |
Special people above the law |
People can get together and form a corporation
that keeps them from being personally liable for
the actions of their business. Isn't there something
wrong with that?
.
|
|
| User: "Edgar Svendsen" |
|
| Title: Re: Special people above the law |
19 Jul 2004 07:59:24 PM |
|
|
"aka Guilt Trip" <no@email.com> wrote in message
news:iGTKc.9008$%p4.3065@okepread04...
People can get together and form a corporation
that keeps them from being personally liable for
the actions of their business. Isn't there something
wrong with that?
Not necessarily. People who form corporations are usually stockholders and
the actual mangement of the business is left to hirelings, managers hired to
run the business, who are not necessarily major stockholders.
Are you suggesting that stockholders be personally responsible for the
actions of the businesses they have stock in?
Ed
.
|
|
|
| User: "aka" |
|
| Title: Re: Special people above the law |
20 Jul 2004 03:41:03 PM |
|
|
"Edgar Svendsen" <solon013@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:M7_Kc.4424$iK.2723@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"aka Guilt Trip" <no@email.com> wrote in message
news:iGTKc.9008$%p4.3065@okepread04...
People can get together and form a corporation
that keeps them from being personally liable for
the actions of their business. Isn't there something
wrong with that?
Not necessarily. People who form corporations are usually stockholders
and
the actual mangement of the business is left to hirelings, managers hired
to
run the business, who are not necessarily major stockholders.
Are you suggesting that stockholders be personally responsible for the
actions of the businesses they have stock in?
Ed
What is so unreasonable about people who own a business
being responsible for what the business does. It would be
impossible to hold a 90 year old man who doesn't even know
that he owns stock in a company responsible for who gets
hired in the mail room...
but it is not unreasonable to make those with access to the
company's records and who make recommendations to buy
stock and report on the actions or should report on the
actions of a company to be held responsible. And in a case
like Nike where they have filed briefs claiming a first amendment
right to lie about their failure to change significantly their policy
of exploiting third world country labor while announcing that
they had ended child sweat shops... What would be the problem
of forcing Nike to provide a way for that information to be
distrubuted to stockholders and for them to be fined for their
complicity in whatever crimes or civil action is just as a remedy
for Nike's actions?
Should stockholders be responsible for knowing what the
companies do? The stockholders are the rationale for the
criminal behavior of board of directors. Board member sign
on to represent the interests of the stockholders. This means
that they ignor the conscience and social morals to the bottom
line, with the reassurance that they are doing the right thind
because that is what a board does. And they will be left out
of the fun, ego trip, and profit if they refuse to sign on to
what is an immoral and anti-American pact with other people
of low moral or low self-esteem, to follow a path that leads
to the things that we have seen. My first shock was the
Unino Carbide disaster that killed hundreds or thousands of
people in India.
Should the stockholders be held responsible for the actions of
the companies they own, yes. The stockholders should be
informed and to the degree that they can should be forced to
sign off on and realize what there money is doing to their
fellow man and not be allowed to collect checks while kidding
themselves into believeing that they have no responsibility.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Edgar Svendsen" |
|
| Title: Re: Special people above the law |
20 Jul 2004 10:26:30 PM |
|
|
"aka" <noaddress@spam.com> wrote in message
news:ArfLc.10094$%p4.8903@okepread04...
"Edgar Svendsen" <solon013@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:M7_Kc.4424$iK.2723@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"aka Guilt Trip" <no@email.com> wrote in message
news:iGTKc.9008$%p4.3065@okepread04...
People can get together and form a corporation
that keeps them from being personally liable for
the actions of their business. Isn't there something
wrong with that?
Not necessarily. People who form corporations are usually stockholders
and
the actual mangement of the business is left to hirelings, managers
hired
to
run the business, who are not necessarily major stockholders.
Are you suggesting that stockholders be personally responsible for the
actions of the businesses they have stock in?
Ed
What is so unreasonable about people who own a business
being responsible for what the business does. It would be
impossible to hold a 90 year old man who doesn't even know
that he owns stock in a company responsible for who gets
hired in the mail room...
but it is not unreasonable to make those with access to the
company's records and who make recommendations to buy
stock and report on the actions or should report on the
actions of a company to be held responsible. And in a case
like Nike where they have filed briefs claiming a first amendment
right to lie about their failure to change significantly their policy
of exploiting third world country labor while announcing that
they had ended child sweat shops... What would be the problem
of forcing Nike to provide a way for that information to be
distrubuted to stockholders and for them to be fined for their
complicity in whatever crimes or civil action is just as a remedy
for Nike's actions?
Should stockholders be responsible for knowing what the
companies do? The stockholders are the rationale for the
criminal behavior of board of directors. Board member sign
on to represent the interests of the stockholders. This means
that they ignor the conscience and social morals to the bottom
line, with the reassurance that they are doing the right thind
because that is what a board does. And they will be left out
of the fun, ego trip, and profit if they refuse to sign on to
what is an immoral and anti-American pact with other people
of low moral or low self-esteem, to follow a path that leads
to the things that we have seen. My first shock was the
Unino Carbide disaster that killed hundreds or thousands of
people in India.
Should the stockholders be held responsible for the actions of
the companies they own, yes. The stockholders should be
informed and to the degree that they can should be forced to
sign off on and realize what there money is doing to their
fellow man and not be allowed to collect checks while kidding
themselves into believeing that they have no responsibility.
Actually, I like your idea. I see some difficulties in implementation,
especially for people who invest in Mutual Funds with broad portfolios, but
I do like the idea. Some of the same problems that crop up in a Republic
arise, are citizens of a Republic responsible for what the government does
even if they voted for the other guy? Are stockholders responsible for the
actions of GE even if they voted for a different mangement panel? Still, I
think some form of what you propose could be crafted.
Ed
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Student" |
|
| Title: Re: Special people above the law |
20 Jul 2004 05:20:31 PM |
|
|
Nicely put AKA!
Its called taking responsibility, these people want the money or earnings,
but nothing else.
Student
"aka" <noaddress@spam.com> wrote in message
news:ArfLc.10094$%p4.8903@okepread04...
"Edgar Svendsen" <solon013@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:M7_Kc.4424$iK.2723@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"aka Guilt Trip" <no@email.com> wrote in message
news:iGTKc.9008$%p4.3065@okepread04...
People can get together and form a corporation
that keeps them from being personally liable for
the actions of their business. Isn't there something
wrong with that?
Not necessarily. People who form corporations are usually stockholders
and
the actual mangement of the business is left to hirelings, managers
hired
to
run the business, who are not necessarily major stockholders.
Are you suggesting that stockholders be personally responsible for the
actions of the businesses they have stock in?
Ed
What is so unreasonable about people who own a business
being responsible for what the business does. It would be
impossible to hold a 90 year old man who doesn't even know
that he owns stock in a company responsible for who gets
hired in the mail room...
but it is not unreasonable to make those with access to the
company's records and who make recommendations to buy
stock and report on the actions or should report on the
actions of a company to be held responsible. And in a case
like Nike where they have filed briefs claiming a first amendment
right to lie about their failure to change significantly their policy
of exploiting third world country labor while announcing that
they had ended child sweat shops... What would be the problem
of forcing Nike to provide a way for that information to be
distrubuted to stockholders and for them to be fined for their
complicity in whatever crimes or civil action is just as a remedy
for Nike's actions?
Should stockholders be responsible for knowing what the
companies do? The stockholders are the rationale for the
criminal behavior of board of directors. Board member sign
on to represent the interests of the stockholders. This means
that they ignor the conscience and social morals to the bottom
line, with the reassurance that they are doing the right thind
because that is what a board does. And they will be left out
of the fun, ego trip, and profit if they refuse to sign on to
what is an immoral and anti-American pact with other people
of low moral or low self-esteem, to follow a path that leads
to the things that we have seen. My first shock was the
Unino Carbide disaster that killed hundreds or thousands of
people in India.
Should the stockholders be held responsible for the actions of
the companies they own, yes. The stockholders should be
informed and to the degree that they can should be forced to
sign off on and realize what there money is doing to their
fellow man and not be allowed to collect checks while kidding
themselves into believeing that they have no responsibility.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "BuddhaThu" |
|
| Title: Re: Special people above the law |
25 Jul 2004 03:48:10 PM |
|
|
Well, in a way, yes. But also in a way, it is pragmatic. To sue
everyone "personally" would be rather long and overly drawn out and
even wasteful to the law.
But legal pragmatics aside, I would like to discuss this in more
philosophical terms.
(It all boils down to a modified form of the Leibnizian principle of
indiscernibles. If two or more beings **act together as they are one,
then they must be considered as one,*** just as two numerically
identical leaves must be one leaf, not two. Why did Leibniz did this
in his philosophical understanding of metaphysics? Well for one thing,
it goes to his value of variety. It is kind of ironic, but there is no
mixing by definition if you have two identical leaves coming together.
They must be genuinely different in order to be a mixing, or else it
will result in Gibbs paradox. But I digress.)
I think what the law recognize is a little bit of a
Whiteheadian/Leibnizian form of philosophy of organism. The
corporation is seen as one entity, a person because it acts as one,
not that even though it is composed of several individuals. So if it
does something wrong, it did something wrong as one entity, (the
combined act makes it one), not a million entities. So when one sues a
corporation, it is the corporation that is the "person" being sued.
You must pursue the combined and coordinated act of the organism.
You are a person even though you are made up of billions and billions
of cells in community with each other. Why? Because you act as one
being, even though you can sometimes be seen as several.
The term "person", I believe, is a Roman legal parlance, and it is to
delineate in early church understanding of what part it is to have
power and responsibility over. (In other words, it deals with the two
natures Christ.) But this also beside the issue.
"aka Guilt Trip" <no@email.com> wrote in message news:<iGTKc.9008$%p4.3065@okepread04>...
People can get together and form a corporation
that keeps them from being personally liable for
the actions of their business. Isn't there something
wrong with that?
.
|
|
|
| User: "BuddhaThu" |
|
| Title: Re: Special people above the law |
26 Jul 2004 11:12:46 AM |
|
|
Sorry guys for wandering a little bit there. It could be Alzheimer's
or the hot sun. ;-)
softspokenbuddha@yahoo.com (BuddhaThu) wrote in message news:<d984cfeb.0407251248.9d5b17e@posting.google.com>...
Well, in a way, yes. But also in a way, it is pragmatic. To sue
everyone "personally" would be rather long and overly drawn out and
even wasteful to the law.
But legal pragmatics aside, I would like to discuss this in more
philosophical terms.
(It all boils down to a modified form of the Leibnizian principle of
indiscernibles. If two or more beings **act together as they are one,
then they must be considered as one,*** just as two numerically
identical leaves must be one leaf, not two. Why did Leibniz did this
in his philosophical understanding of metaphysics? Well for one thing,
it goes to his value of variety. It is kind of ironic, but there is no
mixing by definition if you have two identical leaves coming together.
They must be genuinely different in order to be a mixing, or else it
will result in Gibbs paradox. But I digress.)
I think what the law recognize is a little bit of a
Whiteheadian/Leibnizian form of philosophy of organism. The
corporation is seen as one entity, a person because it acts as one,
not that even though it is composed of several individuals. So if it
does something wrong, it did something wrong as one entity, (the
combined act makes it one), not a million entities. So when one sues a
corporation, it is the corporation that is the "person" being sued.
You must pursue the combined and coordinated act of the organism.
You are a person even though you are made up of billions and billions
of cells in community with each other. Why? Because you act as one
being, even though you can sometimes be seen as several.
The term "person", I believe, is a Roman legal parlance, and it is to
delineate in early church understanding of what part it is to have
power and responsibility over. (In other words, it deals with the two
natures Christ.) But this also beside the issue.
"aka Guilt Trip" <no@email.com> wrote in message news:<iGTKc.9008$%p4.3065@okepread04>...
People can get together and form a corporation
that keeps them from being personally liable for
the actions of their business. Isn't there something
wrong with that?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
